Not necessarily. Just because someone is evil doesn't make it good to kill them, and it certainly isn't lawful without a proper trial or sanction. Good doesn't want to kill others unless it's absolutely necessary to defend themselves and other, or, MAYBE, to prevent a truly inevitable murder in the near future.
That's why it's in-character for Keldorn to attack Hexxat, but not Edwin or Viconia. Vampires are known to feed on the life energy of others to survive, and it's not something that heals without powerful magic. They maim and kill others to survive, and Hexxat straight-up tells you not only that she sneaks off and murders people, but she doesn't regret it in the least because she has to do it to survive.
Viconia and Edwin, on the other hand, while evil charcters, aren't going out and killing people while they're in the party. They can be obnoxious, but killing them for existing without any sort of context that justifies taking a life isn't a good deed and isn't a proper choice for a paladin.
You know, Detect Evil is probably the stupidiest spell of all D&D regarding the FR lore...
It is impossible to do anything coherent RP-wise if you take in account this spell, because, simply, if this spell truly existed in the Forgotten Realms, evil would simply not be able to exist anywhere on the prime plane outside the Underdark... you would not even need judges, or guards or adventurers, because any evil creature would be purged by the paladins within two days.
Accounting Detect Evil, the temple of Talos in Akhtala should be a pile of ruins since decades seeing how close it is from a paladin order, Korgan should be dead simply for having put his feet in a public place so often, the Shadow Thieves and the vampires should never have been able to develop within, the Cowled Wizard should have been half-slaughtered, the slavers should be inexistant, etc etc etc
So... well... for the sake of our mental sanity, let's forget that Detect Evil currently exist as a spell...
I'm not sure alignment is a good thing regarding the FR lore. It makes some sense as a game mechanic though. And if alignment is worthwile as a game mechanic, then detection of alignment works for me too. Forget it exists? Never.
Detect evil and know allignment are some of the only methods to make alignment at all relevant to a game. Its hard enough for humans to parse out meaning of actions, let alone to codify judgements in a game. It makes the RP coherent by removing the ambiguity of motives.
Alignment is a declaration the player makes at character creation of saying that no matter what actions the character makes in the short term, ultimately it is for the sake of good/evil. Alignment Its a bias that the character was born with. Its a pervasive pull felt like a small force throughout a lifetime. Due to circumstance some characters will do many good deeds but the pull is constant and the longer it's felt the more irresistible it becomes.
I like playing with Detect Evil. I RP alignments as factions of the gods. If you are evil, then some god of the evil faction is claiming you as its patron. If you are a palidin/cleric, you can detect that patronage.
It's always interesting to see people's different definitions of "paladin". Personally, I wouldn't call @Moonheart 's idea of a paladin lawful good, much less paladinly. Killing evil without regard for whether it can be saved or redeemed, or whether there's a better way in general, sounds extremely lawful neutral to me. After all, the character isn't trying to maximize the goodness in the world. They just have a strict rule by which they decide to kill people, with no judgment of whether that's the best path. That, to me, is the epitome of lawful neutral, and any paladin who acted that way in one of my games would fall almost immediately. Which doesn't mean I think all paladins are looking to redeem evil, but a paladin who refuses to try when the opportunity presents itself has to have a good reason for why they think killing the person is morally better than trying to redeem them.
But of course I don't mean to suggest that my interpretation is somehow inherently more correct. These disagreements are the most interesting thing about paladins. And, frankly, they're why I kind of dislike the fact that the alignment system requires the DM to hand down an answer from on high. Moral questions are at their most interesting when they remain questions.
One thing to consider about the Keldorn argument, he is a lawful good character that agrees to follow CHARNAME into battle. I see him in a similar way to how Samara behaves in Mass Effect 2, in that she absolves herself of most decision making by compacting with Shepherd, but something that violates her code too blatantly may require her to bring him to justice after their mission. The reason Keldorn might tolerate a character like Viconia in the party is because he, as a lawful character, has devoted himself to following CHARNAME, who might have a more flexible world view than himself. It is not necessarily his place to question the leadership (he is, after all, very familiar with the chain of command). However, something exceptionally evil, such as bringing along a blackguard or a vampire simply outweighs his duty to the party, just as he will leave the party if CHARNAME acts in a manner he considers evil (low reputation). He might be suspicious of a drow, and constantly have his eyes on her, but he is intolerant of vampires as their very nature is entirely evil.
It's always interesting to see people's different definitions of "paladin". Personally, I wouldn't call @Moonheart 's idea of a paladin lawful good, much less paladinly. Killing evil without regard for whether it can be saved or redeemed, or whether there's a better way in general, sounds extremely lawful neutral to me. After all, the character isn't trying to maximize the goodness in the world.
You know, as there are several ways to be evil, there are several ways to be good. And if attempting to maximize the goodness in the world is a valid way to be good, in the FR setting, slay evil beings without a glimpse of pity or afterthoughts has always been another valid method to justify a "good" alignement.
But the alignement is not the problem there.... The problem is that Paladins are not preachers: They are executors.
Paladins are the slayers that are sent to deal with individuals that are percieved as so obviously evil that they doesn't even deserve a trial or an attempt to redeem from the autorities. Candidates for such a treatement include, by the faerunian's standards, all undeads, fiends, abominations, shadows, demonists and necromancers... (I probably forget a few here)
Drows and cleric of evil deities, however, can be redeemed. That's why Paladins do not slay them at sight, and why Keldorn can somewhat... hem... deal with Victonia...
However, for Dorn and Hexxat, they are two people beyond redemption by faerunian's standards. Dorn's soul is already lost to the infernal planes even if he breaks his contract, and Hexxat is a vampire, a being unable to survive if she attempt to lead a good existance.
So... yes... sorry... but for paladins, it's like if they had "must be destroyed asap" tatooed on their foreheads. There is no way a paladin would associate with one of them without being forced to do so by a very strong magic.
The second and third paladin stronghold quests don't seem particularly needful of a "slayer". More like someone who uses their judgement to do the right thing.
I must disagree with your assessment of Hexxat for two reasons. She did not seek out becoming a vampire...unlike say Bodhi. And in her final quest she does redeem herself by not wanting to remain a vampire but to die as a human instead. She is not beyond redemption.
The fact she didn't ask to become a vampire is irrelevant, almost no vampire did ask for it. A vampire is evil as soon it decide to sacrifice others to extend its own existence, it is as simple as that, and Hexxat is not an acception.
Dying human does not redeem Hexxat either. Redeeming is a process where you compensate for your evil deeds, and Hexxat didn't provide compensation for any of the lives she took. She instead INCREASED the amount of casualties by delaying her death so she could have a "better" death in her own opinion
To the eyes of a paladin, there is nothing here that would push him to cooperate with her. The most important things regarding vampires for a paladin is that the vampire dies fast, so he doesn't do more casualties. How it dies is totaly secondary to this.
The fact she didn't ask to become a vampire is irrelevant, almost no vampire did ask for it. A vampire is evil as soon it decide to sacrifice others to extend its own existence, it is as simple as that, and Hexxat is not an acception.
Dying human does not redeem Hexxat either. Redeeming is a process where you compensate for your evil deeds, and Hexxat didn't provide compensation for any of the lives she took. She instead INCREASED the amount of casualties by delaying her death so she could have a "better" death in her own opinion
To the eyes of a paladin, there is nothing here that would push him to cooperate with her. The most important things regarding vampires for a paladin is that the vampire dies fast, so he doesn't do more casualties. How it dies is totaly secondary to this.
Well, you play your game your way and I will play it mine.
@Moonheart you're being a bit arrogand dude, it's almost as if Anomen came to the thread to discuss with us !
You're drawing points that aren't permanent trues: "paladins must be this, do that, accept some, immediatly kill others" and in the same line you're taking any feature of the game that discredit or conflict with your affirmatives and throwing them away with the statements: "That's not compatible with other lore in the game, it's purely mechanical for the game".
Take your last post for example:
You resume redemption to a single path of what you believe it's redemption, thus anything else is discarded.
Define evil for the need of another death to survive: You see? Every human is evil then, as we're onivorous beings and meat is into our menu.
But the alignement is not the problem there.... The problem is that Paladins are not preachers: They are executors.
Can you back up this point? I think it's the crux of your argument, but you seem to be simply assuming it's correct without providing evidence. Personally, I would argue that a paladin is absolutely a preacher, but a preacher-by-deeds instead of a preacher-by-words. Paladins, through their actions, inspire others to be good and just, to make the world a better place. They show people that you don't have to succumb to evil, whether it be an invading horde or the temptations of sin. This inspiring nature is why PnP paladins extend some of their fear resistance to nearby allies. It's not the paladin's job to execute evil. It's the paladin's job to be the champion so many people wish they could be.
I also find myself thinking of the story of Sir Gawain and the Greek Knight. Sir Gawain was a Knight of the Round Table, and in early stories was considered the strongest and most noble of King Arthur's knights. And in SGGK, by far Sir Gawain's most famous story, he learns the value of not just going around killing every enemy he finds. Now, Sir Gawain isn't the only mythological inspiration for paladins, but he's one of them, and I don't think that's entirely without significance.
@Moonheart you're being a bit arrogand dude, it's almost as if Anomen came to the thread to discuss with us !
You're drawing points that aren't permanent trues: "paladins must be this, do that, accept some, immediatly kill others" and in the same line you're taking any feature of the game that discredit or conflict with your affirmatives and throwing them away with the statements: "That's not compatible with other lore in the game, it's purely mechanical for the game".
Then explain the purpose and ethics of the Undead Hunter?
You should know, Beamdog has created greys in a world which actually was quite black and white (Paladins in AD&D 2nd edition). I accept Hexxat because I want to do her quests, but from role playing perspective I find it quite puzzling that Keldorn doesn't drive a sword through her from the beginning. Fortunately it is at least possible to turn her down as a companion and fight her, as I probably will do if I ever play a Paladin PC (not likely to happen, but still). Also, Keldorn will at length demand you banish Hexxat from the party, and Hexxat will (try to?) leave if your rep goes too high.
One thing is the philosophical debate about "what is evil really?", another thing is a Paladin accepting an Undead creature which feeds on the lives of others and clashes with everything a Paladin holds true and dear as companion. The AD&D 2nd Edition rules are quite clear on this: if a Paladin willfully cooperates with an evil character the Paladin loses his or her special status and is converted to a Fighter, and must do an atonement quest to become a Paladin again.
Yes, you should know by now that one does NEVER question anything about the EEs. That is "whining" and "trying to bring Beamdog down" or some such.
It's an off-topic talk, it doesn't relate to a paladin and Hexxat in one group theme. And you can critique the EEs on these boards, no problem, you just have to offer something constructive in your feedback.
And guys, please, be nice to each other. There's no need to go personal in your comments.
Yes, you should know by now that one does NEVER question anything about the EEs. That is "whining" and "trying to bring Beamdog down" or some such.
It's an off-topic talk, it doesn't relate to a paladin and Hexxat in one group theme. And you can critique the EEs on these boards, no problem, you just have to offer something constructive in your feedback.
And guys, please, be nice to each other. There's no need to go personal in your comments.
Oh, by all means. I'm not referring to what you or Beamdog say. I'm referring to what some of the more ...zealous... supporters of Beamdog say. And their behavior at times.
Yes, you should know by now that one does NEVER question anything about the EEs.
I was not. I was just merely writing down all the knowledge I still remember from the FR lore regarding paladins, thinking it could help other players.
But it seems it's arrogant to do so. So... well... *sigh* road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't know why I even tried to be helpful in the first place... I don't truly care if you want to play Twilight in BG2 and play a female paladin that will have some hardcore sex with a lesbian vampire, after all.
Yes, you should know by now that one does NEVER question anything about the EEs.
I was not. I was just merely writing down all the knowledge I still remember from the FR lore regarding paladins, thinking it could help other players.
But it seems it's arrogant to do so. So... well... *sigh* road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't know why I even tried to be helpful in the first place... I don't truly care if you want to play Twilight in BG2 and play a female paladin that will have some hardcore sex with a lesbian vampire, after all.
Do as you please
Perhaps if you had prefaced your comments with IMO, as opposed to speaking ex cathedra on behalf of Gary Gygax. You play how you want. The main rule of DnD is House Rules. Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.
Perhaps if you had prefaced your comments with IMO, as opposed to speaking ex cathedra on behalf of Gary Gygax. You play how you want. The main rule of DnD is House Rules. Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.
Other than that, I agree... Your game, your rules.
But that doesn't change the fact that according to AD&D 2nd (and a few things from 3rd) edition on which the BG games and IWD are based, a Paladin - be it a PC or NPC Paladin - that willfully cooperates with a creature of evil such as a Vampire will fall from Paladin status and must atone. And that I gather is what Moonheart is trying to convey. That some find this arguable at all baffles (and amuses) me.
Perhaps if you had prefaced your comments with IMO, as opposed to speaking ex cathedra on behalf of Gary Gygax. You play how you want. The main rule of DnD is House Rules. Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.
Other than that, I agree... Your game, your rules.
But that doesn't change the fact that according to AD&D 2nd (and a few things from 3rd) edition on which the BG games and IWD are based, a Paladin - be it a PC or NPC Paladin - that willfully cooperates with a creature of evil such as a Vampire will fall from Paladin status and must atone. And that I gather is what Moonheart is trying to convey. That some find this arguable at all baffles (and amuses) me.
I guess the distinction is that I do not consider vampires automatically evil based simply on the fact they are vampires. So when charname's romantic interest gets turned by Bodhi, should we not make the attempt to go to the ruined temple and recover them? Forever tainted? I change Hexxat's alignment to true neutral in eekeeper, end of problem?
Perhaps if you had prefaced your comments with IMO, as opposed to speaking ex cathedra on behalf of Gary Gygax. You play how you want. The main rule of DnD is House Rules. Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.
Huh.... I should add IMO to something that is not my opinion but merely a transcript of the lore simply because you don't like that it says, even if in fact you don't give a damn about it since you use house rules? I utterly fail to understand your logic.
I guess the distinction is that I do not consider vampires automatically evil based simply on the fact they are vampires. So when charname's romantic interest gets turned by Bodhi, should we not make the attempt to go to the ruined temple and recover them? Forever tainted? I change Hexxat's alignment to true neutral in eekeeper, end of problem?
Sure, a creature that drains the blood of and enslaves other creatures, is just "seriously misunderstood".
(And yes, when you have killed your love interest's vampire form you don't try to resurrect the vampire they have become, but the character that it was. Huge difference.)
Dunno, I lost count of how many charname killed to reach his redemption.
The key difference being that the charname never has to kill anyone except in self defense or the defense of others, and you can choose to avoid violence whenver possible. Hexxat kills innocent people to survive. As I mentioned above, you could make a case for a paladin tolerating a vampire who targets monsters, evil-doers, and other wicked targets who they've confirmed prey on the innocent, but that isn't Hexxat by a long shot.
What Hexxat did to Clara is a motive sufficient enough to be executed by a paladin, IMO. So when you hear her tell that she did it so many times she lost the count, it's obvious you are going to find something really far-stretched to justify that a paladin accept her presence.
I'm curious has any actually played a paladin like the rules in Ad&D in BG2?
Taking Hexxat along in BG2 with an ad&d paladin unfortunately just doesn't work - she is evil - there is no denying it and the ad&d rules are explicit when it comes to associating with evil creatures -i.e. no evil members allowed to join in a group with a paladin. This also means not taking some of the more powerful NPC in BG2 as most are evil aligned as well.
Of course you (the PC) can decide whether to not to adhere to these ad&d rules or not but that is a different discussion.
BUT Clara is also classed as neutral evil (a detect evil spell well show this - although any paladin doing this well probably be attacked or be considered horribly rude - although in PnP paladins can sense evil naturally) - so as a paladin you would never accept Clara into their group and never get her quest and as such NEVER meet Hexxat.
So how do you first justify letting an evil thief (Clara) join a group with a paladin in it especially if you are playing using ad&d rules?
Another question is how do you play BG2 if you decide to stick as close as possible to these rules?
How do you justify getting celestial fury (locked compound) or kangaxx's ring (locked house and helping an obvious evil lich with getting his body parts)? or Daystar (secret room in an inn) or for that matter FoA - do you keep it as technically it is theft as it belongs to Nalia and her family and everything else in the keep for that matter including all the gold and other treasures. That also means no upgraded mace of disruption (as a paladin would never lie about the illithium) or Crom Faeyr (too expensive - 7500 gp too much for a paladin to have.) And how do you plan to get two rings of regeneration - one must be stolen and a paladin would never allow theft. Do you continue to break into homes (as many homes are locked and even if they are not how do you justify walking into other peoples home?) and looting them? or for that matter the Staff of the magi - requiring a "magic key" to break into someone home - you would never keep the ward stone required to teleport. How do you justify keeping so much gold after you get what is required to rescue Imoen? Paladins are not allowed to be wealthy - they are only allowed enough to keep their equipment and squires feed and clothed and maintain a stronghold (assuming you have one); or how about siding with the shadow thieves and doing what is required to complete their quests? or for that matter how do you even deal with the underdark section of the story and the numerous evil creatures that you have to deal with along the way?
As a true paladin would you even wear the equipment that evil creatures used or would it be tainted?
As a true paladin I think you would be chopped up by the time you got to the Underdark assuming you could even get that far playing as a true paladin.
Yes, taking Hexxat is not possible playing as true ad&d paladin but as I said a paladin would never even get the quest if you are playing a true paladin and therefore never meet her -- but then completing BG2 would be very difficult to complete as a true ad&d paladin.
Comments
That's why it's in-character for Keldorn to attack Hexxat, but not Edwin or Viconia. Vampires are known to feed on the life energy of others to survive, and it's not something that heals without powerful magic. They maim and kill others to survive, and Hexxat straight-up tells you not only that she sneaks off and murders people, but she doesn't regret it in the least because she has to do it to survive.
Viconia and Edwin, on the other hand, while evil charcters, aren't going out and killing people while they're in the party. They can be obnoxious, but killing them for existing without any sort of context that justifies taking a life isn't a good deed and isn't a proper choice for a paladin.
Detect evil and know allignment are some of the only methods to make alignment at all relevant to a game. Its hard enough for humans to parse out meaning of actions, let alone to codify judgements in a game. It makes the RP coherent by removing the ambiguity of motives.
Alignment is a declaration the player makes at character creation of saying that no matter what actions the character makes in the short term, ultimately it is for the sake of good/evil. Alignment Its a bias that the character was born with. Its a pervasive pull felt like a small force throughout a lifetime. Due to circumstance some characters will do many good deeds but the pull is constant and the longer it's felt the more irresistible it becomes.
I like playing with Detect Evil. I RP alignments as factions of the gods. If you are evil, then some god of the evil faction is claiming you as its patron. If you are a palidin/cleric, you can detect that patronage.
But of course I don't mean to suggest that my interpretation is somehow inherently more correct. These disagreements are the most interesting thing about paladins. And, frankly, they're why I kind of dislike the fact that the alignment system requires the DM to hand down an answer from on high. Moral questions are at their most interesting when they remain questions.
I like how they changed Paladins for 5e, with LG, NG, and LN flavors, but that's neither here nor there.
edit: one exception is Mazzy.
And if attempting to maximize the goodness in the world is a valid way to be good, in the FR setting, slay evil beings without a glimpse of pity or afterthoughts has always been another valid method to justify a "good" alignement.
But the alignement is not the problem there.... The problem is that Paladins are not preachers: They are executors.
Paladins are the slayers that are sent to deal with individuals that are percieved as so obviously evil that they doesn't even deserve a trial or an attempt to redeem from the autorities.
Candidates for such a treatement include, by the faerunian's standards, all undeads, fiends, abominations, shadows, demonists and necromancers... (I probably forget a few here)
Drows and cleric of evil deities, however, can be redeemed. That's why Paladins do not slay them at sight, and why Keldorn can somewhat... hem... deal with Victonia...
However, for Dorn and Hexxat, they are two people beyond redemption by faerunian's standards.
Dorn's soul is already lost to the infernal planes even if he breaks his contract, and Hexxat is a vampire, a being unable to survive if she attempt to lead a good existance.
So... yes... sorry... but for paladins, it's like if they had "must be destroyed asap" tatooed on their foreheads.
There is no way a paladin would associate with one of them without being forced to do so by a very strong magic.
I must disagree with your assessment of Hexxat for two reasons. She did not seek out becoming a vampire...unlike say Bodhi. And in her final quest she does redeem herself by not wanting to remain a vampire but to die as a human instead. She is not beyond redemption.
A vampire is evil as soon it decide to sacrifice others to extend its own existence, it is as simple as that, and Hexxat is not an acception.
Dying human does not redeem Hexxat either.
Redeeming is a process where you compensate for your evil deeds, and Hexxat didn't provide compensation for any of the lives she took. She instead INCREASED the amount of casualties by delaying her death so she could have a "better" death in her own opinion
To the eyes of a paladin, there is nothing here that would push him to cooperate with her.
The most important things regarding vampires for a paladin is that the vampire dies fast, so he doesn't do more casualties. How it dies is totaly secondary to this.
You're drawing points that aren't permanent trues: "paladins must be this, do that, accept some, immediatly kill others" and in the same line you're taking any feature of the game that discredit or conflict with your affirmatives and throwing them away with the statements: "That's not compatible with other lore in the game, it's purely mechanical for the game".
Take your last post for example:
You resume redemption to a single path of what you believe it's redemption, thus anything else is discarded.
Define evil for the need of another death to survive: You see? Every human is evil then, as we're onivorous beings and meat is into our menu.
take easy man!!
I also find myself thinking of the story of Sir Gawain and the Greek Knight. Sir Gawain was a Knight of the Round Table, and in early stories was considered the strongest and most noble of King Arthur's knights. And in SGGK, by far Sir Gawain's most famous story, he learns the value of not just going around killing every enemy he finds. Now, Sir Gawain isn't the only mythological inspiration for paladins, but he's one of them, and I don't think that's entirely without significance.
You should know, Beamdog has created greys in a world which actually was quite black and white (Paladins in AD&D 2nd edition).
I accept Hexxat because I want to do her quests, but from role playing perspective I find it quite puzzling that Keldorn doesn't drive a sword through her from the beginning. Fortunately it is at least possible to turn her down as a companion and fight her, as I probably will do if I ever play a Paladin PC (not likely to happen, but still).
Also, Keldorn will at length demand you banish Hexxat from the party, and Hexxat will (try to?) leave if your rep goes too high.
One thing is the philosophical debate about "what is evil really?", another thing is a Paladin accepting an Undead creature which feeds on the lives of others and clashes with everything a Paladin holds true and dear as companion. The AD&D 2nd Edition rules are quite clear on this: if a Paladin willfully cooperates with an evil character the Paladin loses his or her special status and is converted to a Fighter, and must do an atonement quest to become a Paladin again.
And guys, please, be nice to each other. There's no need to go personal in your comments.
But it seems it's arrogant to do so.
So... well... *sigh* road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't know why I even tried to be helpful in the first place... I don't truly care if you want to play Twilight in BG2 and play a female paladin that will have some hardcore sex with a lesbian vampire, after all.
Do as you please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Advanced_Dungeons_.26_Dragons_2nd_edition
Other than that, I agree... Your game, your rules.
But that doesn't change the fact that according to AD&D 2nd (and a few things from 3rd) edition on which the BG games and IWD are based, a Paladin - be it a PC or NPC Paladin - that willfully cooperates with a creature of evil such as a Vampire will fall from Paladin status and must atone. And that I gather is what Moonheart is trying to convey.
That some find this arguable at all baffles (and amuses) me.
I utterly fail to understand your logic.
(And yes, when you have killed your love interest's vampire form you don't try to resurrect the vampire they have become, but the character that it was. Huge difference.)
So when you hear her tell that she did it so many times she lost the count, it's obvious you are going to find something really far-stretched to justify that a paladin accept her presence.
Taking Hexxat along in BG2 with an ad&d paladin unfortunately just doesn't work - she is evil - there is no denying it and the ad&d rules are explicit when it comes to associating with evil creatures -i.e. no evil members allowed to join in a group with a paladin. This also means not taking some of the more powerful NPC in BG2 as most are evil aligned as well.
Of course you (the PC) can decide whether to not to adhere to these ad&d rules or not but that is a different discussion.
BUT Clara is also classed as neutral evil (a detect evil spell well show this - although any paladin doing this well probably be attacked or be considered horribly rude - although in PnP paladins can sense evil naturally) - so as a paladin you would never accept Clara into their group and never get her quest and as such NEVER meet Hexxat.
So how do you first justify letting an evil thief (Clara) join a group with a paladin in it especially if you are playing using ad&d rules?
Another question is how do you play BG2 if you decide to stick as close as possible to these rules?
How do you justify getting celestial fury (locked compound) or kangaxx's ring (locked house and helping an obvious evil lich with getting his body parts)? or Daystar (secret room in an inn) or for that matter FoA - do you keep it as technically it is theft as it belongs to Nalia and her family and everything else in the keep for that matter including all the gold and other treasures. That also means no upgraded mace of disruption (as a paladin would never lie about the illithium) or Crom Faeyr (too expensive - 7500 gp too much for a paladin to have.) And how do you plan to get two rings of regeneration - one must be stolen and a paladin would never allow theft. Do you continue to break into homes (as many homes are locked and even if they are not how do you justify walking into other peoples home?) and looting them? or for that matter the Staff of the magi - requiring a "magic key" to break into someone home - you would never keep the ward stone required to teleport. How do you justify keeping so much gold after you get what is required to rescue Imoen? Paladins are not allowed to be wealthy - they are only allowed enough to keep their equipment and squires feed and clothed and maintain a stronghold (assuming you have one); or how about siding with the shadow thieves and doing what is required to complete their quests? or for that matter how do you even deal with the underdark section of the story and the numerous evil creatures that you have to deal with along the way?
As a true paladin would you even wear the equipment that evil creatures used or would it be tainted?
As a true paladin I think you would be chopped up by the time you got to the Underdark assuming you could even get that far playing as a true paladin.
Yes, taking Hexxat is not possible playing as true ad&d paladin but as I said a paladin would never even get the quest if you are playing a true paladin and therefore never meet her -- but then completing BG2 would be very difficult to complete as a true ad&d paladin.