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.
It's not a no-win situation for the Paladin. The devs realize this, so there's nothing to address.
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.
Not comparable. In the Forgotten Realms the gods actually exist and will strip the Paladin of if power if he seizes to be and act like the ideal knight.
@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.
This is an issue I've touched on in other thread(s).
The example that I use is Viconia being chased by the Flaming Fist soldier in BG1. A lot of people think that if a paladin sees Viconia being chased by soldier, he's automatically supposed to side with the soldier because he is basically a representative of the local government. However, I would argue that a paladin would step in to defend Viconia, because he sees her as being deprived of an "inalienable" right to a fair trial.
What a paladin would do after rescuing Viconia may be open to debate though. If there had been any evidence that Viconia was a murderess, a paladin might place her under "citizen's arrest" and then escort her back to the city to ensure that she receives a fair trial. But if no evidence had been shown to justify a murder charge, then the paladin might argue that there was no cause to arrest her in the first place, and then let her go. If a paladin ever chose to keep Viconia in the party, it would more likely be to "keep an eye on her" and make sure she doesn't do anything evil to someone else.
By contrast, a neutral good character would probably never want to see Viconia returned to the city because he would never trust that she would receive a fair trial. Or, he would view Viconia as the subject of persecution from an oppressive authority, and keep her in the party out of sympathy. A chaotic good character might simply say, "Hey, I need a good cleric to help me in my own personal quest against evil," and keep her without a second thought.
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.
Not comparable. In the Forgotten Realms the gods actually exist and will strip the Paladin of if power if he seizes to be and act like the ideal knight.
Perhaps, but just like the Paladin has bigger things to worry about than chasing down every pick-pocket he comes across, a God has loftier concerns than stripping a Paladin of his powers because he helped some shady folk fight vampires.
i think a lot of people are underestimating the role the Shadow Thieves have in society. You're right, a paladin would likely not drop everything he's doing to chase down a pickpocket. Just as he's extremely unlikely to aid and abet a city-wide (at least) criminal organization. There is a world of difference between a light-fingered kender and the Shadow Thieves.
I think there are at least a half dozen things a paladin would try before throwing in with either a vampire or a thieves' guild. These aren't even presented as options. He could seek aid with the Order of the Radiant Heart. He could attempt to work within the legal system. If he deems their legal system unjust, there must be plenty of other ways for him to find the location of Spellhold to plan a prison break/rescue on his own. There's no good reason for the PC to be railroaded like this. It lacks verisimilitude.
I can rationalize begrudgingly paying the Shadow Thieves for passage to Spellhold. But, I can't rationalize working with them. For a paladin, or any LG character, the means don't justify the ends.
The example that I use is Viconia being chased by the Flaming Fist soldier in BG1. A lot of people think that if a paladin sees Viconia being chased by soldier, he's automatically supposed to side with the soldier because he is basically a representative of the local government. However, I would argue that a paladin would step in to defend Viconia, because he sees her as being deprived of an "inalienable" right to a fair trial.
What a paladin would do after rescuing Viconia may be open to debate though. If there had been any evidence that Viconia was a murderess, a paladin might place her under "citizen's arrest" and then escort her back to the city to ensure that she receives a fair trial. But if no evidence had been shown to justify a murder charge, then the paladin might argue that there was no cause to arrest her in the first place, and then let her go. If a paladin ever chose to keep Viconia in the party, it would more likely be to "keep an eye on her" and make sure she doesn't do anything evil to someone else..
One issues I have here is that a Paladin would be able to tell that Viconia is both a) a Drow (an evil race known for conducting brutal raids on the surface) and b) of Evil alignment (via their detect alignment ability). So you're confronted with a situation where a representative of the regional law enforcement is pursuing a objectively evil member of a race that is known for murdering surface dwellers, claiming that she murdered someone.
I didn't see your Paladin attempting to give various other villains you fight in the game the right to a free trial, and I'm not entirely convinced of your logic why it would be the case here. Basically, I don't buy your logic where LG characters are concerned.
I know exactly how embedded the Shadow Thieves are in Amn. This does not change the fact that the PC is completely out of her depth and needs their help, and without that help Imoen rots in jail forever and Irenicus schemes his way to further no-goodery.
I believe you can ask an NPC at the Order of the Radiant Heart, but they have no idea where Spellhold is or something like that. The Cowled Wizards are part of the incredibly corrupt legal system, and Spellhold is one of their most closely guarded secrets, so that's not an option. CHARNAME has no idea what or where Spellhold is, and the only people who do want lots of money and favors or are not willing to talk. If Aran Linvail says he won't/can't help you if you don't do these favors, it's time to man up and do them, because what's more important, obeying your code to the letter and sitting idle or actually doing what your code was meant to do protect people and bring justice? Imoen is unjustly imprisoned, and Irenicus is evading true justice by sitting in a prison he seems to WANT to be in. The means certainly do justify the ends.
i think a lot of people are underestimating the role the Shadow Thieves have in society. You're right, a paladin would likely not drop everything he's doing to chase down a pickpocket. Just as he's extremely unlikely to aid and abet a city-wide (at least) criminal organization. There is a world of difference between a light-fingered kender and the Shadow Thieves.
I think there are at least a half dozen things a paladin would try before throwing in with either a vampire or a thieves' guild. These aren't even presented as options. He could seek aid with the Order of the Radiant Heart. He could attempt to work within the legal system. If he deems their legal system unjust, there must be plenty of other ways for him to find the location of Spellhold to plan a prison break/rescue on his own. There's no good reason for the PC to be railroaded like this. It lacks verisimilitude.
I can rationalize begrudgingly paying the Shadow Thieves for passage to Spellhold. But, I can't rationalize working with them. For a paladin, or any LG character, the means don't justify the ends.
First of all, there are plenty of people you can ask about tracking down Imoen, but the Cowled Wizards are so secretive that hardly anybody even knows where they send magical criminals (and with Amnish attitudes towards unregulated magic, they probably don't want to know). And just trying to get a license to practice magic legally in the city tells you how well going through legal channels would work. You'd likely have to poor a veritable river of gold into bribes to get anywhere, at which point you have to ask whether bankrolling such a corrupt organization is any better than working with the slightly more obvious thieves.
Furthermore, you may be "aiding and abetting" the thieves in a technical sense, but everything you do for them is helping them fight off the vampires; it is not as though you are robbing banks for them or murdering innocents. Sure, your aid assists the Shadow Thieves' continued existence, but consider the alternative: allowing a cadre of vampires to convert them and their power structure to their cause, taking over the city's underworld. It's in everyone's best interests to prevent the vampires from owning the city at night, and if that means a temporary truce with a guild that's slightly less evil and quite a bit more stable, then I think a Paladin is well within his rights to make that temporary truce. Particularly if it doesn't involve him doing anything that will harm innocents or destabilize the city.
Weirdly enough in the same thread people are arguing Viconia needs to be given a chance despite being a drow, but then the vampires are obviously absolute evil because they're vampires. Really, guys?
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.
Not comparable. In the Forgotten Realms the gods actually exist and will strip the Paladin of if power if he seizes to be and act like the ideal knight.
"The fallen paladin is one who has fallen into disgrace in the eyes of other men." If one is has seen or is alive to have seen your actions, your reputation does not fall.
Also the gods do not care if you act and be an ideal knight, if you know anything about the D&D gods, they want you to be perceived as one, since you are face of the franchise.
Weirdly enough in the same thread people are arguing Viconia needs to be given a chance despite being a drow, but then the vampires are obviously absolute evil because they're vampires. Really, guys?
Viconia's a weird case because she's an evil member of a usually evil race, but you never see any real evidence that she's done anything evil since coming to the surface. It's easy to surmise that if people would stop harassing her she'd be mostly harmless, much like the Duergar in the Copper Coronet.
Whereas you see what Bodhi's vampires are getting up to an night in Athkatla, and she herself is not shy about portraying herself as a nasty person who is going to ask you to do nasty things. In addition, in D&D, the transformation into undead seems to have an overriding effect on an individual's enlightenment. According to the 2e MM, vampires generally retain all their knowledge and memories from their life, but still in all cases become chaotic evil. A good person who is turned remembers everything about their previous life and how they used to act, but still becomes evil.
To be clear, I think a Lawful Good individual could go either way with Viconia and not endanger their enlightenment; there's enough uncertainty involved to create reasonable doubt, but not enough to necessarily outweigh the Flaming Fist officer's status as a guard (this is a different situation to your initial meeting with her in BG2, where she is about to be burned by a lynch mob dedicated to the chaotic evil deity of misfortune and mischief).
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.
You and I have very different ideas of what the Shadow Thieves are. I agree that they are a huge organization and absolutely take part in the shadier underside of the law. However, every dealing with Aran Linvail suggests that they are less about killing and more about business, albeit the business of thievery and smuggling. Even when dealing with Renal Bloodscalp, you see how his brand of dealing with people is very distasteful to Aran and the guild at large.
However, even if there are less than seemly elements in the guild itself, this is hardly the responsibility of the Paladin to clean up. It is OK to not like, not support and even abhor what the shadow thieves stand for and still not feel obligated to (a) not ever get their help and (b) feel compelled to burn the guild to the ground. Remember, you are playing a person with more depth than a puddle. I can easily see a Paladin seeing the thieves guild as not their first choice, but one that has to be dealt with if the group is to find Imoen and Irenicus.
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.
Again I think you are falling afoul of some belief that the Paladin is there to uphold the law in some manner. They aren't. Paladins are knights and soldiers in a holy war against their Deity's enemies to the exclusion of all else. Unless it is holy writ that all thievery must be stamped out as part of their order, a Paladin can easily not like the thieves guild, but see them as someone else's problem. After all, if every paladin were to be bound to slay every single less than Lawful and Good person in Faerun merely because they don't live up to the high standards of the Paladin's order, they would be killing a lot of people and have more than simply the evil organizations after them. Not to mention they wouldn't get much work done on behalf of their Deity.
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.
I for one do not see this as anything like a no-win scenario. Certainly a bunch of different rationals have been provided, all of which are quite reasonable for allowing a Paladin to deal with the situation. Considering that your original post was requesting exactly that, i'd examine your own motives in not at least considering them.
But here is one final try on my part. Life is never so black and white as to always be only faced with easy choices. Certainly the fact that the story is so well written such that there isn't a clean and easy lily white choice available is a testament to good writing rather than a flaw. Sometimes in life there isn't a perfect 'Good' win answer. In this case, there isn't (moreso in your view than in mine, but you get the point). Take it as "You can't always get what you want. But sometimes, you get what you need." Take it as a growth experience for your Paladin. Have him or her open their eyes to the fact that people are not lily white and that sometimes you have to deal with less than salubrious individuals to help others.
One issues I have here is that a Paladin would be able to tell that Viconia is both a) a Drow (an evil race known for conducting brutal raids on the surface) and b) of Evil alignment (via their detect alignment ability). So you're confronted with a situation where a representative of the regional law enforcement is pursuing a objectively evil member of a race that is known for murdering surface dwellers, claiming that she murdered someone.
That wouldn't mean that she doesn't have the right to a fair trial - only that the evidence would be stacked against her at her trial.
In the paladin's view, the soldier is about to commit a criminal act by killing an accused criminal in cold blood, without even a pretense of attempting to arrest her and allowing her to stand trial. The paladin is not intervening to help a criminal, but to stop a criminal act from taking place.
I didn't see your Paladin attempting to give various other villains you fight in the game the right to a free trial, ...
Actually, I do. There are often dialogue options that give you the chance to avoid or deflate potential conflicts. In other instances, the villains either attack on sight or immediately after you've announced your intentions to interfere in their plans. Even in the case of the soldier, you simply tell him that you won't stand by while he kills Viconia - not that you intend to kill him - and it's he who decides to attack you.
Weirdly enough in the same thread people are arguing Viconia needs to be given a chance despite being a drow, but then the vampires are obviously absolute evil because they're vampires. Really, guys?
Not weird at all. In spite of the fact Drow are USUALLY evil, they are in fact a free willed race (good Drow have been noted, and in fact there always have been good and evil Drow from their very inception in the AD&D game). Vampires by comparison are always evil in AD&D. They are not a free willed race, they are pure evil incarnate. They actively hate life and prey on sentient races in the most literal sort of way.
I am not a huge defender of Viconia, she is evil and apparently guilty in this case. But she is a free willed, sentient being about to be denied any form of due process. I think a paladin, or other LG sort, can either defend or ignore her in good conscience. For me, I'd rather error on the side of assuming innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say its a judgement call either way.
Weirdly enough in the same thread people are arguing Viconia needs to be given a chance despite being a drow, but then the vampires are obviously absolute evil because they're vampires. Really, guys?
I actually argued a couple pages ago that it could be justified for a paladin to side with Bodhi because he is siding with an unknown quantity against a much more known evil in the shadow thieves, who have widespread control in the city and have caused much fear and suffering among ordinary citizens.
I know exactly how embedded the Shadow Thieves are in Amn. This does not change the fact that the PC is completely out of her depth and needs their help, and without that help Imoen rots in jail forever and Irenicus schemes his way to further no-goodery.
That's a little over the top. I mean, yeah, they have the whole strangers in a strange land thing going for them, but they are certainly not out of their depth. Keep in mind, this crew is coming off unveiling and stopping a huge government conspiracy in Baldur's Gate. Not bad for a kid who grew up in a library. And Spellhold is just a fortress, albeit a well hidden one. The fact that it's even 100% on the Prime Material Plane makes it nothing more than a really well hidden fortress. There are most certainly other ways to find it, even if they take a little longer.
consider the alternative: allowing a cadre of vampires to convert them and their power structure to their cause, taking over the city's underworld.
What about the alternative where you eliminate both groups? You're obviously powerful enough to do so. Pretty early in the game, you have a good idea where the Shadow Thieves' hang out and where Bodhi has her lair. You can inform the authorities on the Shadow Thieves' then clean out Bodhi's lair.
Weirdly enough in the same thread people are arguing Viconia needs to be given a chance despite being a drow, but then the vampires are obviously absolute evil because they're vampires. Really, guys?
You ever hear of Twilight? Yeah, there's nothing redeeming about vampires. :P
Again I think you are falling afoul of some belief that the Paladin is there to uphold the law in some manner.
I for one do not see this as anything like a no-win scenario. Certainly a bunch of different rationals have been provided, all of which are quite reasonable for allowing a Paladin to deal with the situation.
But here is one final try on my part. Life is never so black and white as to always be only faced with easy choices.
Let me restate this, but more explicitly. I do not believe a paladin needs to strictly uphold the law. However, if a paladin is going to break a law, they need to find a way to deem said law as unjust and doing so doesn't give them license to break any other laws (unless those other laws are also unjust). I don't think the Thieves' Guild is the paladins problem, especially if the paladin is kitted. A UH cares more about the undead, a Cav cares more about dragons and demons, and a Inq cares more about evil wizards. However, even though the paladin doesn't need to feel obligated to do something about the guild, it doesn't mean it's ok to work with them.
I've heard the rationales, and have provided a sound counterargument to every single one of them. It's not about easy choices, it's about viable and good ones. This game is starting to remind me of Fallout:New Vegas (no surprise, as it was designed by the same people). That is a no-win game. Every faction is a bastard and no matter what it ends badly. I'd have no trouble siding with the Thieves' Guild if I was non-lawful but good/neutral or siding with Bodhi if I was evil/neutral, but for a LG character, I can't find a reasonable way to let it slide.
I'll tell you what. Let's look at it this way. I believe you mentioned Sturm Brightblade before. Tell me, what are some of the more morally controversial acts that he's committed? Is there anything more substantial than traveling with a kender or a fighter that, in many years in the future, will eventually be a general in an evil army? Tell me what Sturm has been willing to do, and if it's close to this, the matter is settled in my book.
Again I think you are falling afoul of some belief that the Paladin is there to uphold the law in some manner.
I for one do not see this as anything like a no-win scenario. Certainly a bunch of different rationals have been provided, all of which are quite reasonable for allowing a Paladin to deal with the situation.
But here is one final try on my part. Life is never so black and white as to always be only faced with easy choices.
Let me restate this, but more explicitly. I do not believe a paladin needs to strictly uphold the law. However, if a paladin is going to break a law, they need to find a way to deem said law as unjust and doing so doesn't give them license to break any other laws (unless those other laws are also unjust). I don't think the Thieves' Guild is the paladins problem, especially if the paladin is kitted. A UH cares more about the undead, a Cav cares more about dragons and demons, and a Inq cares more about evil wizards. However, even though the paladin doesn't need to feel obligated to do something about the guild, it doesn't mean it's ok to work with them.
You still aren't getting the difference between following the law and enforcing it. You apparently think that if the paladin isn't enforcing the law that they are not following it either. They aren't the city watch. They aren't the guard or the police or any organization charged with bringing wrong doers to justice. Yet you still seem to want them to play that role.
And again you aren't understanding that life doesn't always give you the choices or options that you want. Sometimes you have no choice but to choose the best of two bad choices. Given that, I feel it is an absolute no brainer that any Paladin would deal with the thieve's guild, particularly one run by Aran Linvail who is both charming and apparently not evil in the slightest.
I've heard the rationales, and have provided a sound counterargument to every single one of them. It's not about easy choices, it's about viable and good ones. This game is starting to remind me of Fallout:New Vegas (no surprise, as it was designed by the same people). That is a no-win game. Every faction is a bastard and no matter what it ends badly. I'd have no trouble siding with the Thieves' Guild if I was non-lawful but good/neutral or siding with Bodhi if I was evil/neutral, but for a LG character, I can't find a reasonable way to let it slide.
I'll tell you what. Let's look at it this way. I believe you mentioned Sturm Brightblade before. Tell me, what are some of the more morally controversial acts that he's committed? Is there anything more substantial than traveling with a kender or a fighter that, in many years in the future, will eventually be a general in an evil army? Tell me what Sturm has been willing to do, and if it's close to this, the matter is settled in my book.
I can't provide Sturm in a specific instance similar to the BG story line because he never encountered the thieves Guild, nor did he have to save Imoen from Irenicus (and it has been something like 30 years since I read the series). However, Kitira is evilly aligned right from the very beginning. He travels with her for a long time, even solo and it is suggested that he had her as a love interest at one time. He also dealt with Raistlin quite extensively. Raistlin's morals were NOT in line with Lawful Good as evidenced by his choice to abandon his friends to almost certain death to save himself and to ultimately aspire to basically destroy all creation. Finally, Tanis Half-Elven was an outcast from his own people. The essence of his very existence is that he was a law breaker. Yet Sturm both trusted and followed him. In short, Sturm dealt with, trusted and even followed several people who were, from various perspectives, as morally ambiguous as the thieve's guild.
I agree that you have read most of the comments. As for the soundness of your counter arguments, they seem largely "To me" to be completely discounting them on the basis that Paladins are (in your view) paper shallow and incapable of letting anyone not as straight and narrow as he is live. You further acknowledge that there isn't always a good choice, and then balk that 'There isn't a good choice'.
In the end, no one is saying that you need to agree with anything that is posted here. That's the great thing about opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own. I just question why you bother to ask for alternatives when you are not open to their possibilities.
Actually, I think you're missing my point. I never said the paladin needed to enforce the law. He just needs to find a way to deem the law unjust before he breaks it. That's all. He doesn't need do anything ABOUT the Shadow Thieves' (enforcing law), but that also doesn't mean he can do anything WITH the Shadow Thieves' (following law).
But, how about this for an alternative? The Shadow Thieves need help with the vampires. The vampires are evil. No problem. A paly doesn't need much of an excuse to take out vampires. In exchange for the guild's aid, the party will track down the vampires and take them out. The problem is equally solved, and the paladin doesn't have to get his hands dirty with the guild's affairs. It's a hell of a lot more to the point than guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with thieves that want to quit the guild.
Also, I said that there isn't a good choice presented, yes. But, there's no reason there shouldn't be.
As for Sturm, he never really liked Raistlin much. And Raistlin did both previously and eventually do some terrible things, but Sturm never found out about them. With Kitiara, there was a potential love interest (they actually had a kid), but that didn't work out as she eventually killed him while he was defending a temple from her. While they traveled together, she had a bad attitude, but never really committed any terribly evil acts. That all came later, too. And, Tanis was never an outcast, he just wasn't super into elven society. Actually, the main reason he married Laurana (I think) had something to do with being more socially acceptable. The situation with his birth was a little controversial, but he obviously wasn't a bad guy.
But, how about this for an alternative? The Shadow Thieves need help with the vampires. The vampires are evil. No problem. A paly doesn't need much of an excuse to take out vampires. In exchange for the guild's aid, the party will track down the vampires and take them out. The problem is equally solved, and the paladin doesn't have to get his hands dirty with the guild's affairs. It's a hell of a lot more to the point than guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with thieves that want to quit the guild.
"How about this for an alternative. The game should let you do A instead of making you do A."
Guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with the defecting thieves is tracking down the vampires and taking them out. The weapons shipment gives you the necessary equipment to take them out, and finding the defecting thieves tells you where the vampire's hideout is. The alternative you describe is essentially what happens.
As for your other alternative of taking them both out, that's an option. You can side with the Shadow Thieves and then kill them all once you get back from Spellhold. But if you kill both sides first, who's going to get you there? Not the Radiant Heart or the Harpers, as they have no idea of where Spellhold is. Not the Cowled Wizards, they're trying to keep the whole thing under wraps.
@SharGuidesMyHand@Eudaemonium I'm not sure a "fair trial" can really be considered a "right" in a medieval setting like this. More like a privilege that is seldom bestowed. Jan is not offered a trial when he is caught selling illegal goods; Imoen and Irenicus are not given a trial, a Wizard just pronounces their sentence; the Flaming Fist will sometimes try to arrest you, but you are given no promise of a trial. Sometimes, especially in the wilderness, expediency is valued more than due process.
Actually, I think you're missing my point. I never said the paladin needed to enforce the law. He just needs to find a way to deem the law unjust before he breaks it. That's all. He doesn't need do anything ABOUT the Shadow Thieves' (enforcing law), but that also doesn't mean he can do anything WITH the Shadow Thieves' (following law).
You still aren't getting it. The thieves activities outside of dealing with Charname and party should be of no concern to the Paladin. You still want to either justify the fact that they are thieves, or deal with them. That is what I mean by you want to enforce the law. Don't think of them as thieves. You don't actively witness them stealing anything. They don't steal FROM you. Why do you have to care that they are thieves?
But, how about this for an alternative? The Shadow Thieves need help with the vampires. The vampires are evil. No problem. A paly doesn't need much of an excuse to take out vampires. In exchange for the guild's aid, the party will track down the vampires and take them out. The problem is equally solved, and the paladin doesn't have to get his hands dirty with the guild's affairs. It's a hell of a lot more to the point than guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with thieves that want to quit the guild.
Who cares what the guild's affairs are? You pay for services. You find Imoen. Why muddy it up with the fact that the guy who sold you the suit happens to have a side business bilking folks?
Also, I said that there isn't a good choice presented, yes. But, there's no reason there shouldn't be.
The reason there shouldn't be is that the writers didn't want one. Also, it provides you better choices than the lily white one and the pitch black one. That's THE point, not a flaw.
As for Sturm, he never really liked Raistlin much. And Raistlin did both previously and eventually do some terrible things, but Sturm never found out about them. With Kitiara, there was a potential love interest (they actually had a kid), but that didn't work out as she eventually killed him while he was defending a temple from her. While they traveled together, she had a bad attitude, but never really committed any terribly evil acts. That all came later, too. And, Tanis was never an outcast, he just wasn't super into elven society. Actually, the main reason he married Laurana (I think) had something to do with being more socially acceptable. The situation with his birth was a little controversial, but he obviously wasn't a bad guy.
So you are good with Kitiara being evil and not committing any evil acts in Sturm's presence and so he can hang with her, but you are not cool with the thieves being neutral (not evil) and not performing any neutral acts in front of you 'Because they are thieves'?
Kitiara is "evil", sure, but it doesn't manifest into evil acts until later on. Sturm was just hoping to bring her over to his side. Nothing wrong with that. It didn't work, but there was no harm in trying. In fact, he probably felt obligated to do so.
As for the Shadow Thieves. They're thieves. Paladins do have a wisdom requirement, so none of them are dim-witted enough to think that "Shadow Thieves" is just an edgy name for a social club.
edit: I'm cool with the moral ambiguity of the storyline in general. I'd much prefer that to some vapid absolute good vs. absolute evil twaddle. However, for a character class that aims for the high road, this game doesn't give it many options for realization, or even address the fact that it doesn't have options. I would much rather that the paladin "fall" as a result of his associations and have the opportunity to redeem himself than for the whole issue to be glossed over like it is.
As for the Shadow Thieves. They're thieves. Paladins do have a wisdom requirement, so none of them are dim-witted enough to think that "Shadow Thieves" is just an edgy name for a social club.
Which brings us back around to the fact that just because these people are known criminals does not obligate the Paladin to shun them, nor does it prevent him from working with them towards a good end if it does not involve evil means (and it doesn't; for all their bluff and bluster, the thieves obviously need you as much as you need them, and they don't risk pushing you away by asking you to do something nefarious).
edit: I'm cool with the moral ambiguity of the storyline in general. I'd much prefer that to some vapid absolute good vs. absolute evil twaddle. However, for a character class that aims for the high road, this game doesn't give it many options for realization, or even address the fact that it doesn't have options. I would much rather that the paladin "fall" as a result of his associations and have the opportunity to redeem himself than for the whole issue to be glossed over like it is.
Some Good NPCs, particularly Keldorn, will voice some misgivings, but will conclude that you don't really have a better option and so go along with it. The game gives you opportunities to voice your distaste in dialog with the thieves as well. Do you really think the game needs to make you fall for begrudgingly working with some thieves to save your friend and put a stop to evil?
Ok, maybe not a fall, but -some- kind of consequence that later needs to be addressed would be nice. Then, it wouldn't feel like the paly is getting a free ride.
@Kneller - I couldn't agree less. I do not think that the Paladin dealing with the Shadow Thieves is in any way at all any kind of offense. I see no reason or validation for causing an alignment shift or any kind of penalty merely for talking to someone and paying them for information. And I would not endorse any type of action that would allude to that. Thankfully, the game is not that rigorous about players' alignment. Otherwise there would be other unhappy players.
However, if you feel strongly enough about it and are up for some role playing challenges, why not play that your Paladin falls. Just because you have the abilities, it doesn't follow that you must use them. Pretend that all abilities are lost until such time as you deem the paladin has redeemed himself in the eyes of his deity or order.
I feel like 90% of the people in this thread agreeing that if they were the DM they would not have a Paladin fall should mean something. That sort of harmony virtually NEVER happens when it comes to discussion of roleplaying lore.
I also think, for RPing purposes it's worth considering which deity your patron would be and considering their portfolio and tenets. On another forum I recently asked whether it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Paladin of Helm to have a working knowledge of some of the more underhand skills of some of the other classes. Those who responded pretty much agreed that my justification, that Helmites should be watchful and not leave themselves open to deception and trickery so by knowing what to watch for they would be protecting themselves and those around them and upholding the values of the their faith, made sense. You could take this a step further in that by 'working' with the shadow thieves the paladin (of Helm) is gaining further insights into their methods and their inner wranglings. Of course you have to be able to convince your inner DM of this.
I feel like 90% of the people in this thread agreeing that if they were the DM they would not have a Paladin fall should mean something. That sort of harmony virtually NEVER happens when it comes to discussion of roleplaying lore.
Funny I was thinking about this myself the other day. In a PNP game, there is always the possibility of coming up with a more out of the box solution. If I were DM, I would hope anyone playing a Paladin would play this in a way that honors the principles of their faith. That is more important than a simple answer about if dealing with Shadow Thieves is bad. But I have no qualms about the relationship a player in BG2 must have with them, it seems clear enough to me, killing some vampires to get formation you need is really not a great moral dilemma in my book. My paladin would have killed vampires for free... But I remember the first time I played this being suspicious, and not liking dealing with the Shadow Thieves one bit. And I think that is exactly the attitude we're meant to have.
Comments
The example that I use is Viconia being chased by the Flaming Fist soldier in BG1. A lot of people think that if a paladin sees Viconia being chased by soldier, he's automatically supposed to side with the soldier because he is basically a representative of the local government. However, I would argue that a paladin would step in to defend Viconia, because he sees her as being deprived of an "inalienable" right to a fair trial.
What a paladin would do after rescuing Viconia may be open to debate though. If there had been any evidence that Viconia was a murderess, a paladin might place her under "citizen's arrest" and then escort her back to the city to ensure that she receives a fair trial. But if no evidence had been shown to justify a murder charge, then the paladin might argue that there was no cause to arrest her in the first place, and then let her go. If a paladin ever chose to keep Viconia in the party, it would more likely be to "keep an eye on her" and make sure she doesn't do anything evil to someone else.
By contrast, a neutral good character would probably never want to see Viconia returned to the city because he would never trust that she would receive a fair trial. Or, he would view Viconia as the subject of persecution from an oppressive authority, and keep her in the party out of sympathy. A chaotic good character might simply say, "Hey, I need a good cleric to help me in my own personal quest against evil," and keep her without a second thought.
I think there are at least a half dozen things a paladin would try before throwing in with either a vampire or a thieves' guild. These aren't even presented as options. He could seek aid with the Order of the Radiant Heart. He could attempt to work within the legal system. If he deems their legal system unjust, there must be plenty of other ways for him to find the location of Spellhold to plan a prison break/rescue on his own. There's no good reason for the PC to be railroaded like this. It lacks verisimilitude.
I can rationalize begrudgingly paying the Shadow Thieves for passage to Spellhold. But, I can't rationalize working with them. For a paladin, or any LG character, the means don't justify the ends.
I didn't see your Paladin attempting to give various other villains you fight in the game the right to a free trial, and I'm not entirely convinced of your logic why it would be the case here. Basically, I don't buy your logic where LG characters are concerned.
I believe you can ask an NPC at the Order of the Radiant Heart, but they have no idea where Spellhold is or something like that. The Cowled Wizards are part of the incredibly corrupt legal system, and Spellhold is one of their most closely guarded secrets, so that's not an option. CHARNAME has no idea what or where Spellhold is, and the only people who do want lots of money and favors or are not willing to talk. If Aran Linvail says he won't/can't help you if you don't do these favors, it's time to man up and do them, because what's more important, obeying your code to the letter and sitting idle or actually doing what your code was meant to do protect people and bring justice? Imoen is unjustly imprisoned, and Irenicus is evading true justice by sitting in a prison he seems to WANT to be in. The means certainly do justify the ends.
Furthermore, you may be "aiding and abetting" the thieves in a technical sense, but everything you do for them is helping them fight off the vampires; it is not as though you are robbing banks for them or murdering innocents. Sure, your aid assists the Shadow Thieves' continued existence, but consider the alternative: allowing a cadre of vampires to convert them and their power structure to their cause, taking over the city's underworld. It's in everyone's best interests to prevent the vampires from owning the city at night, and if that means a temporary truce with a guild that's slightly less evil and quite a bit more stable, then I think a Paladin is well within his rights to make that temporary truce. Particularly if it doesn't involve him doing anything that will harm innocents or destabilize the city.
Also the gods do not care if you act and be an ideal knight, if you know anything about the D&D gods, they want you to be perceived as one, since you are face of the franchise.
Whereas you see what Bodhi's vampires are getting up to an night in Athkatla, and she herself is not shy about portraying herself as a nasty person who is going to ask you to do nasty things. In addition, in D&D, the transformation into undead seems to have an overriding effect on an individual's enlightenment. According to the 2e MM, vampires generally retain all their knowledge and memories from their life, but still in all cases become chaotic evil. A good person who is turned remembers everything about their previous life and how they used to act, but still becomes evil.
To be clear, I think a Lawful Good individual could go either way with Viconia and not endanger their enlightenment; there's enough uncertainty involved to create reasonable doubt, but not enough to necessarily outweigh the Flaming Fist officer's status as a guard (this is a different situation to your initial meeting with her in BG2, where she is about to be burned by a lynch mob dedicated to the chaotic evil deity of misfortune and mischief).
However, even if there are less than seemly elements in the guild itself, this is hardly the responsibility of the Paladin to clean up. It is OK to not like, not support and even abhor what the shadow thieves stand for and still not feel obligated to (a) not ever get their help and (b) feel compelled to burn the guild to the ground. Remember, you are playing a person with more depth than a puddle. I can easily see a Paladin seeing the thieves guild as not their first choice, but one that has to be dealt with if the group is to find Imoen and Irenicus.
Again I think you are falling afoul of some belief that the Paladin is there to uphold the law in some manner. They aren't. Paladins are knights and soldiers in a holy war against their Deity's enemies to the exclusion of all else. Unless it is holy writ that all thievery must be stamped out as part of their order, a Paladin can easily not like the thieves guild, but see them as someone else's problem. After all, if every paladin were to be bound to slay every single less than Lawful and Good person in Faerun merely because they don't live up to the high standards of the Paladin's order, they would be killing a lot of people and have more than simply the evil organizations after them. Not to mention they wouldn't get much work done on behalf of their Deity. I for one do not see this as anything like a no-win scenario. Certainly a bunch of different rationals have been provided, all of which are quite reasonable for allowing a Paladin to deal with the situation. Considering that your original post was requesting exactly that, i'd examine your own motives in not at least considering them.
But here is one final try on my part. Life is never so black and white as to always be only faced with easy choices. Certainly the fact that the story is so well written such that there isn't a clean and easy lily white choice available is a testament to good writing rather than a flaw. Sometimes in life there isn't a perfect 'Good' win answer. In this case, there isn't (moreso in your view than in mine, but you get the point). Take it as "You can't always get what you want. But sometimes, you get what you need." Take it as a growth experience for your Paladin. Have him or her open their eyes to the fact that people are not lily white and that sometimes you have to deal with less than salubrious individuals to help others.
In the paladin's view, the soldier is about to commit a criminal act by killing an accused criminal in cold blood, without even a pretense of attempting to arrest her and allowing her to stand trial. The paladin is not intervening to help a criminal, but to stop a criminal act from taking place.
Actually, I do. There are often dialogue options that give you the chance to avoid or deflate potential conflicts. In other instances, the villains either attack on sight or immediately after you've announced your intentions to interfere in their plans. Even in the case of the soldier, you simply tell him that you won't stand by while he kills Viconia - not that you intend to kill him - and it's he who decides to attack you.
Vampires by comparison are always evil in AD&D. They are not a free willed race, they are pure evil incarnate. They actively hate life and prey on sentient races in the most literal sort of way.
I am not a huge defender of Viconia, she is evil and apparently guilty in this case. But she is a free willed, sentient being about to be denied any form of due process. I think a paladin, or other LG sort, can either defend or ignore her in good conscience. For me, I'd rather error on the side of assuming innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say its a judgement call either way.
I've heard the rationales, and have provided a sound counterargument to every single one of them. It's not about easy choices, it's about viable and good ones. This game is starting to remind me of Fallout:New Vegas (no surprise, as it was designed by the same people). That is a no-win game. Every faction is a bastard and no matter what it ends badly. I'd have no trouble siding with the Thieves' Guild if I was non-lawful but good/neutral or siding with Bodhi if I was evil/neutral, but for a LG character, I can't find a reasonable way to let it slide.
I'll tell you what. Let's look at it this way. I believe you mentioned Sturm Brightblade before. Tell me, what are some of the more morally controversial acts that he's committed? Is there anything more substantial than traveling with a kender or a fighter that, in many years in the future, will eventually be a general in an evil army? Tell me what Sturm has been willing to do, and if it's close to this, the matter is settled in my book.
And again you aren't understanding that life doesn't always give you the choices or options that you want. Sometimes you have no choice but to choose the best of two bad choices. Given that, I feel it is an absolute no brainer that any Paladin would deal with the thieve's guild, particularly one run by Aran Linvail who is both charming and apparently not evil in the slightest. I can't provide Sturm in a specific instance similar to the BG story line because he never encountered the thieves Guild, nor did he have to save Imoen from Irenicus (and it has been something like 30 years since I read the series). However, Kitira is evilly aligned right from the very beginning. He travels with her for a long time, even solo and it is suggested that he had her as a love interest at one time. He also dealt with Raistlin quite extensively. Raistlin's morals were NOT in line with Lawful Good as evidenced by his choice to abandon his friends to almost certain death to save himself and to ultimately aspire to basically destroy all creation. Finally, Tanis Half-Elven was an outcast from his own people. The essence of his very existence is that he was a law breaker. Yet Sturm both trusted and followed him. In short, Sturm dealt with, trusted and even followed several people who were, from various perspectives, as morally ambiguous as the thieve's guild.
I agree that you have read most of the comments. As for the soundness of your counter arguments, they seem largely "To me" to be completely discounting them on the basis that Paladins are (in your view) paper shallow and incapable of letting anyone not as straight and narrow as he is live. You further acknowledge that there isn't always a good choice, and then balk that 'There isn't a good choice'.
In the end, no one is saying that you need to agree with anything that is posted here. That's the great thing about opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own. I just question why you bother to ask for alternatives when you are not open to their possibilities.
Actually, I think you're missing my point. I never said the paladin needed to enforce the law. He just needs to find a way to deem the law unjust before he breaks it. That's all. He doesn't need do anything ABOUT the Shadow Thieves' (enforcing law), but that also doesn't mean he can do anything WITH the Shadow Thieves' (following law).
But, how about this for an alternative? The Shadow Thieves need help with the vampires. The vampires are evil. No problem. A paly doesn't need much of an excuse to take out vampires. In exchange for the guild's aid, the party will track down the vampires and take them out. The problem is equally solved, and the paladin doesn't have to get his hands dirty with the guild's affairs. It's a hell of a lot more to the point than guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with thieves that want to quit the guild.
Also, I said that there isn't a good choice presented, yes. But, there's no reason there shouldn't be.
As for Sturm, he never really liked Raistlin much. And Raistlin did both previously and eventually do some terrible things, but Sturm never found out about them. With Kitiara, there was a potential love interest (they actually had a kid), but that didn't work out as she eventually killed him while he was defending a temple from her. While they traveled together, she had a bad attitude, but never really committed any terribly evil acts. That all came later, too. And, Tanis was never an outcast, he just wasn't super into elven society. Actually, the main reason he married Laurana (I think) had something to do with being more socially acceptable. The situation with his birth was a little controversial, but he obviously wasn't a bad guy.
Guarding a weapons shipment and mucking about with the defecting thieves is tracking down the vampires and taking them out. The weapons shipment gives you the necessary equipment to take them out, and finding the defecting thieves tells you where the vampire's hideout is. The alternative you describe is essentially what happens.
As for your other alternative of taking them both out, that's an option. You can side with the Shadow Thieves and then kill them all once you get back from Spellhold. But if you kill both sides first, who's going to get you there? Not the Radiant Heart or the Harpers, as they have no idea of where Spellhold is. Not the Cowled Wizards, they're trying to keep the whole thing under wraps.
@SharGuidesMyHand @Eudaemonium I'm not sure a "fair trial" can really be considered a "right" in a medieval setting like this. More like a privilege that is seldom bestowed. Jan is not offered a trial when he is caught selling illegal goods; Imoen and Irenicus are not given a trial, a Wizard just pronounces their sentence; the Flaming Fist will sometimes try to arrest you, but you are given no promise of a trial. Sometimes, especially in the wilderness, expediency is valued more than due process.
Follow your own logic there. It is inconsistent.
As for the Shadow Thieves. They're thieves. Paladins do have a wisdom requirement, so none of them are dim-witted enough to think that "Shadow Thieves" is just an edgy name for a social club.
edit: I'm cool with the moral ambiguity of the storyline in general. I'd much prefer that to some vapid absolute good vs. absolute evil twaddle. However, for a character class that aims for the high road, this game doesn't give it many options for realization, or even address the fact that it doesn't have options. I would much rather that the paladin "fall" as a result of his associations and have the opportunity to redeem himself than for the whole issue to be glossed over like it is.
However, if you feel strongly enough about it and are up for some role playing challenges, why not play that your Paladin falls. Just because you have the abilities, it doesn't follow that you must use them. Pretend that all abilities are lost until such time as you deem the paladin has redeemed himself in the eyes of his deity or order.
But I remember the first time I played this being suspicious, and not liking dealing with the Shadow Thieves one bit. And I think that is exactly the attitude we're meant to have.