While I'm an advocate of killing them all for the XP there are two interesting bits of info concerning the Prince.
- He doesn't particularly care about the survival of his species. He just wants to be king. This piece of dialogue makes it pretty clear:
Prince Villynaty: I will come as soon as I can. Once Ixilthetocal and Thelokassyil are dead, I shall take the throne of the City-of-Caverns. The madman shall be dead!
Sallinithyl: And the City-of-Caverns shall be saved with the return of its exiled blood.
Prince Villynaty: Yes, yes. Whatever. The throne is what is important here.
- He has a certain code of honor regardless, because he doesn't backstab you once you put him on the throne. This is incredibly rare in BG, the amount of people who ask favors out of you before trying to kill you (even if they are hopelessly outclassed) is mind-boggling. Villynaty is not one of them.
There is no moral choice here, which is what makes it actually an interesting one. No matter what you do you end up working for some bad fish folk or just slaughtering your way through them. Unlike most of the choices you face which relate to how you would interact with your own society, the sauhagin dillema ends up being one of political consequences as to whether you help a despot that weakens the threat his country poses against yours, or you do what is best for their people by removing said despot but also increasing the likelihood they will harm your own people in the future. Or you just kill them all because they're not human enough to affect your sense of empathy.
Excepting the fact that divine command morality is something that is actually observable in Toril, morality is generally based on how well you want to function in society and the consequences you face for being an "immoral" person. In this case the consequences of who you side with are minimal at best, with the far more important decision being whether you took the darn portal or not.
*Other than the kind of innuendo of poisoning the fields and turning spousing against each other with foul sorcery and forcing poor old half-crazy Bill to attempt to mate with his livestock (yeah, he was under a 'spell') that farmers always fabricate because they are 1) inbreed 2) ignorant 3) vicious.
Wait, did you just describe farmers of the nobility? Probably both, come to think of it.
I think the main thing to consider here is actually "lawful" rather than "good". A lawful character isn't going to be very keen on lying and deviousness. They should either a) attack on sight or; b) having agreed to aid one party, see it thorough. They are also going to take into account who has the most legitimate claim, and would tend not to support rebel groups unless their leader has a clearly stronger claim under local law.
Thats only if you believe that Paladins focus more on "law" than "good". Which I personally don't.
I think the main thing to consider here is actually "lawful" rather than "good". A lawful character isn't going to be very keen on lying and deviousness. They should either a) attack on sight or; b) having agreed to aid one party, see it thorough. They are also going to take into account who has the most legitimate claim, and would tend not to support rebel groups unless their leader has a clearly stronger claim under local law.
Thats only if you believe that Paladins focus more on "law" than "good". Which I personally don't.
That's a matter for the individual Paladin.
However, promising to help a faction, then, quite literally, stabbing them in the back, isn't compatible with lawful behaviour. Probably not enough to cause a Paladin to fall, but certainly enough to shift them a few points towards chaotic if a NWN style alignment system where being used.
However there is no "correct" answer simply based on "good". Psychotic-Good: they are all evil so they should all die; and Soppy-Good: they are sentient being who deserve to be helped - maybe they will change their ways, are both equally valid interpretations. It's an illustration of how a person who just wants to do the right thing can become either a right wing or a left wing extremist.
However, promising to help a faction, then, quite literally, stabbing them in the back, isn't compatible with lawful behaviour.
Not really. Issues of alignment driving behavior as opposed to the other way around aside, being lawful doesn't preclude betrayal or rebellion, especially in cases of deception, coercion, and one sided stories. Being lawful is about the belief that society functions better when laws are in place and are followed. If those laws are unjust or are abused, a lawful character may decide to rebel to enact change.
Not really. Issues of alignment driving behavior as opposed to the other way around aside, being lawful doesn't preclude betrayal or rebellion, especially in cases of deception, coercion, and one sided stories. Being lawful is about the belief that society functions better when laws are in place and are followed. If those laws are unjust or are abused, a lawful character may decide to rebel to enact change.
No actually, they wouldn't, that would actually be a neutral character.
A lawful character would follow the LAW, but attempt to legally have the law changed.
We have plenty of loads of many of tons of RL examples.
This is the kind of debate I've had with myself since the first time I went to the Sahuagin city, and the conclusion I could come to was: Like many other quests, a good character can follow his lawful, neutral or chaotic tendencies and follow either path without feeling guilt, but there is no true paladin behavior to be had there, so you either ignore it or roleplay that the gods consider helping Sahuagin a minor sin, or actually the only way out of a more serious situation which is getting your soul back.
On the other hand, BG2 has a ton of knighthood/church quests and honorable companions that can make you feel like a true knight , so roleplaying a paladin is still a rewarding experience.
A lawful character would follow the LAW, but attempt to legally have the law changed.
No offense, but that is objectively partly wrong;
"A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment."
Lawful good characters only accept good authorities as lawful.
"When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm."
So, for instance, if a paladin thought prostitution was wrong in what he deems an otherwise good and orderly society, this is when he would try to change the law from the inside. But a wicked authority are not seen as legitimate, and any and all laws that society encompass will be ignored in its entirety.
Also note that the paladin will practice civil disobedience, even in an otherwise just society, if his conscious compels him;
"While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area."
With that out of the way, the question whether the paladin would aid the king or the prince is actually VERY complicated.
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the prince: "They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it."
"The Ten Lawful Good Commandments 8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice 5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness."
"Ten Lawful Good Sins 2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc. 8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished. 10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil."
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the king: "The Ten Lawful Good Commandments 7. You shall not betray others."
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment: Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter"
Ok, so its a dilemma, definitely, for the paladin. How about simple skipping on the dilemma, either by sneaking away or by killing them all? Well, first of, killing them all is not an option, due to the just mentioned problem with killing a host that have provided you shelter. Sneaking away is also not an option:
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment: Walking away from a challenge"
Now, a paladin could be vague when making promises - except that a lawful good character is never deceitful for his OWN gain (though he would lie in the famous dilemma were a Nazi guard knocks on the door and asks if he is hiding any Jews - paladins practice civil disobedience in defense of OTHERS).
Also note that the paladin could not issue a challenge to the king immediately to avoid having to make a promise - that is the act of a lawful evil character. The paladin surely recognizes his own combat superiority over the king and his men and as such would be unable to openly challenge the king this way.
He also could not refuse to the agree to the deal, because I think we can safely conclude that the paladin would identify the mad king as an agent of chaos, and his agenda of Stalin-style expulsion and/or murder of all detractors, real and imaginary, as evil. The paladin will most definitely not respect any law of that kings society. Therefore, refusing the deal and refusing to fight would be akin to surrender, but a paladin cannot walk away from a challenge. Thus, the paladin would sign the deal, and agree to kill the prince...
...except, even though a paladin cannot be deceitful, he would still use the kings madness to his advantage. He would declare his intentions openly, without challenging the king, without being deceitful and without making any promises. Such as "My* king, I promise I will do all in my might to solve your societies problem."
*It is a courtesy 'my', not a declaration of submission or accepting the king as an authority
Now, this option is not in the game - but the question was not what the game permits, but what a paladin would do. The paladin would then listen to the cleric, take her advice to heart and then travel to the prince to talk with him in person to make his own judgement rather than trusting some heathen sub humanoid witch's word. After talking to the prince, he would fail to recognize the prince as a legitimate authority, but he would, rightly so, recognize the prince as the lesser of two evil.
That night, our whatever time circumstance allowed the paladin to think things through, the paladin would grind teeth. But, he cannot walk away from the challenge, remember, so he must pick a side. He would take the side of the prince - the king is to much an agent of chaos and evil. The only thing that even makes the paladin hesitate is that his life was spared by the king = given shelter. He would argue that this stain on his soul is a burden he must carry as a consequence of picking the lesser evil.
He would take the fake heart and present to guards etc - not to avoid fight for his sake, but for theirs - and never outright claim it was the prince's heart, just let the guards draw their own conclusions. If pressed, he would warn them to back the gentle coitus of, and if that did not work, then he would be forced to use violence. But only as a last resort mind you. Upon reaching the kind, he would try to reason with the king in a million different ways, but as the king is mad, that would not work, and he would be forced to slay the kind. It would be a duel - he would ask his companions to keep all guards etc away, but the fight must be kept as fair as possible, and he would not allow himself to let this sin stain the soul of one of his comrades. He would also kill the king, and not attempt to imprison him, as he knows he could not possibly drag the kings arse around the underdark and in any case the prince would kill the king before the paladin could haul the sharkman out of there - possible also torture and humiliate the king first - and taking the king prisoner would, again, be a cowards attempt to lessen his own sins. Paladins dont do that , they own up to their responsibilities. Finally, he would probably refuse to accept the reward offered by the new king, and then scurry out of the sahaguin city ASAP and never look back.
A lawful character would follow the LAW, but attempt to legally have the law changed.
No offense, but that is objectively partly wrong;
"A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment."
Lawful good characters only accept good authorities as lawful.
"When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm."
So, for instance, if a paladin thought prostitution was wrong in what he deems an otherwise good and orderly society, this is when he would try to change the law from the inside. But a wicked authority are not seen as legitimate, and any and all laws that society encompass will be ignored in its entirety.
Also note that the paladin will practice civil disobedience, even in an otherwise just society, if his conscious compels him;
"While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area."
With that out of the way, the question whether the paladin would aid the king or the prince is actually VERY complicated.
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the prince: "They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it."
"The Ten Lawful Good Commandments 8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice 5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness."
"Ten Lawful Good Sins 2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc. 8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished. 10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil."
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the king: "The Ten Lawful Good Commandments 7. You shall not betray others."
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment: Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter"
Ok, so its a dilemma, definitely, for the paladin. How about simple skipping on the dilemma, either by sneaking away or by killing them all? Well, first of, killing them all is not an option, due to the just mentioned problem with killing a host that have provided you shelter. Sneaking away is also not an option:
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment: Walking away from a challenge"
Now, a paladin could be vague when making promises - except that a lawful good character is never deceitful for his OWN gain (though he would lie in the famous dilemma were a Nazi guard knocks on the door and asks if he is hiding any Jews - paladins practice civil disobedience in defense of OTHERS).
Also note that the paladin could not issue a challenge to the king immediately to avoid having to make a promise - that is the act of a lawful evil character. The paladin surely recognizes his own combat superiority over the king and his men and as such would be unable to openly challenge the king this way.
He also could not refuse to the agree to the deal, because I think we can safely conclude that the paladin would identify the mad king as an agent of chaos, and his agenda of Stalin-style expulsion and/or murder of all detractors, real and imaginary, as evil. The paladin will most definitely not respect any law of that kings society. Therefore, refusing the deal and refusing to fight would be akin to surrender, but a paladin cannot walk away from a challenge. Thus, the paladin would sign the deal, and agree to kill the prince...
...except, even though a paladin cannot be deceitful, he would still use the kings madness to his advantage. He would declare his intentions openly, without challenging the king, without being deceitful and without making any promises. Such as "My* king, I promise I will do all in my might to solve your societies problem."
*It is a courtesy 'my', not a declaration of submission or accepting the king as an authority
Now, this option is not in the game - but the question was not what the game permits, but what a paladin would do. The paladin would then listen to the cleric, take her advice to heart and then travel to the prince to talk with him in person to make his own judgement rather than trusting some heathen sub humanoid witch's word. After talking to the prince, he would fail to recognize the prince as a legitimate authority, but he would, rightly so, recognize the prince as the lesser of two evil.
That night, our whatever time circumstance allowed the paladin to think things through, the paladin would grind teeth. But, he cannot walk away from the challenge, remember, so he must pick a side. He would take the side of the prince - the king is to much an agent of chaos and evil. The only thing that even makes the paladin hesitate is that his life was spared by the king = given shelter. He would argue that this stain on his soul is a burden he must carry as a consequence of picking the lesser evil.
He would take the fake heart and present to guards etc - not to avoid fight for his sake, but for theirs - and never outright claim it was the prince's heart, just let the guards draw their own conclusions. If pressed, he would warn them to back the gentle coitus of, and if that did not work, then he would be forced to use violence. But only as a last resort mind you. Upon reaching the kind, he would try to reason with the king in a million different ways, but as the king is mad, that would not work, and he would be forced to slay the kind. It would be a duel - he would ask his companions to keep all guards etc away, but the fight must be kept as fair as possible, and he would not allow himself to let this sin stain the soul of one of his comrades. He would also kill the king, and not attempt to imprison him, as he knows he could not possibly drag the kings arse around the underdark and in any case the prince would kill the king before the paladin could haul the sharkman out of there - possible also torture and humiliate the king first - and taking the king prisoner would, again, be a cowards attempt to lessen his own sins. Paladins dont do that , they own up to their responsibilities. Finally, he would probably refuse to accept the reward offered by the new king, and then scurry out of the sahaguin city ASAP and never look back.
All very interesting, but intelligence is usually my dump stat when I play a Paladin. I can't imagine all those factors going through the mind of a say, 6 or 7 intelligence person. How would my lawful good moron react to this situation?
All very interesting, but intelligence is usually my dump stat when I play a Paladin. I can't imagine all those factors going through the mind of a say, 6 or 7 intelligence person. How would my lawful good moron react to this situation?
Sooo, given the nature of the creatures in question, I just wonder. How would all these paladins tackle a lawful place like the Nine Hells? Both evil, ppl eaters, and ruthless killers.
Does the fact that they are not in the Nine Hells make a difference? Or is it that they just happen to be a little more mortal.
@Balrog99 He just might at that. Anyone remember this pick from 1st ed PH? (had it in my evils of D&D thread as well)
Hmm, low intelligence paladins huh, those guys could be some of the most dangerous in the flock I would think, if having to reason through something regarding his religion. Like you mentioned,'all those factors'. That takes some real role playing for that I would think, but maybe it WOULD be easier for him to choose in this case maybe. heretics each and everyone, hehheh.
On another note. Might just as well be a 'Paladin in Sharkville'. Sometimes a different perspective can help. Would killing all the devils be bad? Or Not? But I don't like extremes in alignments in general.
Pretend that they don´t exist: paladins aren´t taught to exterminate them, hence they aren´t on the to do list ( unless there are seafaring paladins like conquistadors), skip the area, done.
Pretend that they don´t exist: paladins aren´t taught to exterminate them, hence they aren´t on the to do list ( unless there are seafaring paladins like conquistadors), skip the area, done.
Man, I hope there really are paladins out there that are that half-assed about their work. Lazydins.
Hadn't thought about this before, but the fact that the only way to get the Gauntlets of Crushing is to help the king does kind of cement that that's the canon "lawful" path, (since monks can be good or evil, but always lawful).
Hadn't thought about this before, but the fact that the only way to get the Gauntlets of Crushing is to help the king does kind of cement that that's the canon "lawful" path, (since monks can be good or evil, but always lawful).
Hadn't thought about this before, but the fact that the only way to get the Gauntlets of Crushing is to help the king does kind of cement that that's the canon "lawful" path, (since monks can be good or evil, but always lawful).
Only if you think the ends justify the means.
I just meant from the game developer's standpoint. The fact that they put the best piece of monk gear in the game at the end of that line indicates that they think that's the line a properly-played monk should take. And since the defining characteristic of the Monk is his or her lawfulness, that seems strong evidence that that would be the canon "lawful" choice.
As another example: the Moon Dog figurine is the closest thing the game has to epic "ranger-only" gear. If you give booze and swords to minors, you get locked out of ever receiving it because that's not a very rangerly way to play.
Hadn't thought about this before, but the fact that the only way to get the Gauntlets of Crushing is to help the king does kind of cement that that's the canon "lawful" path, (since monks can be good or evil, but always lawful).
Only if you think the ends justify the means.
I just meant from the game developer's standpoint. The fact that they put the best piece of monk gear in the game at the end of that line indicates that they think that's the line a properly-played monk should take. And since the defining characteristic of the Monk is his or her lawfulness, that seems strong evidence that that would be the canon "lawful" choice.
As another example: the Moon Dog figurine is the closest thing the game has to epic "ranger-only" gear. If you give booze and swords to minors, you get locked out of ever receiving it because that's not a very rangerly way to play.
Thats what you think, but the monk kits were added later! The only kind of monk back in the good ol' days were lawful neutral!
Some of the "evil" rewards in hell are objectively better. That doesn't make them the morally correct choice.
I'm not saying better rewards = "morally correct". I'm saying giving a class-specific reward at the end of a quest line suggests that playing out that particular quest line is consistent with how that class "should" be played, from an alignment standpoint.
Rangers "shouldn't" be giving booze and weapons to minors, (though it's fine to give them to miners). As a result, if you give booze and weapons to minors you get locked out of the best piece of "ranger-only" gear in the game. And if you don't give booze and weapons to minors, you are rewarded with the best piece of "ranger-only" gear.
Paladins "shouldn't" let Firkraag's assault on the Order of the Radiant Heart go unchallenged. They're supposed to be exemplars of justice, bravely facing overwhelming odds in the name of right. As a result, if you go and slay the dragon, you're rewarded with the best piece of Paladin-only gear in the game. And if you back away from that challenge, you're not.
Monks are flexible on the good/evil scale, but always respect the rule of law. Therefore, if you resolve the Sahaugin city in the way that bests respects the rule of law, you are rewarded with the best piece of monk gear in the game. And if you don't, you aren't.
Basically, resolve those quests "correctly" according to your class alignment or else you don't get rewarded with your specific loot.
There aren't a lot of other examples of that because most classes aren't alignment-restricted. Rangers are always good, so it's safe to bury Ranger-specific gear behind a "good" decision path. Monks are always lawful, so it's safe to bury Monk-specific gear behind a "lawful" decision path. But Thieves and Fighters can be good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral in any combination, (except for LG for Thieves), so there's no "safe" decision path to bury fighter-specific or thief-specific gear behind.
(The same principle could apply if the developers had stuck a great Cleric-only item at the end of the cleric stronghold, since Clerics get different stronghold based on their alignment. Say, create a large shield that gives +3 AC and reduces casting time by 2. And the only way to get it was to appropriately navigate the quests in accordance with the strictures of your faith. Alas, the developers missed that opportunity.)
But your whole statement revolves around getting better loot by acting a certain way, which is the ends justifying the means. You are determining the moral choice after the fact based on the rewards of the choices made to get there. If the best paladin sword was only availabable by doing a conceptually un-paladin like act, would you consider that moral?
You are also committing a logical fallacy by affirming the consequent. If you do the paladin stronghold "right", you get a good paladin reward. If you do the ranger stronghold "right", you get a good ranger reward. You get a good monk reward, therefore the way you received it must be "right".
But your whole statement revolves around getting better loot by acting a certain way, which is the ends justifying the means. You are determining the moral choice after the fact based on the rewards of the choices made to get there. If the best paladin sword was only availabable by doing a conceptually un-paladin like act, would you consider that moral?
You are also committing a logical fallacy by affirming the consequent. If you do the paladin stronghold "right", you get a good paladin reward. If you do the ranger stronghold "right", you get a good ranger reward. You get a good monk reward, therefore the way you received it must be "right".
If the best paladin sword was only available by doing a conceptually un-paladin like act, I wouldn't consider that moral, I would consider that terrible design.
That's the thing you're missing here. BG2 is not a random sequence of events. The loot placement is not accidental. It's not coincidence you get Paladin gear after acting like a Paladin and Ranger gear after acting like a Ranger.
Baldur's Gate is scripted and designed by sentient beings. And insofar as we agree that they had carefully-considered reasons behind the things that they did, I think it's fine to try to guess at those reasons based on the choices they made.
For instance, I believe the designers intended for you to do the Circus Tent as your first quest after leaving Chateau Irenicus. Why? Because it's the first building you see and it's the easiest "major" quest in the game. There's a reason it was placed where it's placed. There's a reason it is populated with the enemies it is populated with. I think it's not a stretch to believe that that reason is "because it was meant to be tackled by a fresh party as their first step".
The primary reward from the Circus Tent quest is the Ring of Human Influence. Given that (a) the Circus Tent is the first quest you're "supposed" to do, and (b) the Ring of Human Influence maxes out one character's charisma, and (c) Charisma is only relevant on one character in your party, I believe this is confirmation from the developers that yes, Charisma is irrelevant, and they meant for it to be so.
And yes, I believe that the fact that you get the only piece of gear usable by the only class in the game that is restricted to lawful alignment at the end of a specific quest line serves as clear evidence that the developers considered that particular quest line to be the "lawful" choice for the scenario.
Forcing players to be lawfully-aligned at character creation and then forcing them to play chaotically-aligned to get their optimal gear would be terrible game design. So yes, I think the location of the gauntlets of crushing does serve of evidence of, if nothing else, how the developers *intended* for the Sauhagin City quest to be understood, with siding with the king scanning as lawful and siding with the prince scanning as chaotic.
The primary reward from the Circus Tent quest is the Ring of Human Influence. Given that (a) the Circus Tent is the first quest you're "supposed" to do, and (b) the Ring of Human Influence maxes out one character's charisma, and (c) Charisma is only relevant on one character in your party, I believe this is confirmation from the developers that yes, Charisma is irrelevant, and they meant for it to be so.
If you instead have natural charisma, you can equip a ring of regen and a +2 AC and saving throws ring.
Speaking of which, isnt the ring of regen in that case evidence that no class bar fighters is supposed to have more than 16 con?
I'm not sure there is a moral path in this one. Do you help a mad king who is essentially committing genocide against his own or help install a prince who may bring them back to a strength that will allow them to raid innocent settlements along the coast again? Neither option looks good. There is, however, an ethical path, which is to do what you agree to do. You gave your word, after all, so if that is important, the choice is clear.
Except you can do what you promise, realize it was wrong, and then attempt correct your actions by eliminating the other side as well. Except you are now commmiting genocide, but given that we are talking sahuagin, that's tantamount to deer attacking wolves, from a certain perspective.
And I think this just shows that this game, as I've often said, is one of the best-written games ever.
Comments
- He doesn't particularly care about the survival of his species. He just wants to be king. This piece of dialogue makes it pretty clear:
Sallinithyl: And the City-of-Caverns shall be saved with the return of its exiled blood.
Prince Villynaty: Yes, yes. Whatever. The throne is what is important here.
- He has a certain code of honor regardless, because he doesn't backstab you once you put him on the throne. This is incredibly rare in BG, the amount of people who ask favors out of you before trying to kill you (even if they are hopelessly outclassed) is mind-boggling. Villynaty is not one of them.
Excepting the fact that divine command morality is something that is actually observable in Toril, morality is generally based on how well you want to function in society and the consequences you face for being an "immoral" person. In this case the consequences of who you side with are minimal at best, with the far more important decision being whether you took the darn portal or not.
However, promising to help a faction, then, quite literally, stabbing them in the back, isn't compatible with lawful behaviour. Probably not enough to cause a Paladin to fall, but certainly enough to shift them a few points towards chaotic if a NWN style alignment system where being used.
However there is no "correct" answer simply based on "good". Psychotic-Good: they are all evil so they should all die; and Soppy-Good: they are sentient being who deserve to be helped - maybe they will change their ways, are both equally valid interpretations. It's an illustration of how a person who just wants to do the right thing can become either a right wing or a left wing extremist.
A lawful character would follow the LAW, but attempt to legally have the law changed.
We have plenty of loads of many of tons of RL examples.
On the other hand, BG2 has a ton of knighthood/church quests and honorable companions that can make you feel like a true knight , so roleplaying a paladin is still a rewarding experience.
"A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment."
Lawful good characters only accept good authorities as lawful.
Sauce; http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html
"When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm."
So, for instance, if a paladin thought prostitution was wrong in what he deems an otherwise good and orderly society, this is when he would try to change the law from the inside. But a wicked authority are not seen as legitimate, and any and all laws that society encompass will be ignored in its entirety.
Also note that the paladin will practice civil disobedience, even in an otherwise just society, if his conscious compels him;
"While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area."
With that out of the way, the question whether the paladin would aid the king or the prince is actually VERY complicated.
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the prince:
"They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it."
"The Ten Lawful Good Commandments
8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice
5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness."
"Ten Lawful Good Sins
2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc.
8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished.
10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil."
Factors compelling a paladin to aid the king:
"The Ten Lawful Good Commandments
7. You shall not betray others."
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:
Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter"
Ok, so its a dilemma, definitely, for the paladin. How about simple skipping on the dilemma, either by sneaking away or by killing them all? Well, first of, killing them all is not an option, due to the just mentioned problem with killing a host that have provided you shelter. Sneaking away is also not an option:
"The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:
Walking away from a challenge"
Now, a paladin could be vague when making promises - except that a lawful good character is never deceitful for his OWN gain (though he would lie in the famous dilemma were a Nazi guard knocks on the door and asks if he is hiding any Jews - paladins practice civil disobedience in defense of OTHERS).
Also note that the paladin could not issue a challenge to the king immediately to avoid having to make a promise - that is the act of a lawful evil character. The paladin surely recognizes his own combat superiority over the king and his men and as such would be unable to openly challenge the king this way.
He also could not refuse to the agree to the deal, because I think we can safely conclude that the paladin would identify the mad king as an agent of chaos, and his agenda of Stalin-style expulsion and/or murder of all detractors, real and imaginary, as evil. The paladin will most definitely not respect any law of that kings society. Therefore, refusing the deal and refusing to fight would be akin to surrender, but a paladin cannot walk away from a challenge. Thus, the paladin would sign the deal, and agree to kill the prince...
...except, even though a paladin cannot be deceitful, he would still use the kings madness to his advantage. He would declare his intentions openly, without challenging the king, without being deceitful and without making any promises. Such as "My* king, I promise I will do all in my might to solve your societies problem."
*It is a courtesy 'my', not a declaration of submission or accepting the king as an authority
Now, this option is not in the game - but the question was not what the game permits, but what a paladin would do. The paladin would then listen to the cleric, take her advice to heart and then travel to the prince to talk with him in person to make his own judgement rather than trusting some heathen sub humanoid witch's word. After talking to the prince, he would fail to recognize the prince as a legitimate authority, but he would, rightly so, recognize the prince as the lesser of two evil.
That night, our whatever time circumstance allowed the paladin to think things through, the paladin would grind teeth. But, he cannot walk away from the challenge, remember, so he must pick a side. He would take the side of the prince - the king is to much an agent of chaos and evil. The only thing that even makes the paladin hesitate is that his life was spared by the king = given shelter. He would argue that this stain on his soul is a burden he must carry as a consequence of picking the lesser evil.
He would take the fake heart and present to guards etc - not to avoid fight for his sake, but for theirs - and never outright claim it was the prince's heart, just let the guards draw their own conclusions. If pressed, he would warn them to back the gentle coitus of, and if that did not work, then he would be forced to use violence. But only as a last resort mind you. Upon reaching the kind, he would try to reason with the king in a million different ways, but as the king is mad, that would not work, and he would be forced to slay the kind. It would be a duel - he would ask his companions to keep all guards etc away, but the fight must be kept as fair as possible, and he would not allow himself to let this sin stain the soul of one of his comrades. He would also kill the king, and not attempt to imprison him, as he knows he could not possibly drag the kings arse around the underdark and in any case the prince would kill the king before the paladin could haul the sharkman out of there - possible also torture and humiliate the king first - and taking the king prisoner would, again, be a cowards attempt to lessen his own sins. Paladins dont do that , they own up to their responsibilities. Finally, he would probably refuse to accept the reward offered by the new king, and then scurry out of the sahaguin city ASAP and never look back.
Does the fact that they are not in the Nine Hells make a difference? Or is it that they just happen to be a little more mortal.
Just a question.
Hmm, low intelligence paladins huh, those guys could be some of the most dangerous in the flock I would think, if having to reason through something regarding his religion.
Like you mentioned,'all those factors'. That takes some real role playing for that I would think, but maybe it WOULD be easier for him to choose in this case maybe. heretics each and everyone, hehheh.
On another note.
Might just as well be a 'Paladin in Sharkville'. Sometimes a different perspective can help. Would killing all the devils be bad? Or Not?
But I don't like extremes in alignments in general.
As another example: the Moon Dog figurine is the closest thing the game has to epic "ranger-only" gear. If you give booze and swords to minors, you get locked out of ever receiving it because that's not a very rangerly way to play.
Rangers "shouldn't" be giving booze and weapons to minors, (though it's fine to give them to miners). As a result, if you give booze and weapons to minors you get locked out of the best piece of "ranger-only" gear in the game. And if you don't give booze and weapons to minors, you are rewarded with the best piece of "ranger-only" gear.
Paladins "shouldn't" let Firkraag's assault on the Order of the Radiant Heart go unchallenged. They're supposed to be exemplars of justice, bravely facing overwhelming odds in the name of right. As a result, if you go and slay the dragon, you're rewarded with the best piece of Paladin-only gear in the game. And if you back away from that challenge, you're not.
Monks are flexible on the good/evil scale, but always respect the rule of law. Therefore, if you resolve the Sahaugin city in the way that bests respects the rule of law, you are rewarded with the best piece of monk gear in the game. And if you don't, you aren't.
Basically, resolve those quests "correctly" according to your class alignment or else you don't get rewarded with your specific loot.
There aren't a lot of other examples of that because most classes aren't alignment-restricted. Rangers are always good, so it's safe to bury Ranger-specific gear behind a "good" decision path. Monks are always lawful, so it's safe to bury Monk-specific gear behind a "lawful" decision path. But Thieves and Fighters can be good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral in any combination, (except for LG for Thieves), so there's no "safe" decision path to bury fighter-specific or thief-specific gear behind.
(The same principle could apply if the developers had stuck a great Cleric-only item at the end of the cleric stronghold, since Clerics get different stronghold based on their alignment. Say, create a large shield that gives +3 AC and reduces casting time by 2. And the only way to get it was to appropriately navigate the quests in accordance with the strictures of your faith. Alas, the developers missed that opportunity.)
You are also committing a logical fallacy by affirming the consequent. If you do the paladin stronghold "right", you get a good paladin reward. If you do the ranger stronghold "right", you get a good ranger reward. You get a good monk reward, therefore the way you received it must be "right".
That's the thing you're missing here. BG2 is not a random sequence of events. The loot placement is not accidental. It's not coincidence you get Paladin gear after acting like a Paladin and Ranger gear after acting like a Ranger.
Baldur's Gate is scripted and designed by sentient beings. And insofar as we agree that they had carefully-considered reasons behind the things that they did, I think it's fine to try to guess at those reasons based on the choices they made.
For instance, I believe the designers intended for you to do the Circus Tent as your first quest after leaving Chateau Irenicus. Why? Because it's the first building you see and it's the easiest "major" quest in the game. There's a reason it was placed where it's placed. There's a reason it is populated with the enemies it is populated with. I think it's not a stretch to believe that that reason is "because it was meant to be tackled by a fresh party as their first step".
The primary reward from the Circus Tent quest is the Ring of Human Influence. Given that (a) the Circus Tent is the first quest you're "supposed" to do, and (b) the Ring of Human Influence maxes out one character's charisma, and (c) Charisma is only relevant on one character in your party, I believe this is confirmation from the developers that yes, Charisma is irrelevant, and they meant for it to be so.
And yes, I believe that the fact that you get the only piece of gear usable by the only class in the game that is restricted to lawful alignment at the end of a specific quest line serves as clear evidence that the developers considered that particular quest line to be the "lawful" choice for the scenario.
Forcing players to be lawfully-aligned at character creation and then forcing them to play chaotically-aligned to get their optimal gear would be terrible game design. So yes, I think the location of the gauntlets of crushing does serve of evidence of, if nothing else, how the developers *intended* for the Sauhagin City quest to be understood, with siding with the king scanning as lawful and siding with the prince scanning as chaotic.
Speaking of which, isnt the ring of regen in that case evidence that no class bar fighters is supposed to have more than 16 con?
Your logic is flawed.
Except you can do what you promise, realize it was wrong, and then attempt correct your actions by eliminating the other side as well. Except you are now commmiting genocide, but given that we are talking sahuagin, that's tantamount to deer attacking wolves, from a certain perspective.
And I think this just shows that this game, as I've often said, is one of the best-written games ever.