@KidCarnival A good plan, except I believe Aran Linvail is on the Council of Six.
Even better, he can have a political rival who wants to get him out for some reason. An evil character could help to elevate his own position, to gain a favor from a powerful person or just because; a good character (and especially a paladin) would likely want to support whoever tries to get criminals exposed and strip them of power. As long as the NPC offering the third way stays neutral, it would work for all alignments.
In a way, the fact the game forces you into what may be an unnatural choice for your character makes the roleplaying aspect better, not worse.
I love this. Absolutely agree.
"You can't always get what you wa-ant!"
While I agree in principle, I don't think I agree in this specific instance.
The choice is not unnatural just because the paladin doesn't 100% like either option. The choice is unnatural because there is no good reason these two are your *only* options. The options are not limited because of an in-world reason (but yes, then a truly wise paladin would indeed pick the lesser evil without losing track of what's right and wrong), but because this is just how the game is built; the developers didn't implement another option.
In-world, the paladin would try to find another way, and probably succeed. So in this case, the choice does not lead to more interesting roleplaying, it leads to a break in immersion.
Even from a non-paladin player's perspective I've always found that part of the game to be too restrictive in what it allows you to choose.
@magpie - who is to say that there IS a third option? The Sacred Heart have no reason to track or know where Irenicus is. The Cowled wizards don't know. The City guard couldn't care less. The Harpers either don't know or don't care. Given that there is a time constraint (hostage in danger and evil villain on the loose and all), dealing with Aran Linvail isn't 'Necessarily' a bad thing.
Put it another way, if the Paladin was doing time working at the soup kitchen sponsored by his order and a known member of the thieves guild were to go in, obviously down on his luck and apparently on death's door. There is plenty of soup to feed everyone and to spare, would the Paladin not only refuse to feed the wretch but even refuse to talk to him? Or would he attempt to help the poor soul amend his ways and hope to set a good example by offering him another way other than the guild's way?
@the_spyder - That situation is completely different. The only link between them is that the latter involves a shadow thief, otherwise both the premise and context are different and almost flipped around.
As for "nobody else could have helped" - that's up to the writers and there'd certainly nothing limiting the potential of a third option knowing the way to Spellhold - and that's basically the whole point. They chose to limit you to these two options. That doesn't mean it was a good choice or even a logical one, and certainly not from a roleplatlying perspective.
@scriver - the point I was trying to make is that people seem to think that a Paladin would never even talk to a Shadow Thief. I presented a situation where they would. Who is to say there aren't others? Certainly so long as you don't actually commit evil acts on behalf of or in pursuit of the thieves guild, i see no logical reason why a Paladin would feel obligated to ignore their help.
And yes, that was exactly my point. The writers chose that there aren't any other option. You may not like it, but it is their prerogative to do so. That doesn't mean it is a good choice, but neither does it mean it is a bad choice. it is a choice made by those who were empowered to do so.
The lesser of two evils is a common dilemma for a principled person. Of course some paladins might choose not to sully themselves and let Imoen rot, but screw those guys.
I'd liken this situation as more akin to good cops needing to work with the shady/ corrupt informant to get what they need to prosecute the big boss.
An excellent point made earlier is that there are many reasons to believe there isn't another group in Athkatla that knows about Bohdi/Irenicus given that they've limited their predations to the Shadow Thieves almost exclusively.
I am not sure the cop analogy quite works because paladins aren't 'Cops'. That is too close to "Paladins won't break the law". Poppycock. Lawful does not equal The Law. The two are not necessarily in any way tied. A Paladin (or any other Lawful entity) will gladly and easily ignore/break/fight against any law of the land that does not align with the code of their order.
But that is an excellent point. so long as thievery isn't necessarily against 'The code' as a punishable offense in the mind of the Paladin or his order (and really why should it be?), why would they care what organization Aran Linvail is a part of? He doesn't actively partake of any evil acts in the presence of the party that I am aware of. And he is actively fighting against a nest of Vampire assassins who are clearly evil and in league with an evil villain who kidnapped a friend of Charnames.
This is why the alignments (apart from Neutral, which doesn't need it) have 2 axes. A lawful good paladin can choose by his/her own standards, whether to pick the lawful or the "good" choice. Or in this case, the lesser of two evils.
If a paladin's superiors ordered him to slaughter an entire village on the grounds of suspicion of witchcraft (legally, too), it wouldn't exactly be unthinkable of him to go against his order, and thereby be unlawful yet still good. And it goes both ways; persecuting a poor woman for begging in the fancier parts of town would be lawful, but not exactly "good".
It all depends on the personal moral compass of the character in question.
I am not sure the cop analogy quite works because paladins aren't 'Cops'. That is too close to "Paladins won't break the law". Poppycock. Lawful does not equal The Law. The two are not necessarily in any way tied. A Paladin (or any other Lawful entity) will gladly and easily ignore/break/fight against any law of the land that does not align with the code of their order. .
I didn't mean to imply that Paladins wouldn't break the law. Cops bend laws after all. However, since you brought it up I disagree about the lawful not equaling the law argument at least as DnD defines it.
Excerpt from the manual defining Lawful Good alignment:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a moral government can work to make life better for the majority of people. When people respect the laws and try to help one another society as a whole prospers"
Excerpt from manual on Lawful Neutral:
"Order and organization are of paramount importance. Laws must be created and obeyed. The benefits of organization and regimentation far out weigh MORAL QUESTIONS raised by their actions."
Excerpt from the manual on Lawful Evil:
"Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment or pride of power. Because they honor any contract or oath they have made lawful evil characters are very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally within the laws of society"
So I'd argue that lawful neutral and lawful evil entities according to their definitions clearly won't "gladly and easily" break laws...regardless of what the law is. And if they're part of an order they're all going to feel the same way.
Lawful good characters probably won't enforce "evil" laws but then you won't find a local chapter of The Order of The Radiant Heart in Menzoberanzzan or Thay (evil cities) either for that very reason. They'll put their roots in cities/governments who's laws they respect, admire, and thus by extension obey. The lawful good alignment is the only one that actually has wording like they would challenge laws they didn't believe were just. But that doesn't mean they would break them wily nilly either.
Ok, let's clean this up a bit. Forget about society's laws. For a paladin, these aren't of prime importance. It's the laws of their order that matter. Those who mention a paladin's code have it right. The question becomes, what exactly is the paladin's code?
This is my first paladin run ever. I'm still in BG1, but I realize I'm going to have a big problem in BG2. That is, if you're a LG character, how can you deal with the Thieves' Guild vs. Bodhi situation. You have to side with one to advance the game, but I can't see a Paladin getting on board with either. I mean, yeah, technically you can ignore the whole alignment thing for the most part, but I tend to play my characters properly.
Now, I know you can say that the Thieves' Guild is the lesser of two evils, but they're still pretty evil by paladin standards. Your first quest from the Thieves' Guild is to steal an amulet. No paladin would stand for that. The same goes for Bodhi, as your first quest with her is robbery. Right there is a catch-22.
I want my PC to be a charismatic front-liner, which means the paladin is the obvious choice. However, this really isn't a game for a paly, is it?
I don't know if you've played BG2 before, but one of the main story points is the fact that you're forced to violate your own moral code in order to save your beloved friend. From that perspective, I would say that playing as a paladin actually gives the story the most meaning - in other words, if your character was evil, why would you care who you side with?
Also, I would argue that it could be justifiable for a paladin to side with Bodhi, since the Shadow Thieves are notorious criminals while Bodhi is an unknown quantity (though it could also be argued that a paladin, especially an undead hunter, should be able to sense Bodhi's innate evil and undead nature). A paladin may also justify the choice of sides by viewing it as an opportunity to destroy an evil criminal organization.
I don't see how lawful good doesn't mean dealing with people who are *not* lawful good. I have my own set of standards and ethics but I don't go around making sure other people do before I deal with them.
Ok, let's clean this up a bit. Forget about society's laws. For a paladin, these aren't of prime importance. It's the laws of their order that matter. Those who mention a paladin's code have it right. The question becomes, what exactly is the paladin's code?
I don't know how you can possibly support that argument given the class and alignment descriptions in this universe. There is absolutely nothing in DnD cannon or lore to suggest that Paladin's feel they're above and/or beyond societal laws.
As for Orders here is a description of the Radiant Heart Order from the Wiki:
"The Order of the Radiant Heart is a fraternity of lawful good paladins and clerics that operates throughout Faerûn. Members of the order devote themselves to fighting evil and injustice, maintaining peace and upholding the law."
Note the last phrase. These guys don't just write their own laws and live by them to the exclusion of societal laws...they uphold the law of the city/region they live in ergo they try to live within "societies laws". They work within societal framework.
They have STANDARDS but that's completely different. There isn't universal "Societal Law" in their universe any more than there is in ours (E.G. what's illegal in the US isn't illegal in Amsterdam) but their slant is to work/conform to governmental laws so long as that government is benevolent. A paladin walking around Amsterdam isn't going to arrest a guy smoking pot with a hooker on his arm while a paladin in the US will.
As for Paladin code that's simple, again from the manual:
"The Paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, chivalry, and piety. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions."
So let's clean this up. Paladins try to live within their own personal code while also serving society as an example to aspire to (by adhering to laws). Sometimes they run across moral crossroads where the have to choose and sometimes that choice can't always be in 100% compatibility with their code. That's the definition of "strive'. You try, but sometimes can't always do it.
I think you're not not taking into account the holy nature of both Paladins and Lawful-good clerics and putting way too much emphasis on the "societal" law part. A church law is more likely constant across national boundaries, and would always be the higher calling for a holy warrior. To follow your example, the laws of man may vary from the US to The Netherlands, but the ten commandments are exactly the same. In law (as in the legal profession); laws are defined as "mala en se" or "mala prohibita". Yeah, its Latin, shocking. But it means crimes are either illegal because they're wrong (evil; like murder, theft, rape) or simply because they're illegal (statutory; like speeding, not paying taxes, or smoking pot. you can maybe argue a moral dimension to them, but its more indirect). A paladin is NOT an agent of the state, he's an agent of the church (or temple, order, faith; whatever term is used). As such he has no authority, and NO INTEREST in crimes that are statutory in nature. He wants to fight evil. Sure a group of thieves might torque his sense of fairness and justice; but they can wait when there's serious evil to fight like Vampires, Demons, Cowled Wizards or people on their cell phones during movies. And who knows, if he works with those poor wretched thieves he might show some the error of their ways and makes new friends and honest converts instead of just finding another enemy to kill.
Role playing wise, I love the Shadow Thieves vs Vampires dilemma. Okay, I don't really think its a very tough dilemma. But I love the idea of having to work with an unlikely ally to battle a true enemy.
I'd play it as written, if you join with either side you immediately fall, but if you joined the shadow thieves it only counts as a minor violation since you had no choice and chose the lesser evil, where as siding with obviously evil vampires would be a extreme violation no matter what. You can repent once you return from all that mess to recover your abilities (especially true if you wait until chapter 6 to do the paladin stronghold quest-line, since you can get a free Repentance as part of the final quest).
@magpie - who is to say that there IS a third option? The Sacred Heart have no reason to track or know where Irenicus is. The Cowled wizards don't know. The City guard couldn't care less. The Harpers either don't know or don't care. Given that there is a time constraint (hostage in danger and evil villain on the loose and all), dealing with Aran Linvail isn't 'Necessarily' a bad thing.
Put it another way, if the Paladin was doing time working at the soup kitchen sponsored by his order and a known member of the thieves guild were to go in, obviously down on his luck and apparently on death's door. There is plenty of soup to feed everyone and to spare, would the Paladin not only refuse to feed the wretch but even refuse to talk to him? Or would he attempt to help the poor soul amend his ways and hope to set a good example by offering him another way other than the guild's way?
Maybe, but you misunderstand me, I'm not saying there *had* to be another choice, I would actually agree that the game is more interesting with just these two choices. As I said, a wise paladin would indeed pick the lesser evil if there was no other choice, without losing track of what is right and wrong. And that makes for an interesting story.
I'm just saying the writers did a bad job justifying these being the only ones, storytelling wise. It might be their prerogative to decide there are only two options, but I've always felt the implementation was shaky. Now keep in mind that `doing a bad job' here is relative. Most games don't even come close to BG2 in story telling in the first place to me it just always felt like one of the weakest points in the game.
Personally I would have liked it a lot if they did let you try a third option that felt a lot less shady, but that just doesn't work out in the end, forcing you back to the original two. That would have made it much more natural, and it wouldn't have to be elaborate. Just two or three steps that lead to a dead end for a good reason (but more than `can you help' `no I can't'.
Or any other implementation that would make me feel that I only have those two options because that's what makes sense in-world, not because the game creators just didn't implement any others. You give some decent arguments as to why there would only be two options, but those are not naturally clear to a player when they're forced in the choice, in my opinion.
As for your soup kitchen thing, that's a bit of the mark. There is a huge difference between how a paladin will feel towards a shadow thief-as-a-human-being (that will very much depend on the specific person in question) and how they will feel towards the shadow thieves-as-a-criminal organisation. And that's what you're working with here. Stealing from others is inherently a bad thing to do. There might be circumstances (both on the thief and the mark) that alleviate this, but most of the shadow thieves seem pretty smug about what they're doing.
It's not that I think that paladins are above societal laws, but that they take a back seat to their code. As long as a law is fair, just, and good, they will uphold it. If it goes against their code, then I think they have license to ignore it.
Is the no-magic law in Athkatla fair and just? It can be seen that way. Magic is dangerous, people can get hurt. The no-magic in the city law is basically just fantasy medieval gun control. But, being a legal problem, it would stand to reason that people in the system would have legal recourse in these situations, though the devs kinda left that out.
@Xannis - It's been discussed many, many, MANY times here on the forums. the inclusion of the word "Law" in lawful, aside from being a very unfortunate choice on the part of Mr Moorcock, has nothing to do with judicial systems what so ever. It speaks to a structured outlook on life and duty and honor. it has to do with an ordered society, yes, but not necessarily the governmental type or under any sort of governmental rule except possibly that of the order that the Paladin belongs too. A lawful person adheres to a code of conduct which may be parallel to the laws of the land, but in no way "Has to be" and is not derived from that governmental system but from the rules of the individual Paladin's order.
Taking "paladin" out of the argument entirely for a minute, a lawful neutral thief would have no problems what so ever stealing from people even though this "Breaks the law". They might not want to be caught at doing it, but they don't fear the law because doing what they do, thievery, is 'Against their Lawful nature'. They fear the reprisals of the judicial system because they don't want to spend time in jail (or worse). And a Lawful evil person would think nothing what so ever about laws that go against their nature. In fact, a Lawful Evil dictator might use and manipulate laws to meet their ends, rather than respecting the current judicial system and the intent of the law.
And from the other side of things, a Paladin who lives in (don't laugh...) Rashiman (sp??)as for example would under no circumstances support the slavery or the mistreatment of those who have done no wrong that is perfectly legal in that country. They would not support that government as it oppressee it's people or otherwise deprived them of the basic tenants of the Paladin's order.
When I said that Paladins are not cops, I didn't mean that they might break the rules to 'Catch the bad guy'. I meant that they have zero to do with policing, catching the bad guy or otherwise keeping the peace. A paladin would not care one wit if he saw a J-walker or a domestic dispute unless these actions in some way violated their holy orders. A Paladin wouldn't care about tax evaders or about people out after curfew. They wouldn't care about generating revenue for the state by writing tickets. They wouldn't care overly much about moral corruption that wasn't "Evil" in nature. In short, they don't care about domestic judicial issues at all. Further, if a Paladin were facing a wrong doer, they wouldn't be restrained by the messy and potentially flawed judicial system in meeting out justice if they felt that such was warranted.
Imagine the very real difference between church and state. Both are societal institutions. But both have their own idea about moral and ordered society. Sometimes they clash. Where they do, the Paladin is going to come down 100% on the side of the church, regardless of what the law was. To take it one step further, imagine that a Paladin is like the army (another institution that is societal in nature but separate from the cops) for the church. So they are two steps removed from the government of the land, not just one.
Paladins aren't cops and they only care about the order and belief systems of their order and their Deity, irrespective of how they coincide or interdict with the laws of the land.
Excellent comment Spyder, I would agree with all of that and add that a paladin may cooperate and work with the state as long as their agendas are compatable. That may often even include turning wrongdoers/ criminals to the civil authorities, AS LONG AS they believe the local legal code and system is fair and just. If they differ with the local government on moral or ethical grounds they would likely pursue their own form of justice.
I think the closest parallels would be the various religious military orders of the Middle Ages (Templers, Hospitalers, and Teutons). Each was seperate from government/royal control, and became private militaries answerable only to their own leadership and the Pope. As may be expected, this causes some really juicy conflict and tension, and two of the three orders ultimately ended "badly". The Templers caused so much dissent and jealousy between the French King and Pope that they were eventually declared heretical (long, sordid and tragic story) and exterminated. The Teutons were involved in fighting for the Holy Roman Empire (Medieval Germany) against the pagan Poles and Slavs, until the Poles converted to Christianity and the Pope forbade them from any combat against their brothers in Christ. The order quickly disolved and most members joined the Emporer in his ongoing war. Only the Hospitalers ended well, changing their name to "Knights of St John" long after their famous hospital was destroyed and becoming a social/charitable organization. Obviously we can find a lot of ways in which Paladins are NOT like the medieval military orders, but I am certain those orders are PART of the inspiration for the character class (even though the name itself is derived from the much earlier Paladins of Charlemagne).
I nearly always play as a paladin and I don't really have a problem with siding with the Shadow Thieves. I figure they are the lesser of two evils and I can always come back and give them the butt-kicking they deserve at a later date.
Basically, Paladins aren't Judge Dredd (although I like the Paladin-as-US-Marshal model). And the Law vs. Chaos axis is a mess from contradictions that have been passed down from first edition. Depending on which sentences you choose to emphasize in any given edition, it could be about following vs. breaking the law, society vs. individuals, or even predictability vs. randomness.
the shadow thief presence in the city isn't great but its not a pressing concern the shadow thieves aren't going to do too much if left until after the Irenicus mess. The vampires however need to be take care of immediately or Athkatlas going to suffer
for me it was always a matter of priority my paladin are good but they cant do everything
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that a Paladin not only wouldn't have a problem dealing with the Shadow Thieves, but they wouldn't even much care that they exist. Depending on what Deity the Paladin follows, petty thievery is hardly worth their time and efforts. It isn't even up there with even what the Vamp/Assassins guild has going on. Leave it to the local authorities.
By the time said Paladin encounters the thieves, he is probably 9th-10th level minimum and is probably more focused on bigger picture things like stamping out true evil, liches, Dragons, Demons, Bhaalspawn and the like. Not to be all high minded about things but really; Thievery? Don't people hire guards to deal with that? Can't the city watch keep it's own house in order? That is hardly the moral and ethical corruption of EVIL that would be their bailiwick by level 10.
I've played a paladin through that part. You may also want to play it once with Keldorn, he'll give you his righteous ideas about the situation and shares the same worries as you do @Kneller.
However as you said the Thieves Guild is obviously the lesser of the two evils and as there is a need to save Imoen, one must sometimes make sacrefices for the greater good. Ofcourse a lawful good character cannot stand for stealing an amulet, but atleast it's an amulet of Talos, the god of chaos or whatnot (If I remember that all right).
But I think you're right on the part that the game is hard to play as a Paladin. Your daddy was the god of murder and your quest leads to ascend that throne. Can't be all that lawful, I suppose. Even when I played a paladin I got myself lead off of the road of the Paladin quite a few times.. But it worked out for me. (:
You can always destroy the Thieves Guild after you're done dealing with them. Just pick up Carsomyr and stick it in the face of evil! Hah
Another aspect that might help the OP is the fact that you are playing a party of individuals. Just because they are mostly 'goodie' types, if you have Jaheira or Jan in your party, who is to say that they aren't "Managing" the Paladin in the group? And who is to say that some of the shadier stuff isn't being done without the Paladin's knowledge or consent?
When i think of Paladins, i often think of Sturm Brightblade from the Dragonlance novels. Sure, he isn't a Paladin proper, but he was the most well written example that I can think of for the attitude and mindset of a Paladin/lawful good knight. His honor was paramount to him as was the oath of the order. Yet he traveled with and dealt with a precariously "Neutral" wizard, a notoriously light fingered Kender, an outcast Half-Elf and a warrior woman who ultimately goes on to be a general in the army of evil.
He may not have liked these people, or trusted most of them but he did deal with them. And if the group needed something lifted, they would keep him occupied while Tas ran off and 'borrowed' it. If something was being done that he wouldn't approve of, someone ran interference with him and it just happened. Or they dragged him along until he really had no choice but to continue. Or was guilted into it to help out his friends or for the 'Greater good'.
Remember, it is a party of 6 you are dealing with. Not Charname and a bunch of mindless drones.
I'd play it as written, if you join with either side you immediately fall, but if you joined the shadow thieves it only counts as a minor violation since you had no choice and chose the lesser evil, where as siding with obviously evil vampires would be a extreme violation no matter what. You can repent once you return from all that mess to recover your abilities (especially true if you wait until chapter 6 to do the paladin stronghold quest-line, since you can get a free Repentance as part of the final quest).
Such a turn in a campaign would have a lot more meaning if the Paladin fell because he had other options and yet still chose Bodhi or the Shadow Thieves because he thought those were the best bets. Being willing to lose your powers just to make the choice most likely to succeed would be awesome. I don't think I would have the character fall if Shadow Thieves and Bodhi were the only options.
When I think of Paladins, i often think of Sturm Brightblade from the Dragonlance novels.
WWSBD. What Would Sturm Brightblade Do? I've been asking myself that a lot while playing this Cav. He's the "paladin" to which I judge all others. I've had to walk away from some fights where I could have racked up some sweet gear because of it.
However, I think you might be underestimating the Shadow Thieves. They are Faerun's equivalent of the Mafia. It's not a ragtag group of pickpockets, but an organized criminal enterprise. A Paladin would be opposed to the Shadow Thieves not because what they do is illegal, but because all the assassinations, extortion, stealing, and other terrible things they do go against a Paladin's moral code. Frankly, I personally find the Shadow Thieves to be objectionable and if I was a D&D character, I definitely wouldn't be considered Lawful Good. Maybe Neutral Good on a good day. If I was in CHARNAME's position, I would naturally pick the Shadow Thieves. I wouldn't be terribly happy about it, but I'm not a "Lawful" person, so I'd still sleep at night.
It's more complicated with a LG character. Let's see...
First, I need to rationalize that the cowled wizards were unjust. I think that the lack of any kind of legal recourse on behalf of Imoen shows a lack of due process essentially making it a legal system that does not respect human rights. So, with that, a paladin should not feel obligated to observe it. Does that mean that he can get cozy with the Shadow Thieves? Perhaps, to an extent. The Shadow Thieves are criminals, but in opposition to an already unjust legal system. So, as long as the paladin himself does not engage in any criminal activities, or aid the Shadow Thieves in criminal activities against the public, he is allowed to work with them.
You might be ok with the docks job, since you're just protecting someone. As long as you don't know the details of the transaction, you should be fine. The second job is a no-go, though. You have to use deception just to find out why people are leaving the guild. As a paladin, if people want to leave a thieves' guild (even for another), at best, he shouldn't care. At the most, he should be glad for it.
I dunno. It would have been great if the devs considered this was a no-win situation for the paladin and did something to address this.
For the record, I didn't even want to play a paladin. I just wanted a charismatic leader/front-liner with some good specials. If there was a CG Paladin, I would be all over that.
How many priests or preachers do you know who are actually pious to a fault? In reality most paladins are probably like normal people with a personal morality gradient.
Comments
The choice is not unnatural just because the paladin doesn't 100% like either option. The choice is unnatural because there is no good reason these two are your *only* options. The options are not limited because of an in-world reason (but yes, then a truly wise paladin would indeed pick the lesser evil without losing track of what's right and wrong), but because this is just how the game is built; the developers didn't implement another option.
In-world, the paladin would try to find another way, and probably succeed. So in this case, the choice does not lead to more interesting roleplaying, it leads to a break in immersion.
Even from a non-paladin player's perspective I've always found that part of the game to be too restrictive in what it allows you to choose.
Put it another way, if the Paladin was doing time working at the soup kitchen sponsored by his order and a known member of the thieves guild were to go in, obviously down on his luck and apparently on death's door. There is plenty of soup to feed everyone and to spare, would the Paladin not only refuse to feed the wretch but even refuse to talk to him? Or would he attempt to help the poor soul amend his ways and hope to set a good example by offering him another way other than the guild's way?
That situation is completely different. The only link between them is that the latter involves a shadow thief, otherwise both the premise and context are different and almost flipped around.
As for "nobody else could have helped" - that's up to the writers and there'd certainly nothing limiting the potential of a third option knowing the way to Spellhold - and that's basically the whole point. They chose to limit you to these two options. That doesn't mean it was a good choice or even a logical one, and certainly not from a roleplatlying perspective.
And yes, that was exactly my point. The writers chose that there aren't any other option. You may not like it, but it is their prerogative to do so. That doesn't mean it is a good choice, but neither does it mean it is a bad choice. it is a choice made by those who were empowered to do so.
An excellent point made earlier is that there are many reasons to believe there isn't another group in Athkatla that knows about Bohdi/Irenicus given that they've limited their predations to the Shadow Thieves almost exclusively.
But that is an excellent point. so long as thievery isn't necessarily against 'The code' as a punishable offense in the mind of the Paladin or his order (and really why should it be?), why would they care what organization Aran Linvail is a part of? He doesn't actively partake of any evil acts in the presence of the party that I am aware of. And he is actively fighting against a nest of Vampire assassins who are clearly evil and in league with an evil villain who kidnapped a friend of Charnames.
If a paladin's superiors ordered him to slaughter an entire village on the grounds of suspicion of witchcraft (legally, too), it wouldn't exactly be unthinkable of him to go against his order, and thereby be unlawful yet still good.
And it goes both ways; persecuting a poor woman for begging in the fancier parts of town would be lawful, but not exactly "good".
It all depends on the personal moral compass of the character in question.
Excerpt from the manual defining Lawful Good alignment:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a moral government can work to make life better for the majority of people. When people respect the laws and try to help one another society as a whole prospers"
Excerpt from manual on Lawful Neutral:
"Order and organization are of paramount importance. Laws must be created and obeyed. The benefits of organization and regimentation far out weigh MORAL QUESTIONS raised by their actions."
Excerpt from the manual on Lawful Evil:
"Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment or pride of power. Because they honor any contract or oath they have made lawful evil characters are very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally within the laws of society"
So I'd argue that lawful neutral and lawful evil entities according to their definitions clearly won't "gladly and easily" break laws...regardless of what the law is. And if they're part of an order they're all going to feel the same way.
Lawful good characters probably won't enforce "evil" laws but then you won't find a local chapter of The Order of The Radiant Heart in Menzoberanzzan or Thay (evil cities) either for that very reason. They'll put their roots in cities/governments who's laws they respect, admire, and thus by extension obey. The lawful good alignment is the only one that actually has wording like they would challenge laws they didn't believe were just. But that doesn't mean they would break them wily nilly either.
Also, I would argue that it could be justifiable for a paladin to side with Bodhi, since the Shadow Thieves are notorious criminals while Bodhi is an unknown quantity (though it could also be argued that a paladin, especially an undead hunter, should be able to sense Bodhi's innate evil and undead nature). A paladin may also justify the choice of sides by viewing it as an opportunity to destroy an evil criminal organization.
As for Orders here is a description of the Radiant Heart Order from the Wiki:
"The Order of the Radiant Heart is a fraternity of lawful good paladins and clerics that operates throughout Faerûn. Members of the order devote themselves to fighting evil and injustice, maintaining peace and upholding the law."
Note the last phrase. These guys don't just write their own laws and live by them to the exclusion of societal laws...they uphold the law of the city/region they live in ergo they try to live within "societies laws". They work within societal framework.
They have STANDARDS but that's completely different. There isn't universal "Societal Law" in their universe any more than there is in ours (E.G. what's illegal in the US isn't illegal in Amsterdam) but their slant is to work/conform to governmental laws so long as that government is benevolent. A paladin walking around Amsterdam isn't going to arrest a guy smoking pot with a hooker on his arm while a paladin in the US will.
As for Paladin code that's simple, again from the manual:
"The Paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, chivalry, and piety. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions."
So let's clean this up. Paladins try to live within their own personal code while also serving society as an example to aspire to (by adhering to laws). Sometimes they run across moral crossroads where the have to choose and sometimes that choice can't always be in 100% compatibility with their code. That's the definition of "strive'. You try, but sometimes can't always do it.
To follow your example, the laws of man may vary from the US to The Netherlands, but the ten commandments are exactly the same. In law (as in the legal profession); laws are defined as "mala en se" or "mala prohibita". Yeah, its Latin, shocking. But it means crimes are either illegal because they're wrong (evil; like murder, theft, rape) or simply because they're illegal (statutory; like speeding, not paying taxes, or smoking pot. you can maybe argue a moral dimension to them, but its more indirect).
A paladin is NOT an agent of the state, he's an agent of the church (or temple, order, faith; whatever term is used). As such he has no authority, and NO INTEREST in crimes that are statutory in nature. He wants to fight evil. Sure a group of thieves might torque his sense of fairness and justice; but they can wait when there's serious evil to fight like Vampires, Demons, Cowled Wizards or people on their cell phones during movies. And who knows, if he works with those poor wretched thieves he might show some the error of their ways and makes new friends and honest converts instead of just finding another enemy to kill.
Role playing wise, I love the Shadow Thieves vs Vampires dilemma. Okay, I don't really think its a very tough dilemma. But I love the idea of having to work with an unlikely ally to battle a true enemy.
I'm just saying the writers did a bad job justifying these being the only ones, storytelling wise. It might be their prerogative to decide there are only two options, but I've always felt the implementation was shaky. Now keep in mind that `doing a bad job' here is relative. Most games don't even come close to BG2 in story telling in the first place
Personally I would have liked it a lot if they did let you try a third option that felt a lot less shady, but that just doesn't work out in the end, forcing you back to the original two. That would have made it much more natural, and it wouldn't have to be elaborate. Just two or three steps that lead to a dead end for a good reason (but more than `can you help' `no I can't'.
Or any other implementation that would make me feel that I only have those two options because that's what makes sense in-world, not because the game creators just didn't implement any others. You give some decent arguments as to why there would only be two options, but those are not naturally clear to a player when they're forced in the choice, in my opinion.
As for your soup kitchen thing, that's a bit of the mark. There is a huge difference between how a paladin will feel towards a shadow thief-as-a-human-being (that will very much depend on the specific person in question) and how they will feel towards the shadow thieves-as-a-criminal organisation. And that's what you're working with here. Stealing from others is inherently a bad thing to do. There might be circumstances (both on the thief and the mark) that alleviate this, but most of the shadow thieves seem pretty smug about what they're doing.
Is the no-magic law in Athkatla fair and just? It can be seen that way. Magic is dangerous, people can get hurt. The no-magic in the city law is basically just fantasy medieval gun control. But, being a legal problem, it would stand to reason that people in the system would have legal recourse in these situations, though the devs kinda left that out.
Taking "paladin" out of the argument entirely for a minute, a lawful neutral thief would have no problems what so ever stealing from people even though this "Breaks the law". They might not want to be caught at doing it, but they don't fear the law because doing what they do, thievery, is 'Against their Lawful nature'. They fear the reprisals of the judicial system because they don't want to spend time in jail (or worse). And a Lawful evil person would think nothing what so ever about laws that go against their nature. In fact, a Lawful Evil dictator might use and manipulate laws to meet their ends, rather than respecting the current judicial system and the intent of the law.
And from the other side of things, a Paladin who lives in (don't laugh...) Rashiman (sp??)as for example would under no circumstances support the slavery or the mistreatment of those who have done no wrong that is perfectly legal in that country. They would not support that government as it oppressee it's people or otherwise deprived them of the basic tenants of the Paladin's order.
When I said that Paladins are not cops, I didn't mean that they might break the rules to 'Catch the bad guy'. I meant that they have zero to do with policing, catching the bad guy or otherwise keeping the peace. A paladin would not care one wit if he saw a J-walker or a domestic dispute unless these actions in some way violated their holy orders. A Paladin wouldn't care about tax evaders or about people out after curfew. They wouldn't care about generating revenue for the state by writing tickets. They wouldn't care overly much about moral corruption that wasn't "Evil" in nature. In short, they don't care about domestic judicial issues at all. Further, if a Paladin were facing a wrong doer, they wouldn't be restrained by the messy and potentially flawed judicial system in meeting out justice if they felt that such was warranted.
Imagine the very real difference between church and state. Both are societal institutions. But both have their own idea about moral and ordered society. Sometimes they clash. Where they do, the Paladin is going to come down 100% on the side of the church, regardless of what the law was. To take it one step further, imagine that a Paladin is like the army (another institution that is societal in nature but separate from the cops) for the church. So they are two steps removed from the government of the land, not just one.
Paladins aren't cops and they only care about the order and belief systems of their order and their Deity, irrespective of how they coincide or interdict with the laws of the land.
I think the closest parallels would be the various religious military orders of the Middle Ages (Templers, Hospitalers, and Teutons). Each was seperate from government/royal control, and became private militaries answerable only to their own leadership and the Pope. As may be expected, this causes some really juicy conflict and tension, and two of the three orders ultimately ended "badly". The Templers caused so much dissent and jealousy between the French King and Pope that they were eventually declared heretical (long, sordid and tragic story) and exterminated. The Teutons were involved in fighting for the Holy Roman Empire (Medieval Germany) against the pagan Poles and Slavs, until the Poles converted to Christianity and the Pope forbade them from any combat against their brothers in Christ. The order quickly disolved and most members joined the Emporer in his ongoing war. Only the Hospitalers ended well, changing their name to "Knights of St John" long after their famous hospital was destroyed and becoming a social/charitable organization.
Obviously we can find a lot of ways in which Paladins are NOT like the medieval military orders, but I am certain those orders are PART of the inspiration for the character class (even though the name itself is derived from the much earlier Paladins of Charlemagne).
for me it was always a matter of priority my paladin are good but they cant do everything
By the time said Paladin encounters the thieves, he is probably 9th-10th level minimum and is probably more focused on bigger picture things like stamping out true evil, liches, Dragons, Demons, Bhaalspawn and the like. Not to be all high minded about things but really; Thievery? Don't people hire guards to deal with that? Can't the city watch keep it's own house in order? That is hardly the moral and ethical corruption of EVIL that would be their bailiwick by level 10.
However as you said the Thieves Guild is obviously the lesser of the two evils and as there is a need to save Imoen, one must sometimes make sacrefices for the greater good. Ofcourse a lawful good character cannot stand for stealing an amulet, but atleast it's an amulet of Talos, the god of chaos or whatnot (If I remember that all right).
But I think you're right on the part that the game is hard to play as a Paladin. Your daddy was the god of murder and your quest leads to ascend that throne. Can't be all that lawful, I suppose. Even when I played a paladin I got myself lead off of the road of the Paladin quite a few times.. But it worked out for me. (:
You can always destroy the Thieves Guild after you're done dealing with them. Just pick up Carsomyr and stick it in the face of evil! Hah
Another aspect that might help the OP is the fact that you are playing a party of individuals. Just because they are mostly 'goodie' types, if you have Jaheira or Jan in your party, who is to say that they aren't "Managing" the Paladin in the group? And who is to say that some of the shadier stuff isn't being done without the Paladin's knowledge or consent?
When i think of Paladins, i often think of Sturm Brightblade from the Dragonlance novels. Sure, he isn't a Paladin proper, but he was the most well written example that I can think of for the attitude and mindset of a Paladin/lawful good knight. His honor was paramount to him as was the oath of the order. Yet he traveled with and dealt with a precariously "Neutral" wizard, a notoriously light fingered Kender, an outcast Half-Elf and a warrior woman who ultimately goes on to be a general in the army of evil.
He may not have liked these people, or trusted most of them but he did deal with them. And if the group needed something lifted, they would keep him occupied while Tas ran off and 'borrowed' it. If something was being done that he wouldn't approve of, someone ran interference with him and it just happened. Or they dragged him along until he really had no choice but to continue. Or was guilted into it to help out his friends or for the 'Greater good'.
Remember, it is a party of 6 you are dealing with. Not Charname and a bunch of mindless drones.
However, I think you might be underestimating the Shadow Thieves. They are Faerun's equivalent of the Mafia. It's not a ragtag group of pickpockets, but an organized criminal enterprise. A Paladin would be opposed to the Shadow Thieves not because what they do is illegal, but because all the assassinations, extortion, stealing, and other terrible things they do go against a Paladin's moral code. Frankly, I personally find the Shadow Thieves to be objectionable and if I was a D&D character, I definitely wouldn't be considered Lawful Good. Maybe Neutral Good on a good day. If I was in CHARNAME's position, I would naturally pick the Shadow Thieves. I wouldn't be terribly happy about it, but I'm not a "Lawful" person, so I'd still sleep at night.
It's more complicated with a LG character. Let's see...
First, I need to rationalize that the cowled wizards were unjust. I think that the lack of any kind of legal recourse on behalf of Imoen shows a lack of due process essentially making it a legal system that does not respect human rights. So, with that, a paladin should not feel obligated to observe it. Does that mean that he can get cozy with the Shadow Thieves? Perhaps, to an extent. The Shadow Thieves are criminals, but in opposition to an already unjust legal system. So, as long as the paladin himself does not engage in any criminal activities, or aid the Shadow Thieves in criminal activities against the public, he is allowed to work with them.
You might be ok with the docks job, since you're just protecting someone. As long as you don't know the details of the transaction, you should be fine. The second job is a no-go, though. You have to use deception just to find out why people are leaving the guild. As a paladin, if people want to leave a thieves' guild (even for another), at best, he shouldn't care. At the most, he should be glad for it.
I dunno. It would have been great if the devs considered this was a no-win situation for the paladin and did something to address this.
For the record, I didn't even want to play a paladin. I just wanted a charismatic leader/front-liner with some good specials. If there was a CG Paladin, I would be all over that.