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.
Yes, you will miss many things as a lire friendly Paladin. I tend to disagree about the Flail of Ages since you can go there with Nalia, but many of the other examples are correct. But I believe most first time players miss the Staff of the Magi, Kangaxx, Celestial Fury and Crom Faeyr anyway. You also find enough good stuff without buying, so meh about gold. So see it as a challenge. As for evil NPCs: everyone but Edwin has an at least equally good non-evil alternative. Usually better.
Items being tainted by having been used by someone evil is absurd. Quests in both BG and FR books are about reclaiming sacred artifacts from evil, eg Carsomyr and the Hammer of Tyr.
As for even meeting Hexxat: Clara is pretty obviously under some sort of evil spell. Those also fall under detect evil - so a paladin can go along to find the source of it.
I tend to disagree about the Flail of Ages since you can go there with Nalia, but many of the other examples are correct.
Items being tainted by having been used by someone evil is absurd. Quests in both BG and FR books are about reclaiming sacred artifacts from evil, eg Carsomyr and the Hammer of Tyr.
As for even meeting Hexxat: Clara is pretty obviously under some sort of evil spell. Those also fall under detect evil - so a paladin can go along to find the source of it.
For FoA - yes you can bring Nalia along for the quest but does this allow a PC to loot her home and keep her family artifacts (parts of the flail even has golem guardians keeping them safe that are obviously not brought by the trolls) and you are paid for the quest and nowhere do you get the option of keeping the FoA in a friendly way for this service done instead of the gold therefore it is loot and as such stolen.
I meant more mundane magical and non-magical items - like armor, shields, helmets and rings not sacred artifacts like the holy avenger that a paladin has to go on a quest for - these holy or amazingly powerful artifacts always are quested for and are either hidden by or used by evil monsters/individuals.
As for Clara - that is entirely valid assumption for a paladin to consider but a paladin might also consider that she is just strange, uneducated, someone that has been hit in the head once too often, a simpleton or drugged. I don't think detect evil spell should be able to detect compulsions or mind control but it is certainly an interesting possibility.
Ok, this thread has gotten a little tense in spots, but somewhere along the line it made me notice how awsome this forum is again. Sure, i had my fun during "Baldur's Gate Gate: The Siege of the Siege of Dragonspear", but intense philosophical discussions about fictional morality systems just can't be beat. Yes, I am serious.
For FoA - yes you can bring Nalia along for the quest but does this allow a PC to loot her home and keep her family artifacts (parts of the flail even has golem guardians keeping them safe that are obviously not brought by the trolls) and you are paid for the quest and nowhere do you get the option of keeping the FoA in a friendly way for this service done instead of the gold therefore it is loot and as such stolen.
Speaking of FoA and Nalia... anyone else annoyed that she cannot use her family weapon XD
@iavasechui maybe that's why she needs a warrior as a stand-in to rule the Hold?
I will say I greatly enjoy these paladin discussions, but I do tend to get annoyed when people put forth their interpretations of the paladins' code as gospel. Citing the text is great, but keep in mind that text has multiple interpretations. You're certainly entitled to yours, but it's not correct to say that any interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation. For a real-world example, look at US Constitutionality cases. The best legal minds in the country can and do disagree on whether a great many things are permitted by the US Constitution, and while they all have their arguments, it's almost never as simple as "this is the only possible interpretation of the text."
I could see a paladin accepting Hexxat into their party. Clara's murder doesn't look pretty, but killing someone because you're desperate and want to survive is a neutral act, not an evil one.
Whoa! I was just going to read this thread without getting involved, but I saw this line, and had to react.
"Killing someone because you're desperate and want to survive" most definitely, unequivocally, IS an evil act. EVIL. No civilized, moral people on this Earth for sure, and in most places on Faerun, are going to let you get away with that if you're caught.
Can you imagine somebody trying to make that argument in a murder case? "Well, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I was desperate, see, and he wouldn't give me his food, so I killed him and took it. So it was all perfectly justifiable, you see. My desperate hunger made it okay."
I have a hard time imagining any sane person actually making that argument seriously.
I could see a paladin accepting Hexxat into their party. Clara's murder doesn't look pretty, but killing someone because you're desperate and want to survive is a neutral act, not an evil one.
Whoa! I was just going to read this thread without getting involved, but I saw this line, and had to react.
"Killing someone because you're desperate and want to survive" most definitely, unequivocally, IS an evil act. EVIL. No civilized, moral people on this Earth for sure, and in most places on Faerun, are going to let you get away with that if you're caught.
Can you imagine somebody trying to make that argument in a murder case? "Well, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I was desperate, see, and he wouldn't give me his food, so I killed him and took it. So it was all perfectly justifiable, you see. My desperate hunger made it okay."
I have a hard time imagining any sane person actually making that argument seriously.
I can see someone making that argument really easily, if the person couldn't get food any other way. I would personally make exactly that argument. In fact, I would argue that it's fundamentally the same as the self-defense argument, which we pretty much universally accept as valid. Either way, you're killing someone so that you don't die. There is a framework in which the guilt of the other party enters into it, but personally, I don't see much validity in deciding to kill someone because "they deserve it". That just seems too flimsy to kill someone over, and if that's too flimsy to kill someone over, then killing someone in self-defense is no different from killing anyone else if it's your only way to survive.
Killing someone else so you can survive is definitely not a good act, and wouldn't measure up to self-defense in court. Especially when you could, you know, share the food. You'd be better off with an insanity defense, since parts of the brain that deal with moral concerns and the like start shutting down as you starve.
As far as paladins go, vampires are unnatural creatures that kill others to survive, which is already a huge mark against them. Then, Hexxat is unrepentant and unconcerned with the harm she causes. In general, if you're looking at it from a D&D perspective, she lacks the humanity/metahumanity/goodness to even feel bad about the monster she's become, which makes her a monster, like a chromatic dragon, illithid, or other evil creature. There's really to justification to tolerate her in your party, and very, very little to justify a paladin sparing her instead of destroying her.
Killing someone else so you can survive is definitely not a good act, and wouldn't measure up to self-defense in court. Especially when you could, you know, share the food. You'd be better off with an insanity defense, since parts of the brain that deal with moral concerns and the like start shutting down as you starve.
Note that I've never claimed it was a good act. I've claimed it was a neutral one. The difference there is not insignificant. Nor, frankly, are we looking at a situation where sharing the food is a possibility, because in this case, one person is the food. A better analogy might be cannibalism as an alternative to starvation. No one's claiming that's a good act, or even a not-disgusting act, but under starvation circumstances it's an extremely human thing to resort to, and condemning someone as irredeemably evil because of it strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. To the point where, if that's your only reason to kill someone, I'd argue pretty strongly that you're less justified than they were.
On the contrary, killing predators that prey on members of your community is generally a good thing. This prevents them from eating people and is a matter of personal and communal survival.
Weird when self-defense is derided as unjustified.
Maybe look at a real world analogy: after drinking heavily your liver is shot. So you kidnap random guy from the street and take his liver so you can go on with your life. Neutral act?
It's not self-defense if you're not being threatened, and Hexxat isn't threatening you. If she were, killing her would be entirely justified, but she's not. Killing predators, meanwhile, is a good thing because it prevents further deaths, not because the predator somehow deserves it for past deaths. To kill because someone "deserves it" is the logic of revenge, and revenge is not the paladin's way. So the questions the paladin needs to ask are these: will Hexxat kill more people, and are they certain enough of their answer to kill a sentient being over it?
The answer to those questions is going to depend on how much the paladin thinks vampires can be controlled or reformed. Notably, however, those answers are not self-evident from the fact that Hexxat killed one person out of desperate hunger.
All of which does not matter. A paladin is a champion of justice and law. Whether Hexxat is evil or not (she is, but no matter) she has to pay for the crime she committed. And the paladin can not subvert the law to have her simply work off a murder by assisting him. Redeeming people does not give them a get out of jail card.
It's not self-defense if you're not being threatened, and Hexxat isn't threatening you. If she were, killing her would be entirely justified, but she's not. Killing predators, meanwhile, is a good thing because it prevents further deaths, not because the predator somehow deserves it for past deaths. To kill because someone "deserves it" is the logic of revenge, and revenge is not the paladin's way. So the questions the paladin needs to ask are these: will Hexxat kill more people, and are they certain enough of their answer to kill a sentient being over it?
The answer to those questions is going to depend on how much the paladin thinks vampires can be controlled or reformed. Notably, however, those answers are not self-evident from the fact that Hexxat killed one person out of desperate hunger.
Now you're just splitting hairs - the fact is that killing a predator that is preying upon the community is a completely justifiable act and almost certainly more justifiable than "I kill people because I need to kill people to survive. Survival as predatory undead may not even be justifiable outside of evil alignments. WWhether you do it motivated by revenge because of someone the predator killed or motivated by a need to protect the community or both doesn't change its overall value to the community, which is a greater good than an individual's survival by eating people.
My comment about self-defense is that when you're killing vampires in Baldur's Gate II, you're largely doing it in self-defense. This is also frequently the case in most D&D games. It wasn't in reference to Hexxat, but rather in reference to your comment that:
condemning someone as irredeemably evil because of it strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. To the point where, if that's your only reason to kill someone, I'd argue pretty strongly that you're less justified than they were.
Condemning someone as irredeemably evil because of it means you're paying attention to what they (vampires) do.
I honestly don't see how any good character could justify keeping Hexxat alive given what she does and continues to do as a companion. Obviously most good characters wouldn't be penalized as harshly as a paladin, but it makes me question their stated moral stance when their friends can get away with literal murder.
If you're not splitting hairs when lives are on the line, it's my personal opinion that you're not qualified to be a paladin. The distinction between killing someone who's a threat and killing someone who isn't a threat is huge. The reasons why you kill people are incredibly important when you're trying to be a champion of justice. Heck, losing track of those reasons is probably the number 1 cause of paladins falling in D&D-based fiction, including BG (see: Anomen, whose success or failure at becoming a paladin depends on whether or not he loses track of the reasons why he kills people). These are things a paladin should wrestle with, because they are at the heart of what separates being a paladin from being a good-aligned fighter.
Now, regarding the "unnecessarily harsh" thing, it sounds like you're mistaking my meaning, and I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I did not mean that to refer to self-defense situations. I meant that to refer to situations where you condemn someone who has committed cannibalism in the past, but who shows no signs of being a danger to you in the present. Because that's what Hexxat's situation is when you first meet her. I absolutely agree that if she were to attack you, you'd be entirely justified in killing her without giving it much thought. But given that she doesn't attack you, self-defense does not apply.
@Ammar, I suspect you and I have very different, even opposite, ideas of what it means to be lawful. I would probably enjoy discussing that with you, but I'm not confident in my ability to keep track of both your line of reasoning and the self-defense/cannibalism line of reasoning at the same time, in the same thread. So, uh, you mind if I take a raincheck?
Hexxat won't attack you, but she'll continue eating innocents. I don't see how a good-aligned character can be anything other than a hypocrite by actively hanging out with a serial killer - whatever the reasons for the killing.
As far as splitting hairs, I don't think the hairs you split are hairs that paladins should need to concern themselves with. You're basically saying it's wrong to kill someone because they've already killed and I am saying that the fact that they have killed is a very good reason to kill them.
Anyway, I do not recall any particular reason that a paladin can't be vengeful. Vengeance isn't an inherently evil act, and it would be a hard sell to say "Your paladin falls because you avenged dead people by killing a vampire." That kind of splitting hairs is what I mean and it is unnecessary.
But note that I said "accepting" Hexxat, not "keeping" her. A paladin might be willing to accept Hexxat into the party with the idea of preventing her from hurting others (killing her might also accomplish this, but killing vampires is notoriously tricky, and there's a fair argument for giving her a chance to prove herself in less desperate circumstances). Thing is, it eventually becomes apparent that Hexxat is still hurting innocents in spite of the paladin's efforts, and at that point I don't see how a responsible paladin wouldn't decide to put an end to that by whatever means necessary (which is made easier by having her coffin at this point).
So on that, at least, we're in agreement.
Now, regarding killing her to begin with, I would argue that vengeance is an inherently evil motivation. Vengeance is killing someone because you really really want to, not because it'll make other people safer, or because it'll make the world a better place, or even because it's you or them. Sure, vengeance is wanting to kill someone for a specific reason, but I hardly see how that matters. Whoever they killed will remain just as dead, so what good are you doing by adding more death to the pile? At the end of the day, vengeance is just killing because you're sad and you think killing the person who made you sad will make you feel better. And I'm sorry, but that's evil.
Now that's not to say vengeance is the only reason to kill Hexxat. As I've said before, if you judge that she's definitely gonna kill innocents again, it's perfectly reasonable to kill her to protect them. But for vengeance? Never. If I may jump fictional mythologies for a moment and quote Uther the Lightbringer of Warcraft 2 and 3 fame, "we are paladins. Vengeance cannot be a part of what we must do."
Vengeance isn't evil. Vengeance can be but it is not so by definition. Vengeance is quite a rich source for character motivations across the moral and ethical spectrum, and classifying it as strictly one thing is inaccurate.
As for Uther, that's, like, just his opinion, man. Reasonable people may differ.
Killing a vampire because that vampire killed your family or friends isn't an evil act. It might not be ultimately satisfying but I don't recall that being a criteria for whether an action is evil or not.
Vengeance doesn't enter into it. Hexxat is a supernaturally powerful and evil creature that has just committed an evil and criminal act in front of a paladin. It's not vengeance to destroy that creature, it's duty. This is a paladin's job.
Vengeance doesn't enter into it. Hexxat is a supernaturally powerful and evil creature that has just committed an evil and criminal act in front of a paladin. It's not vengeance to destroy that creature, it's duty. This is a paladin's job.
I agree, but vengeance came up as something that's evil and bad and should never happen, and so I disagreed with that.
Vengeance isn't evil. Vengeance can be but it is not so by definition. Vengeance is quite a rich source for character motivations across the moral and ethical spectrum, and classifying it as strictly one thing is inaccurate.
As for Uther, that's, like, just his opinion, man. Reasonable people may differ.
Killing a vampire because that vampire killed your family or friends isn't an evil act. It might not be ultimately satisfying but I don't recall that being a criteria for whether an action is evil or not.
I would argue that it is evil, actually. A very human evil, and a very understandable evil that often lurks in the hearts of the good, but evil nonetheless. It's evil because it's fundamentally selfish. Because it's a desire to hurt another person, and it has nothing to do with making the world a better place. And without good as part of the motivation, the desire to kill another living thing can only be evil.
We may be at an axiomatic impasse, however. I believe, fundamentally, that there is no such thing as "deserving" something. Not really. Rewards and punishments are useful constructs for encouraging or discouraging certain types of behavior, but they're not a thing that has any moral value. Any harm inflicted, therefore, is either tragic, or necessary to prevent future harm. It is never deserved.
I certainly agree with you that reasonable people may differ, and on that subject, I appreciate your continued reasonableness in this argument.
Vengeance doesn't enter into it. Hexxat is a supernaturally powerful and evil creature that has just committed an evil and criminal act in front of a paladin. It's not vengeance to destroy that creature, it's duty. This is a paladin's job.
The entire crux of my argument is that Hexxat hasn't committed an evil act in front of the paladin, at the time of her recruitment. By killing to avoid starvation, she's committed a neutral act. Paladins don't kill people for neutral acts.
Without context you don't know why Clara died only that she died at the hand of Hexxat. (forget what you know about the rest of her story for a moment and see it from the characters perspective in the tomb at that moment).
Clara arrives with you and she walks forward freeing Hexxat from her prison. She begs for her life but it does not matter as Hexxat takes it - although she seems sad about doing it - it is the practical thing for her to do as a vampire who has been in prison for decades.
What a paladin sees is that Clara as died at the hand of Hexxat a vampire but at the moment that is all that you know. Is her death at Hexxat's hand enough to condemn her without knowing the circumstances of the events leading Clara into Hexxat's service (she does call her mistress - meaning she is the servant of Hexxat).
Faerun is a place with many creatures supernatural and powerful and full of complex relationships and laws each different. The death of a servant usually is not enough for it to be considered a real crime punishable by death in a medieval type world. The wealthy and the powerful are different and as such the death of servant while sad is usually not enough for a death sentence.
Plus you are judging Hexxat based on your own strict rules of what is evil and yes the act can be seen as evil from a certain perspective but not from all perspectives. Being a paladin and adventurer who has traveled since BG1 there has been a lot of evil in the world and sometimes evil is not big evil but small evil and we cannot fight them all. Paladins cannot fight all the evils in the world or else they would do nothing else. They must uphold the law but the law is different in each place such that as long as it applies fairly to all then it does not matter if the ruler is benevolent or a tyrant.
What are the rules for the death of a servant by their master in Amn? If we (meaning a paladin) has just recently escaped from JI's prison what would the rules and laws in this city state be like? From the moment we left the prison, we saw that the laws were harsh - the cowled wizards ruled and did not allow magic unsanctioned so what would their law be for a master/servant relationship? You yourself saw the injustice of the law as Imoen was taken away to prison without so much as a trial or allowing you to protest.
So what is the law concerning the death of servants in Amn? Does this apply for Hexxat and her relationship with Clara? Or is the fact that Hexxat is a vampire and classified as evil, that killed in front of you enough to condemn her or do you find out why it happen and then judge? And what gives you (the paladin) the right to judge a being who is so radically different from yourself?
If nothing else these thoughts should filter through you mind - yes Hexxat is a vampire and vampires are evil (but they have no choice in the matter) - yes she took a life but you do not know the context of the story behind it - so do you stay your hand until that time?
You're describing a lawful neutral alignment, not lawful good. Your interpretation is lawful neutral with evil tendencies (it's okay for the strong to kill the weak if the law says it's so? Really?)
If nothing else these thoughts should filter through you mind - yes Hexxat is a vampire and vampires are evil (but they have no choice in the matter) - yes she took a life but you do not know the context of the story behind it - so do you stay your hand until that time?
You do know the story and have context, though; Hexxat straight up tells you. She was turned when her tomb robbing when south and she's been luring women and adventurers to their deaths in the hopes of saving her own life ever since. Hexxat got a lot of people killed so she could live, and she is completely unrepentant about it. Hexxat will do anything to stay alive, anything. Her words.
Even if eating Clara isn't inherently evil, everything else she has done and admits she will continue to do is. I can't imagine a paladin, or any good character, accepting that.
I buy the arguments that there are circumstances that would allow a paladin to work with a vampire. This isn't one of those.
You're stretching reasonings a lot too much. First, the law has nothing to do in this discussion in the first place.
You must understand that our morals are not Faerun's morals.
Faerun is not a fully civilized place. Individuals are split into two groups in the collective mind: people, and monsters. People are protected by the law, monsters are not
If you kill an orc, or a troll in any city, nobody will question the legality of the act. Orcs and trolls have some intelligence, some feelings and can be peaceful and do nothing wrong, but it does not count: they are monsters, thus people will not recognize them any right.
In the story of Drizzt, we see this clearly with the story of Obould, how Drizzt itself consider orcs as monsters and needing no assessment of their acts to be killed. This is how every faerunian see orcs until that point of faerunian history. So the law do not protect them, until Obould succeed by the force to make his people recognized as "people" Before that, an orc would be killed by any guard, even even more by paladins, on sight... but this is a drastic change of mind that only happen once in all the lore and takes decades of efforts to happen
Undeads are deemed as "monsters" in all the civilized place of faerun, and this is unlikely to ever change unless a strong undead leader force some order into the undead ranks, and succeed by the force to constraint cities to actualy recognize them as having rights. Until something like that happen, undeads, -all- undeads, will still be seen as monsters by faerunians, and will be destroyed by paladins upon the simple recognition of their nature.
So, regarding Hexxat, there is no "circumstances" and there is no "self-defense" and there is no "the law blablabla". This simply does not matter: Hexxat is a monster by faerunian standard and deserve no attention from any legal authority except the one of a good stake in her heart.
Please remember that our morals are not fearunian morals. Paladins do not destroy what "we" think to be evil. Paladins destroy what "faerunians" think to be evil.
Faerün behavior is based on the study of what our world behavior would be inside a world with less tecnology and more supernatural things.
I took a time to read specific points in the player books and paladin specific books from AD&D, 3.5Ed and 5Ed related to paladins.
In the AD&D books, paladins are very much the way @Moonheart described them. Lore based that's fixed there indeed. In fact it's even worse.
But, from 3.5Ed to 5°Ed i saw a flexibilization of this class. Despite "never consort with evil" be an ethos no matter which hand book you choose, 5°Ed paladins could surely invest in redemption rather than retribution. The oath system apparently have some good ideas there.
Before someone take the statement "BG is AD&D based", remember that this game was made near a change period to 3ºEd at the point that sorcerer and monks have beend inserted on it. Besides, we're living now the 5°Ed rules, and i see no point to bind myself to outdated lore if the new one does not harm the game system. Indeed, the paladin behavior 30 to 40 years ago could very well be labelled as good, but today... i would refrain from state that any killing of beings of evil based races to be a good deed.
While this isn't an anime, where we take the worst villian and make him the exception to all, i can see a paladin accept the role of tutelage of any being that fight against it's nature, even an undead being. However, it's obvious that Hexxat isn't that exception. She's evil, be it by choose or state, a paladin wouldn't stay his/her hand in face of her evil acts. Even if she's accepted in party (which i don't see how to be possible), keep her with all her banter's and interaction certainly wouldn't be possible.
Comments
Items being tainted by having been used by someone evil is absurd. Quests in both BG and FR books are about reclaiming sacred artifacts from evil, eg Carsomyr and the Hammer of Tyr.
As for even meeting Hexxat: Clara is pretty obviously under some sort of evil spell. Those also fall under detect evil - so a paladin can go along to find the source of it.
For FoA - yes you can bring Nalia along for the quest but does this allow a PC to loot her home and keep her family artifacts (parts of the flail even has golem guardians keeping them safe that are obviously not brought by the trolls) and you are paid for the quest and nowhere do you get the option of keeping the FoA in a friendly way for this service done instead of the gold therefore it is loot and as such stolen.
I meant more mundane magical and non-magical items - like armor, shields, helmets and rings not sacred artifacts like the holy avenger that a paladin has to go on a quest for - these holy or amazingly powerful artifacts always are quested for and are either hidden by or used by evil monsters/individuals.
As for Clara - that is entirely valid assumption for a paladin to consider but a paladin might also consider that she is just strange, uneducated, someone that has been hit in the head once too often, a simpleton or drugged. I don't think detect evil spell should be able to detect compulsions or mind control but it is certainly an interesting possibility.
I will say I greatly enjoy these paladin discussions, but I do tend to get annoyed when people put forth their interpretations of the paladins' code as gospel. Citing the text is great, but keep in mind that text has multiple interpretations. You're certainly entitled to yours, but it's not correct to say that any interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation. For a real-world example, look at US Constitutionality cases. The best legal minds in the country can and do disagree on whether a great many things are permitted by the US Constitution, and while they all have their arguments, it's almost never as simple as "this is the only possible interpretation of the text."
"Killing someone because you're desperate and want to survive" most definitely, unequivocally, IS an evil act. EVIL. No civilized, moral people on this Earth for sure, and in most places on Faerun, are going to let you get away with that if you're caught.
Can you imagine somebody trying to make that argument in a murder case? "Well, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I was desperate, see, and he wouldn't give me his food, so I killed him and took it. So it was all perfectly justifiable, you see. My desperate hunger made it okay."
I have a hard time imagining any sane person actually making that argument seriously.
...unless Tiax is present, then he does.
As far as paladins go, vampires are unnatural creatures that kill others to survive, which is already a huge mark against them. Then, Hexxat is unrepentant and unconcerned with the harm she causes. In general, if you're looking at it from a D&D perspective, she lacks the humanity/metahumanity/goodness to even feel bad about the monster she's become, which makes her a monster, like a chromatic dragon, illithid, or other evil creature. There's really to justification to tolerate her in your party, and very, very little to justify a paladin sparing her instead of destroying her.
Weird when self-defense is derided as unjustified.
The answer to those questions is going to depend on how much the paladin thinks vampires can be controlled or reformed. Notably, however, those answers are not self-evident from the fact that Hexxat killed one person out of desperate hunger.
My comment about self-defense is that when you're killing vampires in Baldur's Gate II, you're largely doing it in self-defense. This is also frequently the case in most D&D games. It wasn't in reference to Hexxat, but rather in reference to your comment that: Condemning someone as irredeemably evil because of it means you're paying attention to what they (vampires) do.
I honestly don't see how any good character could justify keeping Hexxat alive given what she does and continues to do as a companion. Obviously most good characters wouldn't be penalized as harshly as a paladin, but it makes me question their stated moral stance when their friends can get away with literal murder.
Now, regarding the "unnecessarily harsh" thing, it sounds like you're mistaking my meaning, and I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I did not mean that to refer to self-defense situations. I meant that to refer to situations where you condemn someone who has committed cannibalism in the past, but who shows no signs of being a danger to you in the present. Because that's what Hexxat's situation is when you first meet her. I absolutely agree that if she were to attack you, you'd be entirely justified in killing her without giving it much thought. But given that she doesn't attack you, self-defense does not apply.
As far as splitting hairs, I don't think the hairs you split are hairs that paladins should need to concern themselves with. You're basically saying it's wrong to kill someone because they've already killed and I am saying that the fact that they have killed is a very good reason to kill them.
Now, regarding killing her to begin with, I would argue that vengeance is an inherently evil motivation. Vengeance is killing someone because you really really want to, not because it'll make other people safer, or because it'll make the world a better place, or even because it's you or them. Sure, vengeance is wanting to kill someone for a specific reason, but I hardly see how that matters. Whoever they killed will remain just as dead, so what good are you doing by adding more death to the pile? At the end of the day, vengeance is just killing because you're sad and you think killing the person who made you sad will make you feel better. And I'm sorry, but that's evil.
Now that's not to say vengeance is the only reason to kill Hexxat. As I've said before, if you judge that she's definitely gonna kill innocents again, it's perfectly reasonable to kill her to protect them. But for vengeance? Never. If I may jump fictional mythologies for a moment and quote Uther the Lightbringer of Warcraft 2 and 3 fame, "we are paladins. Vengeance cannot be a part of what we must do."
As for Uther, that's, like, just his opinion, man. Reasonable people may differ.
Killing a vampire because that vampire killed your family or friends isn't an evil act. It might not be ultimately satisfying but I don't recall that being a criteria for whether an action is evil or not.
We may be at an axiomatic impasse, however. I believe, fundamentally, that there is no such thing as "deserving" something. Not really. Rewards and punishments are useful constructs for encouraging or discouraging certain types of behavior, but they're not a thing that has any moral value. Any harm inflicted, therefore, is either tragic, or necessary to prevent future harm. It is never deserved.
I certainly agree with you that reasonable people may differ, and on that subject, I appreciate your continued reasonableness in this argument. The entire crux of my argument is that Hexxat hasn't committed an evil act in front of the paladin, at the time of her recruitment. By killing to avoid starvation, she's committed a neutral act. Paladins don't kill people for neutral acts.
Without context you don't know why Clara died only that she died at the hand of Hexxat. (forget what you know about the rest of her story for a moment and see it from the characters perspective in the tomb at that moment).
Clara arrives with you and she walks forward freeing Hexxat from her prison. She begs for her life but it does not matter as Hexxat takes it - although she seems sad about doing it - it is the practical thing for her to do as a vampire who has been in prison for decades.
What a paladin sees is that Clara as died at the hand of Hexxat a vampire but at the moment that is all that you know. Is her death at Hexxat's hand enough to condemn her without knowing the circumstances of the events leading Clara into Hexxat's service (she does call her mistress - meaning she is the servant of Hexxat).
Faerun is a place with many creatures supernatural and powerful and full of complex relationships and laws each different. The death of a servant usually is not enough for it to be considered a real crime punishable by death in a medieval type world. The wealthy and the powerful are different and as such the death of servant while sad is usually not enough for a death sentence.
Plus you are judging Hexxat based on your own strict rules of what is evil and yes the act can be seen as evil from a certain perspective but not from all perspectives. Being a paladin and adventurer who has traveled since BG1 there has been a lot of evil in the world and sometimes evil is not big evil but small evil and we cannot fight them all. Paladins cannot fight all the evils in the world or else they would do nothing else. They must uphold the law but the law is different in each place such that as long as it applies fairly to all then it does not matter if the ruler is benevolent or a tyrant.
What are the rules for the death of a servant by their master in Amn? If we (meaning a paladin) has just recently escaped from JI's prison what would the rules and laws in this city state be like? From the moment we left the prison, we saw that the laws were harsh - the cowled wizards ruled and did not allow magic unsanctioned so what would their law be for a master/servant relationship? You yourself saw the injustice of the law as Imoen was taken away to prison without so much as a trial or allowing you to protest.
So what is the law concerning the death of servants in Amn? Does this apply for Hexxat and her relationship with Clara? Or is the fact that Hexxat is a vampire and classified as evil, that killed in front of you enough to condemn her or do you find out why it happen and then judge? And what gives you (the paladin) the right to judge a being who is so radically different from yourself?
If nothing else these thoughts should filter through you mind - yes Hexxat is a vampire and vampires are evil (but they have no choice in the matter) - yes she took a life but you do not know the context of the story behind it - so do you stay your hand until that time?
Even if eating Clara isn't inherently evil, everything else she has done and admits she will continue to do is. I can't imagine a paladin, or any good character, accepting that.
I buy the arguments that there are circumstances that would allow a paladin to work with a vampire. This isn't one of those.
First, the law has nothing to do in this discussion in the first place.
You must understand that our morals are not Faerun's morals.
Faerun is not a fully civilized place.
Individuals are split into two groups in the collective mind: people, and monsters.
People are protected by the law, monsters are not
If you kill an orc, or a troll in any city, nobody will question the legality of the act.
Orcs and trolls have some intelligence, some feelings and can be peaceful and do nothing wrong, but it does not count: they are monsters, thus people will not recognize them any right.
In the story of Drizzt, we see this clearly with the story of Obould, how Drizzt itself consider orcs as monsters and needing no assessment of their acts to be killed.
This is how every faerunian see orcs until that point of faerunian history. So the law do not protect them, until Obould succeed by the force to make his people recognized as "people"
Before that, an orc would be killed by any guard, even even more by paladins, on sight... but this is a drastic change of mind that only happen once in all the lore and takes decades of efforts to happen
Undeads are deemed as "monsters" in all the civilized place of faerun, and this is unlikely to ever change unless a strong undead leader force some order into the undead ranks, and succeed by the force to constraint cities to actualy recognize them as having rights.
Until something like that happen, undeads, -all- undeads, will still be seen as monsters by faerunians, and will be destroyed by paladins upon the simple recognition of their nature.
So, regarding Hexxat, there is no "circumstances" and there is no "self-defense" and there is no "the law blablabla". This simply does not matter: Hexxat is a monster by faerunian standard and deserve no attention from any legal authority except the one of a good stake in her heart.
Please remember that our morals are not fearunian morals.
Paladins do not destroy what "we" think to be evil. Paladins destroy what "faerunians" think to be evil.
I took a time to read specific points in the player books and paladin specific books from AD&D, 3.5Ed and 5Ed related to paladins.
In the AD&D books, paladins are very much the way @Moonheart described them. Lore based that's fixed there indeed. In fact it's even worse.
But, from 3.5Ed to 5°Ed i saw a flexibilization of this class. Despite "never consort with evil" be an ethos no matter which hand book you choose, 5°Ed paladins could surely invest in redemption rather than retribution. The oath system apparently have some good ideas there.
Before someone take the statement "BG is AD&D based", remember that this game was made near a change period to 3ºEd at the point that sorcerer and monks have beend inserted on it. Besides, we're living now the 5°Ed rules, and i see no point to bind myself to outdated lore if the new one does not harm the game system. Indeed, the paladin behavior 30 to 40 years ago could very well be labelled as good, but today... i would refrain from state that any killing of beings of evil based races to be a good deed.
While this isn't an anime, where we take the worst villian and make him the exception to all, i can see a paladin accept the role of tutelage of any being that fight against it's nature, even an undead being. However, it's obvious that Hexxat isn't that exception. She's evil, be it by choose or state, a paladin wouldn't stay his/her hand in face of her evil acts. Even if she's accepted in party (which i don't see how to be possible), keep her with all her banter's and interaction certainly wouldn't be possible.