Just a curious question about paladins
xLegionx
Member Posts: 197
So I'm curious if you play as a paladin and you develop a really bad reputation as one what happens? Do you lose your paladin abilites or something like that?
0
Comments
The one place you have to be careful of losing your paladinship and never being able to reclaim it is during the fight with sarevok (only in SoA). My first play though was as a paladin kit, the inquisitor. If you get mad and take the evil path during the convo (the one that happens near the end of part SoA where he makes a cameo appearance), you will become fallen and there will be no redemption. Other then that part, so long as you play the part of a paladin, you'll have no troubles.
Anyway, any of those Bhaal tear challenges can ruin Paladin status if an evil path is taken.
In Malory, he calls himself Le Chevalier mal fet, the knight who has trespassed; after being made mad by his self conflict and being tricked into sleeping with his own wife (Elaine) whom he thought was his mistress (Guinevere), living naked as a madman, like a beast, beaten by common folk and despised.
Even after returning to Camelot, he goes back to his old naughtiness, before being chased away upon discovery of his adultery.
I'm racking my brains trying to think of an Arthurian example of this kind of "atonement quest," but I can't, possibly due to poor memory, possibly due to the knights being flawed heroes. Even Gawain lies and tries to trick the Green Knight in the end of his tale, and carries the shame forever after.
I'll have to re-read Percival, I'm sure he makes up for a misdeed though that may have been made due to to his ignorance, he starts the book as a completely blank slate and his entire being is pretty much written out with the book.
I think Launcelot in Malory at least usually tries to redeem himself by fighting in tournaments, which kind of works except he has to disguise himself so that it's a fair fight (and people don't let him win because of his reputation), and also it doesn't really get to the heart of the moral problems that Launcelot has re: Guinevere. This is Housman's point -- in her version, the whole system of honour is flawed because it's based on fighting prowess rather than moral virtue. So Aglovale only redeems himself by helping his enemies instead of fighting them... there's a sort of similar thing in one of the BG2 dream sequences when you have to heal a monster in order to defeat it. Not sure if that's a Paladin specific quest or not.
Back to BG: I like the ideal of a fallen Paladin from an RP perspective, especially one who redeems him or herself eventually. I also like the idea of an evil Paladin, who gets new powers, but I think that's sort of along the lines of the new Blackguard kit?
I wish alignment was more flexible in BG as I've heard it is in PST. Just being able to alter your alignment more often would be cool.
With the blackguard kit coming for BGEE.. it could be pretty cool if they implemented that feature in BGEE as well.
I suppose Gawain is humbled as a lesson. I think I remember the tournament you are talking about, where Lancelot fights incognito in red armour, releasing all his prisoners, being generally awesome. The queen wants to see if he is really Lancelot so tells him to fight badly, which he promptly does.
I must admit though, I find the idea of courtly love fascinating, Aglovale sounds interesting. I read Cliges some time ago which at the time I thought was awful wet rubbish, though have since read that it was a satire of courtly romances, so it must have gone over my head.
As far as redemption arcs go, I believe the Dragonlance character Dhamon Grimwulf goes through a badass phase before redeeming himself. Of course he was a Knight of Takhisis to begin with... (still don't like that whole concept)
I am not a fan of symmetry for the sake of symmetry. Just because there are paladins does not mean there should be equally devoted knights for every alignment. It takes away from the uniqueness of the thing you're emulating. This is also why I am not a fan of the Knights of Takhisis. Knights of the Death Lily? Come on! It cheapens the whole Solamnic Knight structure.
At least 3E fixed Rangers to allow them to be any alignment. That was another one that didn't make much sense since Rangers were mostly woodsman.
@Tenthalas well, for neutral, you've got druids, as they try to balance *nature*, but everything is part of nature. For evil, you've got politicians, lawyers, and merchants, monsters, and many many others things that are typically always evil. Things that enjoy hurting/killing/making laws/suing.
I know that you don't get to lay any of those evil things i mentioned, but you have to have someone to fight. Also, what was that beast in 2nd edition that only awoke every century or so, could easily kill you, and went around eating everything in it's path until it was full and slept for another century or so? I really wish that creature could be added as a side quest in ToB for your uber high level party. And make it next to impossible to kill, just for the fun of it.
I think a paladin is just a cleric that is much less devout to the god, and more focused on acting pious. I still enjoy playing them, but the way i play them, i'm quite lawful good, but would be cast out of the order fast.
For the KoT, they found the organised structure of how the KoS worked to keep things in line. It should mean that their own armies wont decend into chaos at the drop of a hat.
On a side note, what happened to the thread where you and me were insulting each other. Dreadknights /black guards vs paladins