@shawne I cannot fault your evil genius logic. You have brought the reallity of men in leather chairs, stroking white cats, with one thumb on the remote, for the drawbridge above the piranha tank, a little closer...
@Anduine Just noticed our names are very similar... Please can I say I have used my name for a long time (2004ish?) all over the place. Bioware, Spellhold Gibberlings 3 as well! Are you a long lost brother?
@Silverstar that was a great link. I've definitely tried to get away from that as I've grown up.
One of my favorite examples was my paladin in WoW. Lieutenant Commander Dragonspear. I spent almost all of vanilla running around in Battlegrounds with my friends on their grind to grand marshal (we'll ignore how badly THAT tanked my GPA that semester). However slowly she gained respect for people like the taurens, eventually not engaging in combat with them for no reason other than she believed them to be noble.
As I got deeper into PVE by Burning Crusade, I spent my time making sure that the areas my guild was about to raid in were cleared of the horde simply so that they could start saving the world in peace. But honestly Wrath story wise is where she finally realized that we all had to work together and put old grudges aside. She learned from her experiences against the Lich King and although she participated as a member of the alliance against the horde threats, she did so more out of duty than thinking they were purely evil. Also in my head I felt she was trying to encourage mercy and understanding between sessions of combat hoping to achieve peace.
She became another extension of my own outlook, which tries to find good and peace in everyone.
Edit: It also helps knowing once you can't redeem anyone anymore. For example: I won't go out of my way to redeem someone who attacks me, (Sarevok, the assassins, etc), but on the other hand once Sarevok is a possible party member (and under a geas) I might give him the chance. Or at least I'll put the geas on him next time since apparently you can change his alignment even putting him under one.
-Do not ally with Bodhi, as in BG2 the Thief/Bodhi ally choice is a chaos/evil choice.
No. Both organizations are evil. While I can see how some might say the Shadow Thieves are neutral they are not; they extort, assassinate and torture and while Aran Linvail might seem like an okay guy he's in charge of the organization that does said things. He even offers to have the traitorous sea captain hunted down and assassinated on your behalf, so it's not like he's blind and unaware. So really, no matter which organization you side with it is the evil one.
@Silverstar that was a great link. I've definitely tried to get away from that as I've grown up.
Heh. I was a bit unfair comparing Anduine there though (sorry man, I'll admit I didn't read your post thoroughly enough). But it's not uncommon to see people RP paladins in that way.
@Silverstar, extort, assassinate and torture are ways to achieve a result, that doesn't mean they're only evil exclusive behavior. The only affirmative i can give about it, is that this isn't a good aligned behavior.
In the shadow thieves the objective is profit, all the problematic instruments you mentioned are means to achieve the result, based only in this, their behavior are Neutral. They're also capable of good acts too, as you can be a good thief, get Maer'var stronghold and uphold good in your guild (as long the money keep flowing). Both good and evil exist inside the shadow thieves, if i evaluate that, to define a good/evil position i would have to consider them of Neutral Behavior (yet this isn't the point of my thread).
Bodhi objective is extortion, torture and assassinations, and the profit she made challenging the thief guild is a way to achieve her end.
Bodhi and Shadow Thieve just trade in role the position of objective and means to achieve it. Imoen at the end of ToB open a thief guild in Waterdeep (it's waterdeep if i'm not wrong), does that mean she's evil?
Between Bodhi and the Shadow Thieves, clearly Bodhi is the most evil. Yet between both, clearly the shadow thieves are the most chaotic by far.
I didn't evaluate them as good or evil before your post. They're surelly not good, but i can't call them always evil. What i can say about them is that the shadow thiefs are the opposite force of society laws and a lesser evil than Bodhi guild.
Ps: i don't made my mind about the good/evil of shadow thiefs, the only thing i support is that they're a lesser evil (if evil at all) than Bodhi. So i'm not even being directly opposed to your view here, just made some conjectures.
Ah, but in this fantasy world, we CAN. To be evil, you must have done something to label you so. Thinking evil, feeling evil, these do not MAKE you evil. Therefore, when I cast Detect Evil, I am shown by my god/training all in the area who have done deeds that make them currently evil. I do not believe it would be wrong to remove them from the world.
I do agree with you when it comes to saving but not helping some, though in the case of Viconia, I do not. I have a hatred of the drow, and for good reason. The only one I can tolerate is Drizzt, for obvious reasons.
No. Killing characters because of their alignment is not a Good act, and certainly isn't Lawful. A merchant might appear as Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil simply for abusing legitimate trade statutes to his own profit at the expense of his customers or business rivals. Killing him for such minor offenses is Evil, and killing him without any proof of any wrongdoings is Chaotic.
This fantasy world is medieval... I'm from England... You can go to my local church and read how good this and that was for the community back in 1458, and how they hung drawn and quatered over 60 witches and warlocks... Those poor people. THEY HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. No detect evil was used... They were just suspected of being in league with demonic forces...
Now you could say the good people buried in the church were pretty paladantic in their make up. They honestly felt they were doing good. The local people thought they were doing good. That they were in fact killing innocents never entered their tiny minds... I believe Anduine as a paladin would kill in the same vain, and think it GOOD.
BG doesnt handle Neutral and Evil path very well. Being evil basically just means refusing quests and paying more in shops for the sake of being evil. Evil NPCs are not strong enough to make up for it, even if it would be a valid consideration. Why would an evil cleric be more wise than a good cleric anyways.
Neutral path is even worse, it doesnt even exist and means basically mixing up being hero with being a psychotic murderer. Thats like totally not what neutrality is.
No. Killing characters because of their alignment is not a Good act, and certainly isn't Lawful. A merchant might appear as Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil simply for abusing legitimate trade statutes to his own profit at the expense of his customers or business rivals. Killing him for such minor offenses is Evil, and killing him without any proof of any wrongdoings is Chaotic.
I disagree a Paladin is bound and sworn to his god to destroy Chaotic Evil when he confronts it.
@Anduin What one "thinks" is Good is irrelevant to one's alignment. Many are the Lawful Evil villains who thought they were in fact the heroes of their stories. Believing you are doing the right thing doesn't change the nature of an act. Many of the despotic villains of D&D realms believe they are imposing order through their tyranny, and to do that they must knowingly and intentionally make some people suffer or die, a cost that they have accepted as necessary. They may even be right, but in D&D committing atrocities, even as a means to an end, is Evil.
I disagree a Paladin is bound and sworn to his god to destroy Chaotic Evil when he confronts it.
The purpose of a Paladin's Detect Evil is not for him to be able to say, "ah, here's where the bad guys for this campaign are, so let's kill them." Detect Evil is meant to allow for a Paladin to suspect others of wrongdoing when his other senses fail him, so that he can take the measure of a person and attempt to discern the truth of somebody's intent or work against them if he knows their intent to be harmful to the community. And, keep in mind, that only the Paladin can see what his Detect Evil divines. The ability does not illuminate these truths for others. If, for instance, the Paladin were to detect that Sarevok was Chaotic Evil and gut him in the street, the only thing others would see is some lunatic cutting down a largely well-liked political figure for no reason. Instead, partially because he doesn't want to be arrested and partially because he is LAWFUL, the Paladin is supposed to use this knowledge to work against Sarevok and find proof of his misdeeds, and only THEN make a citizen's arrest or strike the man down.
No one is totally evil/good. Destroy evil can be done by frustating an evil plot without killing the bad intentioned persons that executed it.
You can destroy evil by helping a person to change, to become good. This is the ultimate form of destroy evil in my view, you don't need to put a sword on the belly of every person that has greed or envy in his soul.
Just to remember (and for my surprise too), Keldorn and Korgan stick with each other specially well, too much even.
Ah, but in this fantasy world, we CAN. To be evil, you must have done something to label you so. Thinking evil, feeling evil, these do not MAKE you evil. Therefore, when I cast Detect Evil, I am shown by my god/training all in the area who have done deeds that make them currently evil. I do not believe it would be wrong to remove them from the world.
I do agree with you when it comes to saving but not helping some, though in the case of Viconia, I do not. I have a hatred of the drow, and for good reason. The only one I can tolerate is Drizzt, for obvious reasons.
No. Killing characters because of their alignment is not a Good act, and certainly isn't Lawful. A merchant might appear as Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil simply for abusing legitimate trade statutes to his own profit at the expense of his customers or business rivals. Killing him for such minor offenses is Evil, and killing him without any proof of any wrongdoings is Chaotic.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I have no interest in debating philosophy with you, or going too in-depth with alignments to forget that we are talking about a game. I respect that you do not agree with my style of gaming, but I chose a Paladin, I clicked Lawful Good, and in my playing time I never lost any alignment points or reputation, thus making me Lawful Good to the end, regardless of how resentful you are towards my actions.
Your speculation as to why a merchant might appear as evil is just that: mere speculation. The fact is, in Baldur's Gate, my god has bestowed me with the power to detect evil, wherever it might be. It is a powerful gift that I intend to make liberal use of. There is no "kinda" or "maybe" about the detect evil spell. It bases it's detection upon the past and current deeds of all affected individuals, not their philosophies or thoughts. Therefore, by ensuring that I only kill those who are evil, I have done no wrong in the eyes of my god or my ideals.
I should also remind you that just because I am in an RPG does not mean that I must actively RP every action that I do. I treat video games differently than I do the pen and paper version. I hope you will note, once again, that I have not questioned your playing styles or even come to resent you for them.
@Anduin: I too have been using this name for many years. In regards to your comments of witch-hunting, I see where you are going, and to a minor extent, I agree. The difference being, as you said, that there was no 100% infallible spell granted to you by your chosen 100% infallible god. The detect evil spell is incapable of error. The spell either succeeds or is resisted, but either way, it did not actually fail in it's judgement of those that are evil.
@lmaoboat: Ha! My friends and I often joke about Oblivion Guards. Comical or not, I do have a certain respect for them. I sometimes joke that St. Cuthbert himself would come down and approach the guards, telling them that they are too LN even for him!
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I have no interest in debating philosophy with you, or going too in-depth with alignments to forget that we are talking about a game. I respect that you do not agree with my style of gaming, but I chose a Paladin, I clicked Lawful Good, and in my playing time I never lost any alignment points or reputation, thus making me Lawful Good to the end, regardless of how resentful you are towards my actions.
Your speculation as to why a merchant might appear as evil is just that: mere speculation. The fact is, in Baldur's Gate, my god has bestowed me with the power to detect evil, wherever it might be. It is a powerful gift that I intend to make liberal use of. There is no "kinda" or "maybe" about the detect evil spell. It bases it's detection upon the past and current deeds of all affected individuals, not their philosophies or thoughts. Therefore, by ensuring that I only kill those who are evil, I have done no wrong in the eyes of my god or my ideals.
I should also remind you that just because I am in an RPG does not mean that I must actively RP every action that I do. I treat video games differently than I do the pen and paper version. I hope you will note, once again, that I have not questioned your playing styles or even come to resent you for them.
You can't be Lawful Good by murdering people in the street unprovoked, and the Flaming Fist wouldn't let you off the hook because Lathander said it was cool. Murder is against the law, and generally frowned upon by polite society. In fact, all your god is telling you is that "this dude is dagnasty evil, so you should be wary of him," not "this dude is dagnasty evil, SLICE HIM IN HALF IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE TOWN FOR SEEMINGLY NO REASON." Remember, nobody else can actually see that infallible red glow. To witnesses, and more importantly the authorities, he just looks like any other normal person. And, once he's dead, nobody else can detect his alignment to prove your slanderous claims.
A Lawful Neutral magistrate would most certainly attempt to punish a rampaging Paladin to the full extent of the law, and no amount of evil detection could prevent said Paladin from being thrown in prison.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I have no interest in debating philosophy with you, or going too in-depth with alignments to forget that we are talking about a game. I respect that you do not agree with my style of gaming, but I chose a Paladin, I clicked Lawful Good, and in my playing time I never lost any alignment points or reputation, thus making me Lawful Good to the end, regardless of how resentful you are towards my actions.
Your speculation as to why a merchant might appear as evil is just that: mere speculation. The fact is, in Baldur's Gate, my god has bestowed me with the power to detect evil, wherever it might be. It is a powerful gift that I intend to make liberal use of. There is no "kinda" or "maybe" about the detect evil spell. It bases it's detection upon the past and current deeds of all affected individuals, not their philosophies or thoughts. Therefore, by ensuring that I only kill those who are evil, I have done no wrong in the eyes of my god or my ideals.
I should also remind you that just because I am in an RPG does not mean that I must actively RP every action that I do. I treat video games differently than I do the pen and paper version. I hope you will note, once again, that I have not questioned your playing styles or even come to resent you for them.
You can't be Lawful Good by murdering people in the street unprovoked, and the Flaming Fist wouldn't let you off the hook because Lathander said it was cool. Murder is against the law, and generally frowned upon by polite society. In fact, all your god is telling you is that "this dude is dagnasty evil, so you should be wary of him," not "this dude is dagnasty evil, SLICE HIM IN HALF IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE TOWN FOR SEEMINGLY NO REASON." Remember, nobody else can actually see that infallible red glow. To witnesses, and more importantly the authorities, he just looks like any other normal person. And, once he's dead, nobody else can detect his alignment to prove your slanderous claims.
A Lawful Neutral magistrate would most certainly attempt to punish a rampaging Paladin to the full extent of the law, and no amount of evil detection could prevent said Paladin from being thrown in prison.
Then perhaps I should clarify once more that I use detect evil with a short observation of the character prior to attacking the evildoer, and I do not kill every single evildoer that I find. I should also clarify that it seems you are trying to apply all of the pen and paper rules to the Baldur's Gate series. You say that I cannot be Lawful Good by murdering evil in the street, and that the Flaming Fist would not let me off the hook. Well, I AM Lawful Good while doing so, and the Flaming Fist DOES let me off the hook. As I mentioned. I've never lost my alignment in the slightest or lost any reputation points throughout the entire game. I was and still am Lawful Good.
Also, your interpretation of what my god intends to tell me via Detect Evil is just that: your interpretation, just like I have my own interpretation, and it's clearly not wrong, otherwise I would no longer be a Paladin. Paladins that defy the will of their gods can and will be divinely stripped of their abilities. As for no one else seeing the red glow, you are correct, but let's remember that clerics are quite common in this fantasy world, and it's a reasonable assumption for me to say that I am not the only person to ever cast Detect Evil. My "slanderous claims" (Despite me still being a Lawful Good Paladin) can easily be detected by someone casting detect alignment on or near me.
I have never encountered a Lawful Neutral magistrate once in the entire BG series, and the only time I was arrested was in BG1 when I turned myself in to the Flaming Fist to be arrested for what occured at Candlekeep.
When I read your posts, it seems that you believe that there is one way and only one way to play a Paladin, and that you let the lines between the rules of Baldur's Gate and the rules of the pen and paper D&D cross until they cannot be seen anymore. On that note, the rules are mere guidelines in the hands of any DM. The real rule about D&D is imagination, and that's all.
I would be happy to provide a screenshot of my Character Record in the "final save" of Baldur's Gate, proving to you that I can be and still am Lawful Good to the end, regardless of what you think should happen or not.
Lastly, I once again reiterate that how I play video games and how I RP in pen and paper games are not the same. I've beaten the BG series numerous times, and I play how I want. I do not need to justify my actions until the game says I do. I am not evil until the text on the screen says that I am, and I am still a Lawful Good Paladin of righteousness until the game tells me that I am not. Every opinion and rant in the universe itself can never change that fact.
That's ridiculous. The game is a terrible metric for dictating how alignments work, considering no amount of murderous rampaging will ever change any alignment to any other alignment. You could literally kill every living person in the game and still remain Lawful Good. But, from a roleplaying perspective, you simply aren't Lawful Good, no matter lies what your character sheet might tell you.
That's ridiculous. The game is a terrible metric for dictating how alignments work, considering no amount of murderous rampaging will ever change any alignment to any other alignment. You could literally kill every living person in the game and still remain Lawful Good. But, from a roleplaying perspective, you simply aren't Lawful Good, no matter lies what your character sheet might tell you.
How is the game a terrible metric for dictating how alignments work in the game? Seeing as the game is the one and only grounds I am using in this discussion? If we were discussing the pen and paper rules, my entire arguement would be quite different, but we are not. My stance is grounded on the BG series alone.
I guess that I need to be extremely blunt in mentioning that I really don't care about the roleplaying perspective of a video game unless it's relatively new to me and I decide I will be RPing from the beginning to the end...neither of which fit me in this case.
Is the poll not doomed to be biased, then, in favor of "Good" players who are just choosing the Good alignment and not actually playing Good characters?
I mean, how many people are voting "Good" and then promptly cleaving Algernon and Drizzt in half for their precious loot?
Sorry, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people claim they're playing Good characters and, in the same breath have no problem killing bystanders. Pen and paper versus video game isn't important to me. D&D is D&D.
Is the poll not doomed to be biased, then, in favor of "Good" players who are just choosing the Good alignment and not actually playing Good characters?
I mean, how many people are voting "Good" and then promptly cleaving Algernon and Drizzt in half for their precious loot?
Sorry, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people claim they're playing Good characters and, in the same breath have no problem killing bystanders. Pen and paper versus video game isn't important to me. D&D is D&D.
I see what you mean about the poll, but remember that these are only forums, and it's filled with nothing more than opinion. The poll question is "What is your favourite alignment group to play in Baldur's Gate", and there was no subtlety intended for that question, no hidden motives. The question is itself.
I'm sure there are a number of people who play Good simply for loot. While I do not, I would not ever presume to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, or that they are wrong in their choices. This is afterall a game, and nothing more.
I understand and even respect your passion about D&D. However, it is not the "be all, end all". It is an opinion, and no more or less right or wrong than mine. Pen and paper versus video game is *quite* important to me, because of the time invested and details involved.
With pen and paper, the details are absolutely everything. A thousand hours in a single campaign could be nothing more than a few steps forward in my eyes. A thousand hours in a video game, however, likely means you have beaten that game multiple times, or are taking your time doing literally every single thing possible prior to ending the game. I abide by video game rules and pen and paper rules separately.
With pen and paper, I always am one with my character. With a video game, I sometimes just view myself as controlling a few armored individuals for my amusement. It is, afterall, a video game.
I normally play a more merciful character, but I once had the quest bug out during the Underdark part, and I had to slaughter every single Drow in the city to continue, and I have to admit I felt pretty good afterwards.
I normally play a more merciful character, but I once had the quest bug out during the Underdark part, and I had to slaughter every single Drow in the city to continue, and I have to admit I felt pretty good afterwards.
I speak for myself and perhaps Minsc as well when I say "Good job!"
I think the problem is that D&D - and its alignment system - originated in the '70s, when most fantastic fiction still based itself on absolute moral binaries (ie: good vs. evil, Jedi vs. Sith, etc.) You can't kill the bad guy in direct combat because you'll be just like him, but if you leave his castle and blow it up, that's perfectly kosher. The concept of psychological motivation and individual choice didn't really become a factor until the early '90s, which is when you started getting a lot more complex and ambiguous versions of conflict.
But BG is a D&D game and operates on D&D rules. So if a Paladin kills a Chaotic Evil person who was just sitting around reading a book, it's justified within the moral system of the game.
I think the problem is that D&D - and its alignment system - originated in the '70s, when most fantastic fiction still based itself on absolute moral binaries (ie: good vs. evil, Jedi vs. Sith, etc.) You can't kill the bad guy in direct combat because you'll be just like him, but if you leave his castle and blow it up, that's perfectly kosher. The concept of psychological motivation and individual choice didn't really become a factor until the early '90s, which is when you started getting a lot more complex and ambiguous versions of conflict.
But BG is a D&D game and operates on D&D rules. So if a Paladin kills a Chaotic Evil person who was just sitting around reading a book, it's justified within the moral system of the game.
Interesting perspective on the alignment system, and I completely agree with you on the matter of the Paladin. Let's also remember that this is all just a game, so I do not believe alignments were meant to be ferociously torn into, looking for all shades of gray and justifications for any and all actions.
Interesting perspective on the alignment system, and I completely agree with you on the matter of the Paladin. Let's also remember that this is all just a game, so I do not believe alignments were meant to be ferociously torn into, looking for all shades of gray and justifications for any and all actions.
I disagree with that last comment - it's not as if other RPGs haven't managed that concept well (ie: Dragon Age, Mass Effect). It's just that BG is based on D&D, and D&D works on the assumption of absolutes: if you're Lawful Good, you're always Lawful Good and can never have a bad day, and if you're Chaotic Evil it's "out of character" to have any kind of compassion for anyone at any time.
Interesting perspective on the alignment system, and I completely agree with you on the matter of the Paladin. Let's also remember that this is all just a game, so I do not believe alignments were meant to be ferociously torn into, looking for all shades of gray and justifications for any and all actions.
I disagree with that last comment - it's not as if other RPGs haven't managed that concept well (ie: Dragon Age, Mass Effect). It's just that BG is based on D&D, and D&D works on the assumption of absolutes: if you're Lawful Good, you're always Lawful Good and can never have a bad day, and if you're Chaotic Evil it's "out of character" to have any kind of compassion for anyone at any time.
So you do believe that games were made with the intention of having their alignment systems "ferociously torn into, looking for all shades of gray and justifications for any and all actions?"
I guess I just don't like the concept of taking games to be a critically serious topic.
Comments
@Anduine Just noticed our names are very similar... Please can I say I have used my name for a long time (2004ish?) all over the place. Bioware, Spellhold Gibberlings 3 as well! Are you a long lost brother?
http://www.shsforums.net/topic/54964-can-we-rename-this-forum-please/page__view__findpost__p__543852
One of my favorite examples was my paladin in WoW. Lieutenant Commander Dragonspear. I spent almost all of vanilla running around in Battlegrounds with my friends on their grind to grand marshal (we'll ignore how badly THAT tanked my GPA that semester). However slowly she gained respect for people like the taurens, eventually not engaging in combat with them for no reason other than she believed them to be noble.
As I got deeper into PVE by Burning Crusade, I spent my time making sure that the areas my guild was about to raid in were cleared of the horde simply so that they could start saving the world in peace. But honestly Wrath story wise is where she finally realized that we all had to work together and put old grudges aside. She learned from her experiences against the Lich King and although she participated as a member of the alliance against the horde threats, she did so more out of duty than thinking they were purely evil. Also in my head I felt she was trying to encourage mercy and understanding between sessions of combat hoping to achieve peace.
She became another extension of my own outlook, which tries to find good and peace in everyone.
Edit: It also helps knowing once you can't redeem anyone anymore. For example: I won't go out of my way to redeem someone who attacks me, (Sarevok, the assassins, etc), but on the other hand once Sarevok is a possible party member (and under a geas) I might give him the chance. Or at least I'll put the geas on him next time since apparently you can change his alignment even putting him under one.
In the shadow thieves the objective is profit, all the problematic instruments you mentioned are means to achieve the result, based only in this, their behavior are Neutral. They're also capable of good acts too, as you can be a good thief, get Maer'var stronghold and uphold good in your guild (as long the money keep flowing).
Both good and evil exist inside the shadow thieves, if i evaluate that, to define a good/evil position i would have to consider them of Neutral Behavior (yet this isn't the point of my thread).
Bodhi objective is extortion, torture and assassinations, and the profit she made challenging the thief guild is a way to achieve her end.
Bodhi and Shadow Thieve just trade in role the position of objective and means to achieve it. Imoen at the end of ToB open a thief guild in Waterdeep (it's waterdeep if i'm not wrong), does that mean she's evil?
Between Bodhi and the Shadow Thieves, clearly Bodhi is the most evil. Yet between both, clearly the shadow thieves are the most chaotic by far.
I didn't evaluate them as good or evil before your post. They're surelly not good, but i can't call them always evil. What i can say about them is that the shadow thiefs are the opposite force of society laws and a lesser evil than Bodhi guild.
Ps: i don't made my mind about the good/evil of shadow thiefs, the only thing i support is that they're a lesser evil (if evil at all) than Bodhi. So i'm not even being directly opposed to your view here, just made some conjectures.
Me, Imoen, Khalid, Jaheira, Montaron and Xzar
Now you could say the good people buried in the church were pretty paladantic in their make up. They honestly felt they were doing good. The local people thought they were doing good. That they were in fact killing innocents never entered their tiny minds... I believe Anduine as a paladin would kill in the same vain, and think it GOOD.
Neutral path is even worse, it doesnt even exist and means basically mixing up being hero with being a psychotic murderer. Thats like totally not what neutrality is.
What one "thinks" is Good is irrelevant to one's alignment. Many are the Lawful Evil villains who thought they were in fact the heroes of their stories. Believing you are doing the right thing doesn't change the nature of an act. Many of the despotic villains of D&D realms believe they are imposing order through their tyranny, and to do that they must knowingly and intentionally make some people suffer or die, a cost that they have accepted as necessary. They may even be right, but in D&D committing atrocities, even as a means to an end, is Evil. The purpose of a Paladin's Detect Evil is not for him to be able to say, "ah, here's where the bad guys for this campaign are, so let's kill them." Detect Evil is meant to allow for a Paladin to suspect others of wrongdoing when his other senses fail him, so that he can take the measure of a person and attempt to discern the truth of somebody's intent or work against them if he knows their intent to be harmful to the community. And, keep in mind, that only the Paladin can see what his Detect Evil divines. The ability does not illuminate these truths for others. If, for instance, the Paladin were to detect that Sarevok was Chaotic Evil and gut him in the street, the only thing others would see is some lunatic cutting down a largely well-liked political figure for no reason. Instead, partially because he doesn't want to be arrested and partially because he is LAWFUL, the Paladin is supposed to use this knowledge to work against Sarevok and find proof of his misdeeds, and only THEN make a citizen's arrest or strike the man down.
No one is totally evil/good. Destroy evil can be done by frustating an evil plot without killing the bad intentioned persons that executed it.
You can destroy evil by helping a person to change, to become good. This is the ultimate form of destroy evil in my view, you don't need to put a sword on the belly of every person that has greed or envy in his soul.
Just to remember (and for my surprise too), Keldorn and Korgan stick with each other specially well, too much even.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I have no interest in debating philosophy with you, or going too in-depth with alignments to forget that we are talking about a game. I respect that you do not agree with my style of gaming, but I chose a Paladin, I clicked Lawful Good, and in my playing time I never lost any alignment points or reputation, thus making me Lawful Good to the end, regardless of how resentful you are towards my actions.
Your speculation as to why a merchant might appear as evil is just that: mere speculation. The fact is, in Baldur's Gate, my god has bestowed me with the power to detect evil, wherever it might be. It is a powerful gift that I intend to make liberal use of. There is no "kinda" or "maybe" about the detect evil spell. It bases it's detection upon the past and current deeds of all affected individuals, not their philosophies or thoughts. Therefore, by ensuring that I only kill those who are evil, I have done no wrong in the eyes of my god or my ideals.
I should also remind you that just because I am in an RPG does not mean that I must actively RP every action that I do. I treat video games differently than I do the pen and paper version. I hope you will note, once again, that I have not questioned your playing styles or even come to resent you for them.
@Anduin: I too have been using this name for many years. In regards to your comments of witch-hunting, I see where you are going, and to a minor extent, I agree. The difference being, as you said, that there was no 100% infallible spell granted to you by your chosen 100% infallible god. The detect evil spell is incapable of error. The spell either succeeds or is resisted, but either way, it did not actually fail in it's judgement of those that are evil.
A Lawful Neutral magistrate would most certainly attempt to punish a rampaging Paladin to the full extent of the law, and no amount of evil detection could prevent said Paladin from being thrown in prison.
Then perhaps I should clarify once more that I use detect evil with a short observation of the character prior to attacking the evildoer, and I do not kill every single evildoer that I find. I should also clarify that it seems you are trying to apply all of the pen and paper rules to the Baldur's Gate series. You say that I cannot be Lawful Good by murdering evil in the street, and that the Flaming Fist would not let me off the hook. Well, I AM Lawful Good while doing so, and the Flaming Fist DOES let me off the hook. As I mentioned. I've never lost my alignment in the slightest or lost any reputation points throughout the entire game. I was and still am Lawful Good.
Also, your interpretation of what my god intends to tell me via Detect Evil is just that: your interpretation, just like I have my own interpretation, and it's clearly not wrong, otherwise I would no longer be a Paladin. Paladins that defy the will of their gods can and will be divinely stripped of their abilities. As for no one else seeing the red glow, you are correct, but let's remember that clerics are quite common in this fantasy world, and it's a reasonable assumption for me to say that I am not the only person to ever cast Detect Evil. My "slanderous claims" (Despite me still being a Lawful Good Paladin) can easily be detected by someone casting detect alignment on or near me.
I have never encountered a Lawful Neutral magistrate once in the entire BG series, and the only time I was arrested was in BG1 when I turned myself in to the Flaming Fist to be arrested for what occured at Candlekeep.
When I read your posts, it seems that you believe that there is one way and only one way to play a Paladin, and that you let the lines between the rules of Baldur's Gate and the rules of the pen and paper D&D cross until they cannot be seen anymore. On that note, the rules are mere guidelines in the hands of any DM. The real rule about D&D is imagination, and that's all.
I would be happy to provide a screenshot of my Character Record in the "final save" of Baldur's Gate, proving to you that I can be and still am Lawful Good to the end, regardless of what you think should happen or not.
Lastly, I once again reiterate that how I play video games and how I RP in pen and paper games are not the same. I've beaten the BG series numerous times, and I play how I want. I do not need to justify my actions until the game says I do. I am not evil until the text on the screen says that I am, and I am still a Lawful Good Paladin of righteousness until the game tells me that I am not. Every opinion and rant in the universe itself can never change that fact.
How is the game a terrible metric for dictating how alignments work in the game? Seeing as the game is the one and only grounds I am using in this discussion? If we were discussing the pen and paper rules, my entire arguement would be quite different, but we are not. My stance is grounded on the BG series alone.
I guess that I need to be extremely blunt in mentioning that I really don't care about the roleplaying perspective of a video game unless it's relatively new to me and I decide I will be RPing from the beginning to the end...neither of which fit me in this case.
I mean, how many people are voting "Good" and then promptly cleaving Algernon and Drizzt in half for their precious loot?
Sorry, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people claim they're playing Good characters and, in the same breath have no problem killing bystanders. Pen and paper versus video game isn't important to me. D&D is D&D.
I'm sure there are a number of people who play Good simply for loot. While I do not, I would not ever presume to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, or that they are wrong in their choices. This is afterall a game, and nothing more.
I understand and even respect your passion about D&D. However, it is not the "be all, end all". It is an opinion, and no more or less right or wrong than mine. Pen and paper versus video game is *quite* important to me, because of the time invested and details involved.
With pen and paper, the details are absolutely everything. A thousand hours in a single campaign could be nothing more than a few steps forward in my eyes. A thousand hours in a video game, however, likely means you have beaten that game multiple times, or are taking your time doing literally every single thing possible prior to ending the game. I abide by video game rules and pen and paper rules separately.
With pen and paper, I always am one with my character. With a video game, I sometimes just view myself as controlling a few armored individuals for my amusement. It is, afterall, a video game.
But BG is a D&D game and operates on D&D rules. So if a Paladin kills a Chaotic Evil person who was just sitting around reading a book, it's justified within the moral system of the game.
I guess I just don't like the concept of taking games to be a critically serious topic.