Bhaal is an evil deity - and all of Faerun knows this. His divine blood is therefore evil and giving it to a mortal changes them - ie you become a bhaal spawn therefore by being his progeny you are also evil.
Therefore is the PC evil because of his blood?
And if you are a paladin but also a progeny of Bhaal how do you deal with this issue of evilness? Is the fact that you are "evil" because you are a monster (born or changed into one) and Faerun 'sees' you one, cause enough to destroy that which is considered a monster or a potential monster?
I counter your Orc example with that of Drizzt's own story. As a drow his raced is hated and feared and if you killed one that was roaming on the surface it also would not be considered murder but over the length of his story he was able to change the opinions of people that meet him. And as such while the drow race as a whole tends to hated and feared and you can kill them without consequence in the surface of Faerun exceptions can be made. Being considered a monster does not automatically make you one.
Can an exception be made for a vampire that has no choice but to be a vampire?
We already know that being a Bhaal spawn doesn't mean you're automatically evil. That argument is a non-starter.
If being the progeny of an evil god does not make you evil then why is being a vampire automatically evil?
If the PC in the game was a vampire instead of progeny of a god - then being a vampire would also not mean you are automatically evil.
The next bit has some BG2 spoilers.
When you eventually meet the other bhaal spawns are any of them good (besides Imoen)? Or is because we have control of the PC in the story that allows us some measure of agency in the story in order to choose which road to follow.
And we all know what happens to you when you actually change into the bhaal spwan that first time - you attack your companions - does this not automatically make you evil or potentially evil? or is this considered an outside force controlling your PC and therefore not the PC but the bhaal blood in you?
I think the argument will go in a circle - if being the progeny of bhaal and evil god does not make you evil then why does being a vampire automatically make you evil?
Is it that we as players have control over the game in which we design our characters to play that lets us choose which path we pick since what we may potentially become is not predetermined, free will is after all important.
Vampires don't have to drain someone until death it is a possibility that they can do if they want - it is not given that a vampire must kill in order to feed.
Is one death enough to say that Hexxat is evil and as such needs to be destroyed? Is being drained by Hexxat some how worse than if she had she killed Clara with a sword instead?
I think the argument will go in a circle - if being the progeny of bhaal and evil god does not make you evil then why does being a vampire automatically make you evil?
Because the rule book says so. If you want to start a house ruled campaign where vampires sparkle in the sun and are really just angsty teens who want a hug, that's fine. But in a discussion like this you should recognize that most of us are going off what's in the game and what's in the underlying rules. In 2nd Ed AD&D, vampires are evil. The process that creates them forces them to become evil.
In a RPG based on Twilight or Buffy, a paladin character would have to be cognizant of the fact that not all vampires are evil. In BG/AD&D/FR, a paladin knows, not suspects, not believes, he knows as an Ao-given fact, that this monster in front of him is evil, will always be evil, and cannot by it's nature be anything but evil.
See if you read the posts from earlier page 2 or so it was already mentioned - vampires are evil that is a given. I believe I even mention that in an earlier post discussing the philosophy of evil and having no choice.
I am not discussing whether or not a vampire is evil (that is a given already) I am discussing why the progeny of an evil god is not considered evil since a mortal shell cannot possibly defeat divine evil blood. And if the mortal with said divine evil blood is not evil then what causes that individual to be not evil?
Vampires are a given evil but it is also states that Bhaal is an evil deity - how can a child of evil not be evil? Is it becomes it is a human factor that makes a mortal that is still not yet given into the bhaal blood a choice to be not evil?
If human is the factor that makes a human with bhaal blood not evil then doesn't a human who becomes a vampire have the same choice in whether or not they kill when they feed.
There are also degrees of evil that exist.
[On a side note: You mention that a paladin knows when someone is evil - that is a given power (and already mentioned by me in an early page) - so if the paladin knows evil then he should already know that Clara is evil therefore not allowing her to join thereby not triggering her quest and never meeting Hexxat. So the original post of whether a paladin can justify adding Hexxat becomes moot as it would never happen because of said power as stated in ad&d rules. ]
Being evil does not mean you are necessarily dangerous and must be destroyed on sight because you are a vampire.
The rule book also states that ghosts (all undead are classified as evil) are evil but you help several ghosts in your adventures.
But if vampires are a given evil it is also states that Bhaal is an evil deity - how can a child of evil not be evil? Is it becomes it is a human factor that makes a mortal that is still not yet given into the bhaal blood a choice to be not evil?
In the same way that the children of evil parents are not evil in general? The fact that all Bhaalspawn are not evil is reflected both in gameplay (otherwise you could not even play a Paladin, making this entire discussion moot) and in the lore of the game, as there are quite a lot of other non-evil Bhaalspawn (Imoen, Balthazar, several other people in Saradush).
Does it even matter if all vampires are evil? Hexxat is evil - both her alignment and her actions prove it.
Being evil does not mean you are necessarily dangerous and must be destroyed on sight because you are a vampire.
Being evil does not mean you need to be destroyed on sight. Being an evil vampire does, as it is a potent and unnatural evil, and the evil being is not protected by any laws.
Vampires represent a danger to people, being as they a) eat people and b) turn people into more vampires. Vampires are pretty much always chaotic evil in AD&D 2e:
"Of all the chaotic evil undead creatures that stalk the world, none is more dreadful than the vampire. Moving silently through the night, vampires prey upon the living without mercy or compassion. Unless deep underground, they must return to the coffins in which they pass the daylight hours, and even in the former case they must occasionally return to such to rest, for their power is renewed by contact with soil from their graves."
Bhaal spawn do not individually represent a danger to people because they are not automatically evil. Some are evil and they do represent a danger - and that's why you have to kill Sarevok (well that and he intends to kill you and did kill your surrogate father figure - which goes back to revenge not being inherently evil) and later on deal with the other Bhaal spawn in ToB. Clearly, the blood of an evil god does not overwhelm mortal free will, so humans and demihumans descended from Bhaal get to behave according to their morals and ethos, rather than have their behavior dictated by their divine and currently (at the time of the Baldur's Gate series) dead father. This argument is again a complete non-starter because you are allowed to choose any alignment you wish when you create your BG character. There's no traction for "but children of Bhaal should be evil because Bhaal is evil."
When your argument relies on completely ignoring or twisting canonical information, that's a sure sign it's a weak argument.
I think the argument will go in a circle - if being the progeny of bhaal and evil god does not make you evil then why does being a vampire automatically make you evil?
You ask the wrong question here. What an individual is... is never truly known. What is important is what people think the individual is.
A Bhaalspawn is totaly new, unprecedent thing in Faerun. People can fear it due to its relation with an evil deity, yet, they do not truly know if it makes a bhaalspawn inherently evil or not... so it have the benefit of doubt, and Jaheira's harper quest perfectly emphasis that.
But a vampire... it is not a new thing. Vampires exist since centuries in Faerun and have ALWAYS made evil things. There is absolutly not doubt in any faerunian minds that a vampire is a BAD creature. Not a single doubt, -you- doubt of it because you are not a faerunian, but a faerunian don't doubt about it.
It all sums in a word: Prejudice. Vampires have left eons of prejudice behind them, this cannot be erased only because -you-, which never lived truly in the FR, never had to suffer, never had to truly fear, vampires.
While you looked at movies featuring gentle vampires trying their best despite of their condition while eating pop-corn, fearunians discovered acquaintances dead in their bed in the morning, with fang marks on the neck, and not a single drop of blood left in the veins.
We already know that being a Bhaal spawn doesn't mean you're automatically evil. That argument is a non-starter.
If being the progeny of an evil god does not make you evil then why is being a vampire automatically evil?
If the PC in the game was a vampire instead of progeny of a god - then being a vampire would also not mean you are automatically evil.
The next bit has some BG2 spoilers.
When you eventually meet the other bhaal spawns are any of them good (besides Imoen)? Or is because we have control of the PC in the story that allows us some measure of agency in the story in order to choose which road to follow.
And we all know what happens to you when you actually change into the bhaal spwan that first time - you attack your companions - does this not automatically make you evil or potentially evil? or is this considered an outside force controlling your PC and therefore not the PC but the bhaal blood in you?
Viekang, The rabbit NPC on ToB, the good Bhaalspawn NPCs residents of Saradush, Imoen
The Bhaalspawn are inherently tainted by what they are and bring death and destruction to everyone around them whether they mean to or not. This is brought up again, and again, and again. They can fight against the taint, or a few like Imoen might be so inherently good that the taint is hidden, but it's always there. And we know that more than a few give in to their taint because it's natural and easy. Knowing this, under the strictest interpretation of the rules a paladin should have no choice but to destroy Imoen and herself. Obviously you don't do that. This is not a totally irrelevant comparison to our hypothetical vampire imo.
Luckily we're not just talking about what the rulebooks say and what the purest readings of them are. The original question was 'could a paladin work with Hexxat.' The broader question, then, should be 'could a paladin in the Baldur's Gate series work with a vampire under any circumstance.' To me, that answer is a resounding maybe. It's bending the rules, but the game is already doing that.
We have canonical examples of undead creatures fighting their nature and trying to be good with the zombie city you encounter in the Cult of the Unseeing Eye. These guys lack the control to not attack when confronted with fresh meat, true, but the fact remains they tried. The fact you can have Hexxat in your party without her eating you tells me that a vampire with a degree of willpower would not be ridiculously out of place.
There are other examples of "inherently evil" monsters clearly not being evil with Madulf and his crew. A paladin PC can kill them for being monsters without consequence, but they can also broker a deal with Minister Lloyd. Both are legitimate choices.
IMO a neutral vampire fighting against her evil nature, actively working to undo the harm her existence causes, and looking to reverse her situation would fit in the game even without it being a ~~Twilight Campaign~~. A paladin CHARNAME killing her on sight would be a legitimate choice. A paladin CHARNAME working with her towards those ends would also be a legitimate choice. It's not how a typical paladin would act, but we're not playing Generic Cardboard Paladin # 256. Typical Faerûnian views should be accounted for, especially with a character whose going to have those views drilled into their head; they aren't draconian law dictating every single aspect of a character's personality, no exceptions.
(none of which is relevant with regards to Hexxat because she is still very, very evil :P)
I am going to change the discussion slightly for a moment into a slightly more philosophical discussion about evil and human agency.
First:
As you have posted - you mention that freewill is the determining factor in whether or not a human is evil as it relates to being a bhaal spawn.
If freewill allows a human to overcome their Bhaal blood then can a vampire who was a human retain freewill?
-----------------------------
Next comment:
Vampires are evil but the manual says they can be any alignment not just chaotic evil which is the worst kind of evil.
There are degrees of evil as can be seen through alignments and a vampire is not necessarily a blood thirsty psychopath given that they do not have to be chaotic evil.
______________________________________
Third comment:
Prejudice - I am glad someone brought up this idea - lets talk about it briefly in regards to Faerun and humans that live there in general.
Humans in general are prejudice - they dislike things that are different from what they know - the conflicts that exist in Faerun are in part because of prejudice not just with non-human creatures and cultures but within human society in general.
It takes something huge to change their view on things - e.g. like Orcs (and the relatively peaceful kingdom they set up for a time) and even then the prejudice against them is hard to change how humans see them.
But we see in BG2 that monsters don't have to be monsters and humans can overcome their prejudice towards them.
Breaking the 4th wall for a moment - Faerun for the most part is viewed from a dominant human perspective - and therefore there is an inherent prejudice in everything that they see and record about everything not human.
After all the winners write the history books and humans having become the dominant species on Faerun will write the history and monster manuals to reflect their prejudice.
So humans are prejudice against vampires because of their very nature of how they feed and the fact that they are undead. But being undead does not mean you are a horrible monster - we see ghosts that are not monsters although classified as undead in the monster manual in BG2.
------------------------------
Some other thoughts:
Freewill, Paladins and their deity as it relates to a bhaalspwan paladin
a) how much freewill does a paladin have as it relates to his duty? Are we more than just card board cut outs of what a paladin is written down in the rule books (we see evidence of a standard paladin in that inn who says he detects an evil alignment and proceeds to attack if he don't remove the evil aligned creature from the party). Or do we have greater freewill to determine how we act outside of our classes but use our classes as a guide to what can be done?
b) It is not possible for the deity who accepts the bhaalspawn to not realize that the paladin making his vows to become a holy warrior is unaware that he possesses bhaal's divine blood - so what is the purpose in allowing the bhaal progeny to become a paladin? Deities have agendas - so what is the agenda of your deity?
-------------------------------------
Is Hexxat really very, very evil and how do you define that evil?
Hexxat is evil - a fact (her alignment is NE) - she is also a vampire - another fact (all undead are evil) - therefore Hexxat because of her nature is evil - no argument.
But a lot of posts say she is very very evil? What do you use to determine she is very, very evil when you first meet her? And how you do compare this evil to if compared to other evil NPCs? Dorn? Viconia? Edwin? Korgan?
Yes, she is a vampire - yes she kills Clara in away that vampires do - draining their target but is this enough to say she is very very evil?
Is context needed to determine how evil someone is or is the mere act of doing something evil enough to say that she is very, very evil when you first meet her?
Vampires like all creatures need to feed - and yes what they feed on is abhorrent to a human (since humans can be considered a food source and who wants to be considered food) - but is it any worst than using a sword to kill someone?
Dorn is considerably more evil in BG2 as his first quest shows -- so is Hexxat that evil or less or more?
NOTE: A paladin would not have either Dorn or Hexxat in their party because of their evil natures - but Dorn is really going down to the dark side in BG2.
BUT who has played a paladin and brought Dorn along with them? And what was your reasoning to do so?
I'm going to try to recenter the debate, because there are a lot of non-arguments being thrown here
1- A basic paladin meet a basic vampire, the paladin smite it on sight
This is seen in every part of the lore possible. People of good do not that idle in front of a vampire to ask its story and hear their tragic circumstances. In any situation where a good-aligned guy meets a vampire, he tries to shoot it first. And that's even more true with a paladin, with a vampire who just sink its fangs into an human neck just before his eyes
2- There are exception to everything
That is not to be debated, circumstances can change everything, and lore writers use them more than anyone else. Thus, you can always try to make a paladin and a vampire not behave like a basic paladin in front of a basic vampire... but for that, you have do make one an exception to the standard
3- Hexxat is in no way an exception
Hexxat is your basic vampire in all regards. She got bitten without her consent, got infected by the curse of vampirism, and had to do the painful choice to either let herself starve... or kill people to feed herself. Bouhouh, this is tragical... but no way exceptionnal: this is the story of 98% of the vampires.
Conclusion: Since to make what you want to see happen, you have to have either an exceptional vampire, or an exceptional paladin, and that Hexxat is not exceptional at all, your only way is to invent an exceptional paladin
Hexxat is your basic vampire in all regards. She got bitten without her consent, got infected by the curse of vampirism, and had to do the painful choice to either let herself starve... or kill people to feed herself. Bouhouh, this is tragical... but no way exceptionnal: this is the story of 98% of the vampires.
I don't really disagree with anything in your post, but I do just want to point out that, upon first meeting Hexxat, you have no way of knowing whether she's an exception or not. If you travel with her for a while, you learn for sure that she isn't. That's why my claim is that a paladin might accept Hexxat into their party, but could never keep her past a certain point.
I also don't disagree with anything in your post - but I do have a question - what makes an exceptional vampire?
Humans get changed into vampire - choice to adapt or die - so they adapt - then what? If this is the regular story of most vampire what makes the exceptional vampire - exceptional?
Ahem... When Drizzt meets a goblin, orc or giant, how many times did you see him think "oh, I don't know if it is an exception to his kind, so let's wait and figure this out by making him a part of our group meanwhile" ?
Never. He immediatly slay it without asking himself any question about a possible "exceptional" nature
Now, @Jarrakul , understand that Drizzt is himself an exception to his kind, and thus, a lot more tolerant than is probably any normal paladin of the FR... and try to figure what it means in the situation where a paladin meet a vampire and do not know if it is a normal vampire or an exception
Yes, it means that the paladin is NOT going to wait to figure out and kill the vampire immediatly. A paladin will not give the benefit of doubt to any undead he encounter. Either the vampire looks exceptional at the very first sight, either the paladin will act by default by an attempt of immediate destruction
So... I strongly disagree about your claim that a Paladin could take Hexxat in they party even a single second.
I think we generally agree @Moonheart . I don't contest that a typical vampire is an evil creature, or that a typical paladin would slay any vampire on sight. I also agree that a paladin who slays a vampire on sight, even if that vampire is atypical, is not out of line with paladin virtues; I don't argue most pallys wouldn't take the time to talk to a vampire to learn any kind of context or story. And as you said, it would take an exceptional vampire meeting an exceptional paladin for this to happen, and while there's a good argument to make that CHARNAME could be an exceptional paladin, Hexxat is not an exceptional vampire. She is, in fact, a very typical vampire. The fact that she kills someone in front just adds to the acceptable grounds for killing her immediately. Even if it didn't, and I don't agree that it doesn't, everything she says after supports that she's a danger that any good person, least of a paladin, must eliminate.
Mostly I disagree the assertion that a non-evil vampire and a paladin who might accept them is a gross breach of lore that has no place in Baldur's Gate or D&D in general.
Clara frees Hexxat; Hexxat rises and drains Clara - what do you see as a paladin is the standard vampire and she has just slain someone.
Do you wait and ponder if she is different or not? Most definitely no - you engage her in battle as is expected of a paladin.
But if you hold off for a moment and dialogue with her as a civilized but outraged individual you will notice she is different from your run of the mill vampire. Sadly this is not enough to stay the hand of a true paladin and so you fight but most likely a fully powered vampire (which Hexxat is sadly not - although I wonder if this changes if you decide to fight her) will destroy you.
Question - when Bodhi first approaches you (the paladin PC) in the grave yard do you also immediately engage in battle upon seeing her (after the dialogue) as a paladin? Can a paladin in the chapter 2 without any metagaming involved really battle Bodhi and survive to tell the tale? No, most likely not.
Really how many NPCs are exceptional at first sight? If you didn't know Drizzt you would only see a male drow fighting some gnolls - a perfect place to fireball the lot of them and save some regular people from their potential evilness.
Viconia (is rather different but you have to speak to her to find out ) is being burned at the stake for being a drow (or being chased by a flaming fist in BG1) - although the act itself is quite atrocious - burnings are so medieval and uncivilized.
Ahem... When Drizzt meets a goblin, orc or giant, how many times did you see him think "oh, I don't know if it is an exception to his kind, so let's wait and figure this out by making him a part of our group meanwhile" ?
Never. He immediatly slay it without asking himself any question about a possible "exceptional" nature
Now, @Jarrakul , understand that Drizzt is himself an exception to his kind, and thus, a lot more tolerant than is probably any normal paladin of the FR... and try to figure what it means in the situation where a paladin meet a vampire and do not know if it is a normal vampire or an exception
Actually, Drizzt encouraged Bruenor Battlehammer to push for the peace accord with Obould Many-Arrows and his orc nation because Drizzt believed that if it's possible for him to rise above his culture, then it's possible for orcs to rise above their culture. This ends up turning out somewhat badly later on as said orcs turn on the dwarves in violation of their treaty.
Drizzt learning that he was wrong about this actually shook him a bit.
So, uhm, Drizzt is not the best example of what you're looking for here.
Also, Drizzt left the vampirized Thibbledorf Pwent in a cave with the understanding that Pwent would expose himself to daylight and destroy himself, rather than kill Pwent himself - something that Pwent wanted him to do.
Like I understand what you're going for, but Drizzt is also not the best example wrt vampires, either. Heck, neither is Pwent.
I agree that a paladin wouldn't take Hexxat into the party, though.
Vampires are evil but the manual says they can be any alignment not just chaotic evil which is the worst kind of evil.
There are degrees of evil as can be seen through alignments and a vampire is not necessarily a blood thirsty psychopath given that they do not have to be chaotic evil.
Which manual are you referring to? The AD&D2e Monstrous Compendium says what I posted above about vampires basically always being chaotic evil, and since Baldur's Gate is AD&D 2e that's probably the best source. Hexxat doesn't follow that, but she is still neutral evil.
Also I would hesitate to say that any of the three evil alignments are the worst kind of evil. They're different ways to be evil but all of them can be equally bad.
Ahem... When Drizzt meets a goblin, orc or giant, how many times did you see him think "oh, I don't know if it is an exception to his kind, so let's wait and figure this out by making him a part of our group meanwhile" ?
Never. He immediatly slay it without asking himself any question about a possible "exceptional" nature
It's probably a good thing Bruenor isn't so hasty, or both Drizzt and Wulfgar would be dead. See, there are situations where you can't afford to talk to dangerous people. When someone's attacking you, for example, it's probably best to just defend yourself without worrying too much about their motivations. Same when someone's attacking another person, because acting right now might save that person. But by the time a paladin has the option of attacking Hexxat, that time has past. Clara is already dead, and attacking Hexxat will not save her. Unless Hexxat attacks the paladin, no one is in any immediate danger. So why not try and figure her out?
Here's what it comes down to, for me. Killing Hexxat, at a moment when she isn't actively threatening anyone, and when her only observed crime is one of desperation rather than evil, might well be ridding the world of a dangerous monster. But it also might be killing a relative innocent who's just trying to survive, at a point when there was no definite need to kill her to protect anyone. Sure, she probably isn't innocent. The odds of her innocence might be 99:1, or less than that. But it's not 100:0, and I can't see a paladin ever playing the odds like that with a (relatively) innocent life, no matter how stacked those odds are.
Question - when Bodhi first approaches you (the paladin PC) in the grave yard do you also immediately engage in battle upon seeing her (after the dialogue) as a paladin? Can a paladin in the chapter 2 without any metagaming involved really battle Bodhi and survive to tell the tale? No, most likely not.
If I was playing a paladin in BG2, I will not even go to meet her in the graveyard. I'll run to see the Shadow Thieves as soon I have 15.000 and accept gladly their proposal to destroy the vampires without even listening a word from Bodhi.
Here's what it comes down to, for me. Killing Hexxat, at a moment when she isn't actively threatening anyone, and when her only observed crime is one of desperation rather than evil, might well be ridding the world of a dangerous monster. But it also might be killing a relative innocent who's just trying to survive, at a point when there was no definite need to kill her to protect anyone. Sure, she probably isn't innocent. The odds of her innocence might be 99:1, or less than that. But it's not 100:0, and I can't see a paladin ever playing the odds like that with a (relatively) innocent life, no matter how stacked those odds are.
Her odds of innocence are completely zero because you watched her murder someone with your very own eyes. If you don't act to contain the threat she represents you are responsible for every additional life she takes.
Not to beat an (un)dead horse, but this whole quandary is just a product of poor writing. Hexxat's only character trait is "mysterious", so you have no way of knowing if she's sincere when she expresses remorse (which is, after all, somewhat atypical of vampires). If she were the survivalist she claims to be, it stands to reason she'd also be a consummate liar, painting herself as a victim of Keldorn's or Aerie's intolerance. But because she's opaque to the very end, you never get any insight as to what she really thinks at any given point.
Everything else is just a consequence of that: she's written in such broad, contradictory strokes that the question of whether you can justify her presence in-story is entirely dependent on how you fit her into the narrative. It doesn't matter either way.
Her odds of innocence are completely zero because you watched her murder someone with your very own eyes. If you don't act to contain the threat she represents you are responsible for every additional life she takes.
Except that if you recruit her, the only lives she takes are the ones you command her to take. Hexxat isn't Valen, she doesn't go off-script; there's exactly one banter in the entire game (with Aerie) where Hexxat is accused of feeding on villagers, but this is never something you see with your own eyes.
The Bhaalspawn are inherently tainted by what they are and bring death and destruction to everyone around them whether they mean to or not. This is brought up again, and again, and again. They can fight against the taint, or a few like Imoen might be so inherently good that the taint is hidden, but it's always there. And we know that more than a few give in to their taint because it's natural and easy. Knowing this, under the strictest interpretation of the rules a paladin should have no choice but to destroy Imoen and herself. Obviously you don't do that. This is not a totally irrelevant comparison to our hypothetical vampire imo.
Luckily we're not just talking about what the rulebooks say and what the purest readings of them are. The original question was 'could a paladin work with Hexxat.' The broader question, then, should be 'could a paladin in the Baldur's Gate series work with a vampire under any circumstance.' To me, that answer is a resounding maybe. It's bending the rules, but the game is already doing that.
We have canonical examples of undead creatures fighting their nature and trying to be good with the zombie city you encounter in the Cult of the Unseeing Eye. These guys lack the control to not attack when confronted with fresh meat, true, but the fact remains they tried. The fact you can have Hexxat in your party without her eating you tells me that a vampire with a degree of willpower would not be ridiculously out of place.
There are other examples of "inherently evil" monsters clearly not being evil with Madulf and his crew. A paladin PC can kill them for being monsters without consequence, but they can also broker a deal with Minister Lloyd. Both are legitimate choices.
IMO a neutral vampire fighting against her evil nature, actively working to undo the harm her existence causes, and looking to reverse her situation would fit in the game even without it being a ~~Twilight Campaign~~. A paladin CHARNAME killing her on sight would be a legitimate choice. A paladin CHARNAME working with her towards those ends would also be a legitimate choice. It's not how a typical paladin would act, but we're not playing Generic Cardboard Paladin # 256. Typical Faerûnian views should be accounted for, especially with a character whose going to have those views drilled into their head; they aren't draconian law dictating every single aspect of a character's personality, no exceptions.
(none of which is relevant with regards to Hexxat because she is still very, very evil :P)
Reading with more attention i got the feeling that most of us agree on the same point but are debating around the way that point is presented, myself included.
@dots, great post, simple and very alike what i believe, too.
b) It is not possible for the deity who accepts the bhaalspawn to not realize that the paladin making his vows to become a holy warrior is unaware that he possesses bhaal's divine blood - so what is the purpose in allowing the bhaal progeny to become a paladin? Deities have agendas - so what is the agenda of your deity?
(...)
The possibility of make a paladin inherit bhaal divine essence, thus making this very paladin the new god of murder, making the death of bhaal not only 1 less evil god, but make his essence bring a new good god in the form of a paladin that much probally will be excepcionally loyal to his patron deity is a very interesting a nd profitable reason to patronage a bhaalspawn paladin.
Specially if that god knows that this bhaalspawn is the very one mentioned in Aluandro's prophecies, the ward of Gorion, which of course, the deity will know.
Can a god of murder be anything but evil aligned - probably not. Although the closest possibility would be a slightly more benevolent god of murder, not a good god but perhaps a neutral evil one who might not relish in the mayhem of murder as did Bhaal.
Bhaal was the god of Murder because he was an Evil god of Death. His alignment and outlook on life shaped the form of which his godly portfolio took. A Good god of Death would thus probably manifest the same portfolio as a god of Passing Quietly in Your Bed After a Long Fulfilling Life With Your Near and Dear at Your Side To Say Goodbye. Or more likely something not quite as hyperbolic, but you get the gist of it.
In a similar manner, a Neutral god of Death might be more of a straight forward god of Ends.
Comments
Then what about our PC?
Bhaal is an evil deity - and all of Faerun knows this. His divine blood is therefore evil and giving it to a mortal changes them - ie you become a bhaal spawn therefore by being his progeny you are also evil.
Therefore is the PC evil because of his blood?
And if you are a paladin but also a progeny of Bhaal how do you deal with this issue of evilness? Is the fact that you are "evil" because you are a monster (born or changed into one) and Faerun 'sees' you one, cause enough to destroy that which is considered a monster or a potential monster?
I counter your Orc example with that of Drizzt's own story. As a drow his raced is hated and feared and if you killed one that was roaming on the surface it also would not be considered murder but over the length of his story he was able to change the opinions of people that meet him. And as such while the drow race as a whole tends to hated and feared and you can kill them without consequence in the surface of Faerun exceptions can be made. Being considered a monster does not automatically make you one.
Can an exception be made for a vampire that has no choice but to be a vampire?
If the PC in the game was a vampire instead of progeny of a god - then being a vampire would also not mean you are automatically evil.
The next bit has some BG2 spoilers.
And we all know what happens to you when you actually change into the bhaal spwan that first time - you attack your companions - does this not automatically make you evil or potentially evil? or is this considered an outside force controlling your PC and therefore not the PC but the bhaal blood in you?
Turning into the slayer the first time sucks but you're not constantly attacking your companions.
Most importantly, you're not eating people to survive. You're not required to eat people to survive.
But seriously, if you want to base an argument on the PC being evil, the PC would actually have to be evil.
Is it that we as players have control over the game in which we design our characters to play that lets us choose which path we pick since what we may potentially become is not predetermined, free will is after all important.
Vampires don't have to drain someone until death it is a possibility that they can do if they want - it is not given that a vampire must kill in order to feed.
Is one death enough to say that Hexxat is evil and as such needs to be destroyed? Is being drained by Hexxat some how worse than if she had she killed Clara with a sword instead?
In a RPG based on Twilight or Buffy, a paladin character would have to be cognizant of the fact that not all vampires are evil. In BG/AD&D/FR, a paladin knows, not suspects, not believes, he knows as an Ao-given fact, that this monster in front of him is evil, will always be evil, and cannot by it's nature be anything but evil.
I am not discussing whether or not a vampire is evil (that is a given already) I am discussing why the progeny of an evil god is not considered evil since a mortal shell cannot possibly defeat divine evil blood. And if the mortal with said divine evil blood is not evil then what causes that individual to be not evil?
Vampires are a given evil but it is also states that Bhaal is an evil deity - how can a child of evil not be evil? Is it becomes it is a human factor that makes a mortal that is still not yet given into the bhaal blood a choice to be not evil?
If human is the factor that makes a human with bhaal blood not evil then doesn't a human who becomes a vampire have the same choice in whether or not they kill when they feed.
There are also degrees of evil that exist.
[On a side note: You mention that a paladin knows when someone is evil - that is a given power (and already mentioned by me in an early page) - so if the paladin knows evil then he should already know that Clara is evil therefore not allowing her to join thereby not triggering her quest and never meeting Hexxat. So the original post of whether a paladin can justify adding Hexxat becomes moot as it would never happen because of said power as stated in ad&d rules. ]
Being evil does not mean you are necessarily dangerous and must be destroyed on sight because you are a vampire.
The rule book also states that ghosts (all undead are classified as evil) are evil but you help several ghosts in your adventures.
Does it even matter if all vampires are evil? Hexxat is evil - both her alignment and her actions prove it. True, and in some cases a lawful good fighter would make a distinction based on that. A paladin would not. Being evil does not mean you need to be destroyed on sight. Being an evil vampire does, as it is a potent and unnatural evil, and the evil being is not protected by any laws.
"Of all the chaotic evil undead creatures that stalk the world, none is more dreadful than the vampire. Moving silently through the night, vampires prey upon the living without mercy or compassion. Unless deep underground, they must return to the coffins in which they pass the daylight hours, and even in the former case they must occasionally return to such to rest, for their power is renewed by contact with soil from their graves."
Bhaal spawn do not individually represent a danger to people because they are not automatically evil. Some are evil and they do represent a danger - and that's why you have to kill Sarevok (well that and he intends to kill you and did kill your surrogate father figure - which goes back to revenge not being inherently evil) and later on deal with the other Bhaal spawn in ToB. Clearly, the blood of an evil god does not overwhelm mortal free will, so humans and demihumans descended from Bhaal get to behave according to their morals and ethos, rather than have their behavior dictated by their divine and currently (at the time of the Baldur's Gate series) dead father. This argument is again a complete non-starter because you are allowed to choose any alignment you wish when you create your BG character. There's no traction for "but children of Bhaal should be evil because Bhaal is evil."
When your argument relies on completely ignoring or twisting canonical information, that's a sure sign it's a weak argument.
What an individual is... is never truly known. What is important is what people think the individual is.
A Bhaalspawn is totaly new, unprecedent thing in Faerun. People can fear it due to its relation with an evil deity, yet, they do not truly know if it makes a bhaalspawn inherently evil or not... so it have the benefit of doubt, and Jaheira's harper quest perfectly emphasis that.
But a vampire... it is not a new thing. Vampires exist since centuries in Faerun and have ALWAYS made evil things. There is absolutly not doubt in any faerunian minds that a vampire is a BAD creature. Not a single doubt, -you- doubt of it because you are not a faerunian, but a faerunian don't doubt about it.
It all sums in a word: Prejudice.
Vampires have left eons of prejudice behind them, this cannot be erased only because -you-, which never lived truly in the FR, never had to suffer, never had to truly fear, vampires.
While you looked at movies featuring gentle vampires trying their best despite of their condition while eating pop-corn, fearunians discovered acquaintances dead in their bed in the morning, with fang marks on the neck, and not a single drop of blood left in the veins.
Luckily we're not just talking about what the rulebooks say and what the purest readings of them are. The original question was 'could a paladin work with Hexxat.' The broader question, then, should be 'could a paladin in the Baldur's Gate series work with a vampire under any circumstance.' To me, that answer is a resounding maybe. It's bending the rules, but the game is already doing that.
We have canonical examples of undead creatures fighting their nature and trying to be good with the zombie city you encounter in the Cult of the Unseeing Eye. These guys lack the control to not attack when confronted with fresh meat, true, but the fact remains they tried. The fact you can have Hexxat in your party without her eating you tells me that a vampire with a degree of willpower would not be ridiculously out of place.
There are other examples of "inherently evil" monsters clearly not being evil with Madulf and his crew. A paladin PC can kill them for being monsters without consequence, but they can also broker a deal with Minister Lloyd. Both are legitimate choices.
IMO a neutral vampire fighting against her evil nature, actively working to undo the harm her existence causes, and looking to reverse her situation would fit in the game even without it being a ~~Twilight Campaign~~. A paladin CHARNAME killing her on sight would be a legitimate choice. A paladin CHARNAME working with her towards those ends would also be a legitimate choice. It's not how a typical paladin would act, but we're not playing Generic Cardboard Paladin # 256. Typical Faerûnian views should be accounted for, especially with a character whose going to have those views drilled into their head; they aren't draconian law dictating every single aspect of a character's personality, no exceptions.
(none of which is relevant with regards to Hexxat because she is still very, very evil :P)
First:
As you have posted - you mention that freewill is the determining factor in whether or not a human is evil as it relates to being a bhaal spawn.
If freewill allows a human to overcome their Bhaal blood then can a vampire who was a human retain freewill?
-----------------------------
Next comment:
Vampires are evil but the manual says they can be any alignment not just chaotic evil which is the worst kind of evil.
There are degrees of evil as can be seen through alignments and a vampire is not necessarily a blood thirsty psychopath given that they do not have to be chaotic evil.
______________________________________
Third comment:
Prejudice - I am glad someone brought up this idea - lets talk about it briefly in regards to Faerun and humans that live there in general.
Humans in general are prejudice - they dislike things that are different from what they know - the conflicts that exist in Faerun are in part because of prejudice not just with non-human creatures and cultures but within human society in general.
It takes something huge to change their view on things - e.g. like Orcs (and the relatively peaceful kingdom they set up for a time) and even then the prejudice against them is hard to change how humans see them.
But we see in BG2 that monsters don't have to be monsters and humans can overcome their prejudice towards them.
Breaking the 4th wall for a moment - Faerun for the most part is viewed from a dominant human perspective - and therefore there is an inherent prejudice in everything that they see and record about everything not human.
After all the winners write the history books and humans having become the dominant species on Faerun will write the history and monster manuals to reflect their prejudice.
So humans are prejudice against vampires because of their very nature of how they feed and the fact that they are undead. But being undead does not mean you are a horrible monster - we see ghosts that are not monsters although classified as undead in the monster manual in BG2.
------------------------------
Some other thoughts:
Freewill, Paladins and their deity as it relates to a bhaalspwan paladin
a) how much freewill does a paladin have as it relates to his duty? Are we more than just card board cut outs of what a paladin is written down in the rule books (we see evidence of a standard paladin in that inn who says he detects an evil alignment and proceeds to attack if he don't remove the evil aligned creature from the party). Or do we have greater freewill to determine how we act outside of our classes but use our classes as a guide to what can be done?
b) It is not possible for the deity who accepts the bhaalspawn to not realize that the paladin making his vows to become a holy warrior is unaware that he possesses bhaal's divine blood - so what is the purpose in allowing the bhaal progeny to become a paladin? Deities have agendas - so what is the agenda of your deity?
-------------------------------------
Is Hexxat really very, very evil and how do you define that evil?
Hexxat is evil - a fact (her alignment is NE) - she is also a vampire - another fact (all undead are evil) - therefore Hexxat because of her nature is evil - no argument.
But a lot of posts say she is very very evil? What do you use to determine she is very, very evil when you first meet her? And how you do compare this evil to if compared to other evil NPCs? Dorn? Viconia? Edwin? Korgan?
Yes, she is a vampire - yes she kills Clara in away that vampires do - draining their target but is this enough to say she is very very evil?
Is context needed to determine how evil someone is or is the mere act of doing something evil enough to say that she is very, very evil when you first meet her?
Vampires like all creatures need to feed - and yes what they feed on is abhorrent to a human (since humans can be considered a food source and who wants to be considered food) - but is it any worst than using a sword to kill someone?
Dorn is considerably more evil in BG2 as his first quest shows -- so is Hexxat that evil or less or more?
NOTE: A paladin would not have either Dorn or Hexxat in their party because of their evil natures - but Dorn is really going down to the dark side in BG2.
BUT who has played a paladin and brought Dorn along with them? And what was your reasoning to do so?
1- A basic paladin meet a basic vampire, the paladin smite it on sight
This is seen in every part of the lore possible. People of good do not that idle in front of a vampire to ask its story and hear their tragic circumstances. In any situation where a good-aligned guy meets a vampire, he tries to shoot it first.
And that's even more true with a paladin, with a vampire who just sink its fangs into an human neck just before his eyes
2- There are exception to everything
That is not to be debated, circumstances can change everything, and lore writers use them more than anyone else. Thus, you can always try to make a paladin and a vampire not behave like a basic paladin in front of a basic vampire... but for that, you have do make one an exception to the standard
3- Hexxat is in no way an exception
Hexxat is your basic vampire in all regards. She got bitten without her consent, got infected by the curse of vampirism, and had to do the painful choice to either let herself starve... or kill people to feed herself.
Bouhouh, this is tragical... but no way exceptionnal: this is the story of 98% of the vampires.
Conclusion: Since to make what you want to see happen, you have to have either an exceptional vampire, or an exceptional paladin, and that Hexxat is not exceptional at all, your only way is to invent an exceptional paladin
Humans get changed into vampire - choice to adapt or die - so they adapt - then what? If this is the regular story of most vampire what makes the exceptional vampire - exceptional?
Never. He immediatly slay it without asking himself any question about a possible "exceptional" nature
Now, @Jarrakul , understand that Drizzt is himself an exception to his kind, and thus, a lot more tolerant than is probably any normal paladin of the FR... and try to figure what it means in the situation where a paladin meet a vampire and do not know if it is a normal vampire or an exception
Yes, it means that the paladin is NOT going to wait to figure out and kill the vampire immediatly.
A paladin will not give the benefit of doubt to any undead he encounter. Either the vampire looks exceptional at the very first sight, either the paladin will act by default by an attempt of immediate destruction
So... I strongly disagree about your claim that a Paladin could take Hexxat in they party even a single second.
Mostly I disagree the assertion that a non-evil vampire and a paladin who might accept them is a gross breach of lore that has no place in Baldur's Gate or D&D in general.
First meeting:
Clara frees Hexxat; Hexxat rises and drains Clara - what do you see as a paladin is the standard vampire and she has just slain someone.
Do you wait and ponder if she is different or not? Most definitely no - you engage her in battle as is expected of a paladin.
But if you hold off for a moment and dialogue with her as a civilized but outraged individual you will notice she is different from your run of the mill vampire. Sadly this is not enough to stay the hand of a true paladin and so you fight but most likely a fully powered vampire (which Hexxat is sadly not - although I wonder if this changes if you decide to fight her) will destroy you.
Question - when Bodhi first approaches you (the paladin PC) in the grave yard do you also immediately engage in battle upon seeing her (after the dialogue) as a paladin? Can a paladin in the chapter 2 without any metagaming involved really battle Bodhi and survive to tell the tale? No, most likely not.
Really how many NPCs are exceptional at first sight? If you didn't know Drizzt you would only see a male drow fighting some gnolls - a perfect place to fireball the lot of them and save some regular people from their potential evilness.
Viconia (is rather different but you have to speak to her to find out ) is being burned at the stake for being a drow (or being chased by a flaming fist in BG1) - although the act itself is quite atrocious - burnings are so medieval and uncivilized.
Drizzt learning that he was wrong about this actually shook him a bit.
So, uhm, Drizzt is not the best example of what you're looking for here.
Also, Drizzt left the vampirized Thibbledorf Pwent in a cave with the understanding that Pwent would expose himself to daylight and destroy himself, rather than kill Pwent himself - something that Pwent wanted him to do.
Like I understand what you're going for, but Drizzt is also not the best example wrt vampires, either. Heck, neither is Pwent.
I agree that a paladin wouldn't take Hexxat into the party, though. Which manual are you referring to? The AD&D2e Monstrous Compendium says what I posted above about vampires basically always being chaotic evil, and since Baldur's Gate is AD&D 2e that's probably the best source. Hexxat doesn't follow that, but she is still neutral evil.
Also I would hesitate to say that any of the three evil alignments are the worst kind of evil. They're different ways to be evil but all of them can be equally bad.
Here's what it comes down to, for me. Killing Hexxat, at a moment when she isn't actively threatening anyone, and when her only observed crime is one of desperation rather than evil, might well be ridding the world of a dangerous monster. But it also might be killing a relative innocent who's just trying to survive, at a point when there was no definite need to kill her to protect anyone. Sure, she probably isn't innocent. The odds of her innocence might be 99:1, or less than that. But it's not 100:0, and I can't see a paladin ever playing the odds like that with a (relatively) innocent life, no matter how stacked those odds are.
Everything else is just a consequence of that: she's written in such broad, contradictory strokes that the question of whether you can justify her presence in-story is entirely dependent on how you fit her into the narrative. It doesn't matter either way.
@dots, great post, simple and very alike what i believe, too. The possibility of make a paladin inherit bhaal divine essence, thus making this very paladin the new god of murder, making the death of bhaal not only 1 less evil god, but make his essence bring a new good god in the form of a paladin that much probally will be excepcionally loyal to his patron deity is a very interesting a nd profitable reason to patronage a bhaalspawn paladin.
Specially if that god knows that this bhaalspawn is the very one mentioned in Aluandro's prophecies, the ward of Gorion, which of course, the deity will know.
In a similar manner, a Neutral god of Death might be more of a straight forward god of Ends.