Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Anyone else feel bad fighting the crusaders?

2

Comments

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 5,283
    edited March 8
    While I don't feel bad about fighting the Crusaders, my first run was with a R/C who held the preservation of life above all else. He never picked a fight with non-hostile crusaders, and always took the options that resulted in less bloodshed. The reasoning was that war is an abandonment of morals, so the option that most limits the death and destruction is the best.

    @Grum "What they lack though, is...well...everything. Food. Water. Clothes. Blankets. Ammunition. Fuel. Sure, everyone can bring some with them. But in this crusading army, people are going hungry. As they march they ask for donations and volunteers. When they don't get enough, they take what they need to keep going.

    The US Government's response to this? They call in the National Guard. They start mobilizing the Army. Their line of reasoning is that nobody should go near the Walmart, and they'll kill anyone who tries."

    Once they start killing and looting, they have abandoned all morality and must be stopped. I would feel no remorse defending my community from them.

    ronaldo
  • ArunsunArunsun Member Posts: 1,524
    Skatan said:


    Peoples conflicting emotions around Caelar and the crusade intrigues me. It's very interesting how different we obviously find the persons and situations in SoD. For me, it's crystal clear that Caelar is pure neutral evil and that most crusaders probably range between chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, but as always there's as many interpretations of the alignment system as there is people, heh.. There were a lot of very good discussions in my old thread about this as well.

    Some crusaders certainly are evil-aligned opportunists, but I would say the bulk of them is more "Lawful Stupid with the intention of doing good", much like many paladins you encounter in both games. As a comparison, consider the conflict between Hexxat and Keldorn. Keldorn's lawful good, but he wants to hunt and kill Hexxat. Hexxat on the other hand, is indeed a vampire, but she doesn't give into the violence more than necessary. Besides, being a vampire forces her to do that and she wants nothing more than to stop being one. Do you hunt lions because they are predators to men? Hexxat's condition arguable lie somewhere between this and a normal woman. Is Keldorn really "good" in trying to kill Hexxat? He certainly intends to do good, to rid the world of an evil creature. IMHO however, killing Hexxat isn't good, even though Keldorn wants to do that with the best of intentions. Now, do you judge someone's alignment by his or her acts? Or by his or her intentions? Baldur's Gate seems to judge more by intentions than acts.

    Caelar is much harder to fit in one of those boxes. I'll put what follows in spoilers just in case:
    She doesn't really act for herself but for one other person. She does that because she feels guilty. An evil character doesn't feel guilty. But on the other hand her crusade has done very evil acts, and as a leader she is responsible for their actions (not the marginal actions but the average behaviour), and while she does not approve of that, she considers this an affordable evil to achieve the ultimate goal. But even then, bringing thousands of crusaders with her to atone for her own guilt is unreasonable, and it leads to ruining people's life. So her actions are arguably evil, especially in the light of the ultimate goal which, despite being good in itself, doesn't justify the evil accomplished to reach it. Yet Caelar doesn't act out of selfishness, of wanting to improve her personal situation or powers. She is conflicted, she is misled by Hephernaan, that's true. Even in the outcome she becomes a Blackguard to Belhifet, she does that, not because she wants it, but because she thinks that her uncle's sacrifice for her was worth the sacrifice she makes at that point. Wrong, stupid, evil choice obviously, but not with intent of being evil. And the alternate solution is redemption. Realising she has done much wrong and then trying to atone for it. She's machiavellian (in the original definition of the word, which is end justifies the means), but not intent on evil. I've tried really hard but even now I can't put her in an alignment case. She's very tormented, her actions are unreasonable, so chaotic is a pretty obvious choice. But the Good/Evil axis is much harder in her case. She lies in a gray zone in between. Not all of her facets a good, not all are evil.

    ronaldo
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 5,283
    Caelar's alignment is "Arrogant Stupid". And yes, Hexxat IS evil. Undead are an aberration of life and a mockery of the natural cycle. Her character consists of her trying to convince you that she is tormented and misunderstood, but she also revels in her abilities and feels zero remorse for her murders. Killing is UNAMBIGUOUSLY an act of good.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 896
    When you first meet Hexxat she murders someone who pleads for their life. Is there any doubt she's evil?

    ThacoBellsemiticgodQuartz
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,095
    Yeah...Hex is a horrible, horrible, horrible character.

    Charname: "Hey, you just murdered our party member!"

    Hex "Get over it. I took over her mind, ignored her pleas for mercy, and killed her in front of you, because it was in my best interests. And I'll do it again. Now give me that artifact."

    Charname: "No! You killed Clara..."

    Hex: "Yes, stop being stupid. Give me that artifact."

    Charname: "No."

    Hex "Well I guess I'll kill you too then."

    She then attacks.

    Hex is without a doubt completely evil. She's even more evil for trying to get your sympathy while going out and murdering innocent people each night while you sleep. Does she ask party members to donate blood? Does she feed off the people Charname kills? Nope, she goes out and kills innocent girls.

    Keldorn should have smited her the first chance he got.

    ThacoBellsemiticgodQuartz
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 197
    I haven't played with Hexxat yet, but from what I hear her entire goal is to die anyway. She's old and immortal and fed up with life. If anything Keldorn is just doing her a favor by granting her momentary respite from her crippling ennui.

  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,953
    In spoilers is the quotes from @semiticgod and @grum but since it's kinda long, I've hid them. My reply is towards this.

    Grum said:

    If we're going by our own morals, the Crusaders could be anything from misguided soldiers to violent opportunists. If we go by the in-universe alignment system, the Crusaders are coded as overwhelmingly good-aligned if you try out Detect Evil or look them up in Near Infinity.

    Pretty much this. When I play these games, I try to think like my characters would. Which means using in-game morality.

    And in-game, when you have paladins and clerics of good-aligned deities, who join a crusading force to free the trapped souls of good people which languish in hell...it makes my good Charnames feel for them.

    And you know, let's think about it like this...

    -----

    A few years ago, a portal to hell opens up in the American Midwest. The incursion is beaten back, but with great loss. Many, many people are dragged screaming into hell. And we *know* that these people are being tortured down there, in the bowels of the Walmart in which the demons came from. The government's response is "Glad that's over!" and they go back to business as usual.

    Then a well known community organizer comes up with a plan of going and freeing those people who are, as she speaks, being tortured. Normal, everyday people grab their guns and join her. This is because their family, friends and loved ones are still being tortured, and the government has 0 interest in freeing them. They come from all over the region, group together, and march towards the Walmart.

    What they lack though, is...well...everything. Food. Water. Clothes. Blankets. Ammunition. Fuel. Sure, everyone can bring some with them. But in this crusading army, people are going hungry. As they march they ask for donations and volunteers. When they don't get enough, they take what they need to keep going.

    The US Government's response to this? They call in the National Guard. They start mobilizing the Army. Their line of reasoning is that nobody should go near the Walmart, and they'll kill anyone who tries.

    Now, where do you stand? Do you look at these people, who are risking their lives and souls to help their loved ones, as being good guys? Do you look at their looting of towns on the way to the Walmart as being evil? Do you judge them from opportunists who have joined just to take advantage of the movement? Do you judge them based on the crying mothers and fathers who just want to save their children from torment? Do you feel anger at the politicians who have written off the victims as being lost causes and never want to go near it?

    I mean, I'd certainly feel conflicted. If my parents, or children, had their souls dragged down into hell, I'd sure want to go save them. And if the government said to me "Hey! They're gone, we're not going to risk this, and neither are you. Let them rot in eternal torture." Then I'd be mighty pissed.

    On the other hand, let's say that a bunch of people come to my home and demand that I give them everything I own. I say "No! I have my own family to take care of." So they beat me up, take all of my money, all of the food in my fridge, steal my car, and walk away. I'd be super pissed at that as well.

    So what am I saying? That there are jerks all around. There are good people all around. There isn't any complete right or wrong here.

    And that makes for an interesting, and to repeat myself, conflicting, story. Much more than "These people are murderous thugs out to kill anyone with a scrap of iron so as to destroy an economy."


    Firstly, I think what I find difficult to agree to is that just because Good is a true force in FR, then everything a person does who has Good in their alignment is in itself good. Personally, I've always interpreted the alignment system as a guiding factor even if Good itself is true, a good person can still commit to evil acts. By mistake or deliberately, but a Good character will very seldom or never do it deliberately. This means, in my personal interpratation, that even if some crusaders were Good when they joined, their acts of evil will make them fall through the alignments until they move into chaotic and/or evil.

    Have you played NVN? This is how I interpret it. It's MUCH better there than in 2E where ppl like Anomen, Viccy etc ca make sudden huge changes in Alignment in the matter of seconds. In NVN your actions coonstantly keep your alignment or make it shift and skewer depending on what you actually DO. It's dynamic, not static. Perhaps this way of looking at it is totally wrong in 2E, but personally I've never really looked at Keldorn as some sort of "beacon of light" or some kind of moral compass.. the dude is one of the biggest bigots and douchebags you encounter. He's not evil himself though and will not commit to evil acts, but if he would join a crusade and start to kill innocents don't you think he would "fall" as a palading qute quickly? I do, so then why do we treat these crusaders as something above this, above the mechanic where acts of evil is still evil no matter your alignment? Same with Caelar herself and as I said, I consider her actions to be true to neutral evil alignment. She is doing what she is doing for her own sake, even though she convinces the masses otherwise. That's pure evil right there.

    I hope I don't come across as aggressive in my rhetoric. I like these subjects and like to debate them, but I just wanna say I totally accept everyone else's opinions as well ofc.

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,034
    @skatan since you like to debate then what about considering whether you're allowing enough for the impact of individual perspective?

    From the Crusaders' point of view I see no reason to doubt that, at least in general, they believe they are fighting on the side of Good. That doesn't mean that every individual act they do is good, but I don't see any need for their alignments to change as a result of those. The RL crusades have already been discussed in the thread and I think those do offer a reasonable parallel. While there certainly were moral qualms from some crusaders about their actions, the general feeling was clearly that the good they were doing (reclaiming the Holy Land) considerably outweighed the harm.

    More specifically, for Caelar you say her actions are just for her own sake - despite the fact that's not what she says and not what the Crusaders believe. Even if you believe she is motivated more by guilt than a desire to help others, that wouldn't strike me as evil per se - it's the side-effects of the struggle that are the problem.

    In relation to those side effects, it's perhaps worth considering what you say about paladins. It seems to me that there are 2 very different portrayals of paladins in D&D. The first is people all about doing good - not really participating in a greater struggle, but just trying to help the little man in little ways. In BG though I think the second portrayal is more prevalent and that's as a soldier on the side of Good. That is a side and not everything that Good stands for would fit with what we consider good. I think renaming the sides Law and Chaos might help get away from the confusion about what is 'good'. That would also fit with this portrayal of the paladin that emphasizes the lawful part of their alignment over the good part. These paladins would have no hesitation in striking down those who obstruct their mission - whether they are 'innocent' or not. If their mission is sufficiently important then even refusing assistance (like food or shelter) could be interpreted as getting in the way - 'you're either for us or against us'.

  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,953
    @Grond0:

    "since you like to debate then what about considering whether you're allowing enough for the impact of individual perspective?"
    I honestly don't understand what this means. Can you elaborate?

    Regarding your other reply you are missing my point, I think. I am saying that I know Good is an actual force in FR, but I am also saying that just because YOU think you are on the side of Good, doesn't mean you are. There are a plethora of gods who are all representing Good. If you are a paladin of one of them but killing another Good person, is that act in itself Good or Evil? Who decides; You, Your God or Ao/Universe?
    I'm still convinced that if Keldorn was in a crusade and burned down an inn with children and innocents inside, that can NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be considered an act of Good. And this is not just thinking like a human from planer Earth, I mean also in the FR world. If those innocents were evil Drow though, then within FR that would probably not be an act of Evil and wouldn't make the Paladin fall. But we are talking about innocent, probably mostly Good and/or Neutral people being slaughtered by the crusaders, not just an opposing army.

    Personally, and as I've argued before, I think Paladins should be Lawful Netrual and not LG. Their way of never questioning themselves, their Order or their credo can make them do whatever whenever, like a grunt following orders without questioning. That's more LN IMHO. I guess this is the Paladin type 2 you are talking about.

    I'm curious what you mean about the naming of the alignment but I don't understand. Do you mean Good and Evil should be renamed or Chaos and Law?

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,034
    edited March 9
    @Skatan
    "since you like to debate then what about considering whether you're allowing enough for the impact of individual perspective?"
    I honestly don't understand what this means. Can you elaborate?
    I think alignment has a lot to do with the intentions of the person (just like the majority of crimes in RL are only crimes if the perpetrator intends to commit a crime). If they are intending a good act I don't think that the fact that is perceived as evil by most people would affect their alignment.
    Regarding your other reply you are missing my point, I think. I am saying that I know Good is an actual force in FR, but I am also saying that just because YOU think you are on the side of Good, doesn't mean you are. There are a plethora of gods who are all representing Good. If you are a paladin of one of them but killing another Good person, is that act in itself Good or Evil? Who decides; You, Your God or Ao/Universe?
    As far as individual alignment goes, as suggested above I incline to you deciding. Your God could of course send you a subtle hint that you are wrong, e.g. by withdrawing granted spells / abilities.
    I'm still convinced that if Keldorn was in a crusade and burned down an inn with children and innocents inside, that can NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be considered an act of Good. And this is not just thinking like a human from planer Earth, I mean also in the FR world. If those innocents were evil Drow though, then within FR that would probably not be an act of Evil and wouldn't make the Paladin fall. But we are talking about innocent, probably mostly Good and/or Neutral people being slaughtered by the crusaders, not just an opposing army.
    I still think it's a matter of opinion. In your above example let's imagine that some monsters are also trapped inside, but the magic force holding them is weakening and once it's gone they would be able to escape and wreak havoc elsewhere. The innocents inside are highly unlikely to be able to escape those monsters anyway and the only way to kill the monsters is by fire. There are no good options, so what do you do ...
    I don't think though that you have to stretch things anything like that far. As I said earlier it's a question of perspective. If those 'innocents' are refusing to help Keldorn in his mission, then he could consider them to be in fact not innocent (they might be good aligned, but they are acting in an evil way and Keldorn's not going to put up with that).
    Personally, and as I've argued before, I think Paladins should be Lawful Netrual and not LG. Their way of never questioning themselves, their Order or their credo can make them do whatever whenever, like a grunt following orders without questioning. That's more LN IMHO. I guess this is the Paladin type 2 you are talking about.
    I agree with the logic. However, that also relates to the meaning of the alignments. I don't think the Good side maps terribly well with what we currently consider to be 'good' in western democracies.
    I'm curious what you mean about the naming of the alignment but I don't understand. Do you mean Good and Evil should be renamed or Chaos and Law?
    I didn't meant rename the character alignments, but the forces behind those. I think where the confusion arises is that in individual alignments you have separate poles of good/evil and law/chaos, but in the universal forces discussion is almost always only about Good and Evil - I think the nature of those forces could probably be better described as Law and Chaos (or use entirely separate terminology to avoid the confusion about what is 'good').

    Skatan
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 554
    Grond0 said:

    If they are intending a good act I don't think that the fact that is perceived as evil by most people would affect their alignment.

    I don't know about their alignment, but seeing how the 2nd edition Paladin Handbook describes paladins to fall for any act one would call evil even if it was unintentional I am sure intentional evil acts like killing innocents is perceived as evil by the gods very much.

    @Grond0 You are arguing pro-crusaders very much, but do you really have the opinion that they shouldn't be stopped while burning down villages and killing innocents? I'm not sure what to do with your statements.

    SkatanThacoBell
  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,953
    edited March 9
    Thanks for the replies @Grond0. To not clog up the thread completely and replying in circles (stating the same thing over and over but with different words) I will not reply. But I now understand you and your side of things well enough to process it, even if I don't agree.

  • KuselKusel Member Posts: 50
    The whole alignment stuff in the game never was very consistent from the beginning of old classic BG1, like why should Edwin ever leave a party that is too good? Why would he care.?
    If it was once intended to trigger some reactions from shop/innkeepers it was not pursued for long. It's an old relic lingering in the game. It shouldn't be basis for any arguments in 2018 anymore, we all know there's hundreds of cases not covered or inconsistent etc.
    Judge by deeds and allow everybody to react to the situation they find themselves in. Going by alignment gets you into a hole pretty soon if you play the game nowadays and even if you add mods to it. It's a dead end and always was, just nobody is entitled to take it out.
    Beamdog knows it and thank you, they put opcode 360 = Ignore reputation into the game to overcome it.

    verlaine
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,889
    edited March 9
    I never have a problem attacking religious fanatics. I grew up around them. Death to all fanatics, I say.

    EDIT: Just realized I should add JOKE here. I shouldn’t need to, but these days, ...

    Ardanis
  • ArdanisArdanis Member, Developer Posts: 1,134
    tbone1 said:

    EDIT: Just realized I should add JOKE here. I shouldn’t need to, but these days, ...

    The fact there's a growing number of people who may believe someone meant it seriously only proves it stops being a joke and becomes a real matter. *Shakes his head*

    ThacoBell
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 2,240
    I'm a simple man.

    If my Commanding Officer says "they are the enemy", so they are the enemy.

    Come to the Lawful Neutral side of the Force.

    Quartz
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,034
    edited March 9
    jastey said:

    Grond0 said:

    If they are intending a good act I don't think that the fact that is perceived as evil by most people would affect their alignment.

    I don't know about their alignment, but seeing how the 2nd edition Paladin Handbook describes paladins to fall for any act one would call evil even if it was unintentional I am sure intentional evil acts like killing innocents is perceived as evil by the gods very much.

    @Grond0 You are arguing pro-crusaders very much, but do you really have the opinion that they shouldn't be stopped while burning down villages and killing innocents? I'm not sure what to do with your statements.
    @jastey just as a bit of context I'll say that I virtually never roleplay in these games, so this isn't a subject I particularly care about. I posted on it because @skatan said that he liked to debate the topic, but if I'm annoying anyone I won't post again about this.

    I'm not aiming to defend the Crusaders actions, but I am saying that they might wish to defend themselves. As others have posted previously in this thread actions viewed as unambiguously evil by one person can be seen very differently by someone else. There are 2 particular mind-sets that might justify killing of innocents and would be likely to be common among Crusaders (as they were in our RL crusades):
    1) The end justifies the means. There is a long-standing branch of philosophy that would support an action that includes evil consequences if that is more than counter-balanced by good consequences - and modern views of good are not likely to be the same as those held by a Crusader.
    2) It's the soul that counts. There are strands in nearly all religions that can be used to justify bad treatment of people in the physical world on the basis that that evil is negligible compared to the good done to their soul. That's not a mind-set I have any sympathy with, but it's still common in the world today.

    In relation to paladins I also don't think things are as clear as you suggest. I agree that the Paladins Handbook says that it is possible for a paladin to fall as a result of an unintentional act, but only in the case of an action carried out while under the influence of magic or psionics. However, there's plenty of latitude offered to the DM not to go that far even in such a case. In general, intention is important, e.g. the book states "A willful and deliberate evil action results in the irrevocable loss of the paladin's status." and "Evil violations include intentional acts of theft, treason, cowardice ..."

    In relation to killing the book says:Even from that short extract you can see that the paladin can easily be in a real bind if he wants to avoid killing those he would normally regard as innocents. I already gave an example earlier where it seems clear to me that killing innocents would promote the greater good, but that's not relevant to this topic. Much more relevant is that if the paladin were told by his superiors to join an army and kill all enemy soldiers there's no real question that he would do it. If the command went further and said that all people in a particular area were designated as enemies he has the following choices:
    1) do it (unless he receives a direct command from his deity which supersedes the earlier command).
    2) decide that his superiors are no longer lawful good and give back his fealty to them (which he can only do if he immediately transfers that fealty to another lawful good religion or philosophy).
    The only slight wriggle room he has is that if he knows one of those enemies is lawful good (and it has to be lawful, not just good) he shouldn't hurt them - but that arguably would just throw the paladin into option 2 above).

    Of course the BG games only include a partial implementation of the 2nd edition rules about paladins anyway. Important points such as:
    - they would never associate with an evil PC
    - limitation to certain spells available
    - presence of an aura of protection
    - limitation to 10 magical items
    are not part of BG. Neither are the multitude of rules about the paladin not following strictures on ethics, courtesy, prayer etc. So it wouldn't be reasonable in the context of the game to rely on the Paladin's Handbook as an arbiter of expected behavior, even if the Handbook were clear about what that should be in a particular situation.

    Skatan
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 554
    @Grond0 Thank you for the answer, I think I see now the point you are making.

    Grond0
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,889
    edited March 9
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,796

    @Grond0 said this,

    "It's the soul that counts. There are strands in nearly all religions that can be used to justify bad treatment of people in the physical world on the basis that that evil is negligible compared to the good done to their soul. That's not a mind-set I have any sympathy with, but it's still common in the world today."

    People make no attempt to understand this when they point the finger and judge people in times gone by.

    People had faith because they had nothing else. Nothing else to explain why they died in great numbers of desease and illness after a life that was brutal and short.

    It's entirely rational to believe in an eternal non physical afterlife when the physical life had so little reason. And as the physical life was so arbitary with no understanding of bacteria/germs ect. then it would be considred of much less value than ensuring eternal "blessing".

    I'm an atheist, it's not that big a deal in this day and age. It doesn't make me superior to somebody born at the time of the crusades, for instance, who believed in the soul and doing whatever they could to ensure that soul got a decent afterlife.

    Grond0
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 5,283
    @Skatan I agree with you on basically every point but this, "Personally, and as I've argued before, I think Paladins should be Lawful Netrual and not LG. Their way of never questioning themselves, their Order or their credo can make them do whatever whenever, like a grunt following orders without questioning. That's more LN IMHO. I guess this is the Paladin type 2 you are talking about."

    If a paladin never thinks about what they are doing, or question whether it is right, they are going to fall SUPER quick. I don't think Keldorn is a good example to point to for the quintessential Paladin. He is one of the more blatant deconstructions of a Paladin I've seen. His character and side quest point out the danger of a Paladin adhereing to law over good. Look at what it does to his life, at what his mental state is. That's not a healthy Paladin.

    Paladins shuold be compared to Mazzy. She is the staightest, most true example of a Paladin I have ever seen. She never stops examining her arctions or the actions of her companions.

    Skatan
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 440
    Grum said:

    I mean...these are good people. They voluntarily march into danger following an Aasimar Paladin, risking their lives and souls.

    And here comes Charname, a worldwide of destruction. Going into defensive stance, tanking platoons. With friends who will the air with acid, throws fireballs, etc...

    I’m thinking this will make a RP paladin run much harder.

    Grum said:

    I mean...these are good people. They voluntarily march into danger following an Aasimar Paladin, risking their lives and souls.

    And here comes Charname, a worldwide of destruction. Going into defensive stance, tanking platoons. With friends who will the air with acid, throws fireballs, etc...

    I’m thinking this will make a RP paladin run much harder.

    I definitely felt some pity for them, especially that guy who questioned Caelar's motives in Avernus.

    Grum
  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,953
    ThacoBell said:

    @Skatan I agree with you on basically every point but this, "Personally, and as I've argued before, I think Paladins should be Lawful Netrual and not LG. Their way of never questioning themselves, their Order or their credo can make them do whatever whenever, like a grunt following orders without questioning. That's more LN IMHO. I guess this is the Paladin type 2 you are talking about."

    If a paladin never thinks about what they are doing, or question whether it is right, they are going to fall SUPER quick. I don't think Keldorn is a good example to point to for the quintessential Paladin. He is one of the more blatant deconstructions of a Paladin I've seen. His character and side quest point out the danger of a Paladin adhereing to law over good. Look at what it does to his life, at what his mental state is. That's not a healthy Paladin.

    Paladins shuold be compared to Mazzy. She is the staightest, most true example of a Paladin I have ever seen. She never stops examining her arctions or the actions of her companions.

    Good points @ThacoBell, Mazzy is without a doubt both lawful and good and a very good representative of that alignment. She'd make a great paladin if the rules had allowed it, but alas they do not (I have been known to cheat in a change of class for her in the past though, hehe)

    And I also think Mazzy, being in my humble opinion one of (or even the) the best representative of LG in the game, would NEVER burn down innocent people, rape them, steal from them or kill them. Can anyone here honestly picture Mazzy doing that and still call herself Good? If she was in peril, on a mission to save souls stuck in hell being tormented, then she would find a way to free those souls without tormenting other souls or die trying. That's what's being Good is all about, you sacrifice yourself for the act of goodness and kindness, you don't sacrifice other Good people.

    Note: When I capitalize Good I mean characters within FR who have Good alignment, not just people being good.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 5,283
    Her epilogue is one of the most satisfying for me.

  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,889
    Raduziel said:

    I'm a simple man.

    If my Commanding Officer says "they are the enemy", so they are the enemy.

    Come to the Lawful Neutral side of the Force.

    Well, there’s also all those flaming arrows and flipping catapult stones and bloody spears they keep launching at us.

    ThacoBellRaduziel
  • Yulaw9460Yulaw9460 Member Posts: 538
    Bleriot said:

    There's also links to a mod by which you can avoid much killing of innocents and go with Caelar for the real villain, Mr. H.

    Wait, a mod... that lets you forego on chunks of XP? Did I read that right?

  • verlaineverlaine Member Posts: 47
    Yulaw9460 said:

    Bleriot said:

    There's also links to a mod by which you can avoid much killing of innocents and go with Caelar for the real villain, Mr. H.

    Wait, a mod... that lets you forego on chunks of XP? Did I read that right?
    There is not just xp for killing, isn't it. There's also rewards for doing stuff right.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.