BG1: Do something about "Paladin" Phandalyn

kale

Hello there,

I know this is somewhat of an old hat, but the encounter with Phandalyn, the suicide bomber/lawful stupid Paladin in the tavern in Southwest Baldurs Gate who attacks your party on sight if it has any evil aligned members, should really be altered at some point. This encounter bugs the hell out of me every time and is probably one of the worst scripted sequences in the whole series. As has been said before:

1. Attacking any people on sight, evil ones included, who are not an obvious danger and/or have an ok reputation is not "good". In contrast, it is murder. It's obviously also not "lawful" to go around killing people in a city with a city guard expected to enforce basic laws. Paladins have an higher than average wisdom score and should be able to act according to the basic creed of their gods (no good aligned deity in Faerun that I know expects their paladins to kill evil characters on sight). Paladins are not mindless killing machines.

2. If Phandalyn attacks evil characters on sight, how has he survived at all in a world - let alone metropolitan city - where evil characters basically lurk at every corner?

3. It makes no sense at all to storm at a party of six and think you'll live. This is suicide (I know this a problem in all IE games, but it's even more blatantly obvious here - see above what I said about higher than average wisdom scores...)

3. The party should not be given a massive reputation loss for literally acting in self-defence


I think it would be nice to maybe add a little backstory to the encounter to make any sense at all; for instance, Phandalyn has been drinking and gets aggressive. The best outcome would be for the party to be able to talk itself out of the situation. At least it would be great to remove the preposterous reputation loss for defending yourself against an unprovoked attack.

Pokota

At least it would be great to remove the preposterous reputation loss for defending yourself against an unprovoked attack.

This, more than anything else. Almost all jurisdictions have exceptions for Self-Defense, including Baldur's Gate itself. (The in-story justification for the reputation penalty is you're actively defending Evil in this case, but it should still be at most equal to the penalty for accepting the Drow characters and Dorn into the party since it is self-defense)

JuliusBorisov

Well, to his defence, he's doing it ONLY if you have evil-aligned NPCs in the party (is it much different to Keldorn not tolerating Viconia). And it's not much different, mechanics-wise, to the Flaming Fist members who talk and attack, and if you kill them, you get a rep hit. Using the Nymph's cloak or Algernon's cloak works in all these situations, just as unequipping weapons and taking the attacker down to the unconscious state does.

kale

JuliusBorisov wrote: »

Well, to his defence, he's doing it ONLY if you have evil-aligned NPCs in the party (is it much different to Keldorn not tolerating Viconia). And it's not much different, mechanics-wise, to the Flaming Fist members who talk and attack, and if you kill them, you get a rep hit. Using the Nymph's cloak or Algernon's cloak works in all these situations, just as unequipping weapons and taking the attacker down to the unconscious state does.

Well, Keldorn doesn't just attack Viconia on sight . If he attacks her, then it's the result of a series of dialogue between the two characters. This gives some background to Keldorn's actions.

I don't really remember when Flaming Fist members attack you on sight, apart from the end of the game when you're basically wanted dead or alive. But Flaming Fists are also not LG paladins/paragons of good. There's also a difference between attacking someone in the countryside and attacking someone in a city tavern. I still think that the game should make more of an effort to explain the encounter which, as it is, is just highly illogical (imho). Especially since attacking with fists etc. doesn't defuse the situation, because he will continue to attack you, if I remember correctly, as soon as he's up and running again ...

Ammar

JuliusBorisov wrote: »

Well, to his defence, he's doing it ONLY if you have evil-aligned NPCs in the party (is it much different to Keldorn not tolerating Viconia). And it's not much different, mechanics-wise, to the Flaming Fist members who talk and attack, and if you kill them, you get a rep hit. Using the Nymph's cloak or Algernon's cloak works in all these situations, just as unequipping weapons and taking the attacker down to the unconscious state does.

It's completely different than those two examples, and very much outside what is allowed for a paladin. With the Flaming Fist you are resisting arrest, there is zero reason why you wouldn't lose rep for that. While killing people just because a paladin says they happen to be evil is not something that falls under the law.

It's a really bad encounter in the original BG1.

sarevok57

whats even more strange about this is that before the beta came in you would only lose 3 REP for killing him, but now he is acted as an "innocent" creature ( kind of ironic ) and you lose half your REP for killing him now

talk about going from bad to worse

TheArtisan

I can just imagine certain diehard vanilla enthusiasts defending this archaic cheap shot on the developers' part as the most genius and secretly innovative design ever and how modern RPGs are too casual to randomly punish the player completely out of nowhere for no reason.

I would support this change 100%. It sucked back in the day and it sucks now.

kjeron

@sarevok57 From worse to bad back to worse. He was originally an "innocent", before EE made him a Paladin with a static -3 REP loss.

There is a warning about Phandalyn in the "Three Old Kegs" tavern, but it's script trigger is based on Reputation, not on having Evil party members. You are told to avoid the dockside taverns before sundown. Indeed, Phandalyn is not active between 20:30 - 4:30. He also says he was sent to inform you about this, so maybe he could try a little harder, be moved somewhere more prominent, and have his script check alignment instead of reputation.

Arvia

If it's one against six and you still decide to kill him instead of incapacitating him, then obviously you're evil and he was right

I had no idea how this encounter plays out for an evil party, because I've never had evil NPCs in my group for longer than it took to realize what they were, and that guy doesn't attack fellow paladins.

On a more serious note, I think that's the reason why many players dislike paladins. We often see the exaggerated examples who are getting it wrong. I think we have grazed that topic a few times. The Detect Evil -> Smite Evil approach is not Good. It's not even lawful, if you smite someone because they ping red on Detect Evil. If you do an evil deed in front of a paladin, you deserve what you get. But if you didn't do anything? Although, to be honest, the whole idea of fixed alignments unrelated to your real actions makes it more complicated.

It's roughly comparable to Keldorn's treatment of Viconia and his hatred towards the Sahuagin, but that is not considered a paragon of paladin behavior, either. Nothing in the paladin handbook (I don't play tabletop but have read the paladin handbook for 2E in the past to prepare for some strictly rolepayed BG runs) suggests that a paladin has the right to attack evil-aligned people on sight. Here's an extract from the handbook:

..."Otherwise, a paladin avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does a paladin necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain."

By all existing rules Phandalyn should become a Fallen Paladin for his actions. (Besides, what if you have a mixed party? I suppose he'll kill the good-aligned party members too, right? Guilty by association?l

It's comparable to Miko in Order of the Stick, who thinks she's taking the tough but just and necessary decision to kill her "evil" teacher and becomes - who would have guessed - a fallen paladin.

So. Is Phandalyn right? No.
Should I kill him for what he does? Probably not. Such a heavy reputation loss as punishment doesn't seem fair, though. You don't lose any rep for killing Marl, for example.
The reputation loss is probably in the most literal sense: You get labeled by a supposedly holy warrior as evil in public, and then kill him in public, so it makes sense that the public image of you (which is your reputation) suffers. It's just harsh because reputation is not limited to an area in this game and because it has severe consequences when it's very low.

sarevok57

one of the problems though is that what happens if only 1 team mate is evil and the rest are good? holmes is just going to go psycho and take out the whole team? wouldn't that also destroy his reputation and make him become fallen for killing innocent chums that have done nothing wrong, especially if the group's REP is around 16?

Arvia

sarevok57 wrote: »

one of the problems though is that what happens if only 1 team mate is evil and the rest are good? holmes is just going to go psycho and take out the whole team? wouldn't that also destroy his reputation and make him become fallen for killing innocent chums that have done nothing wrong, especially if the group's REP is around 16?

That's what I said. Phandalyn should become fallen for his actions even when the party is evil. Doesn't change the fact that killing a paladin in public would be very odd not to affect your public reputation.
This is an RPG. That means roleplaying choices should affect the outcome. If you want to play "evil" for the more powerful Bhaalspawn powers or to keep OP Edwin or for whatever reason, but at the same time get the best prices in stores because everyone worships you as a savior and hero, well, I think it's only right that it's not easy to achieve. There's always a price to pay.
Same as the way people complain when choosing the good path gives less material rewards. You either want to roleplay and face the consequences, or you want to powergame, which is perfectly fine, but then you probably have no issues using metaknowledge and just avoid, charm or stun that guy, do your business and avoid that inn in the future.

JuliusBorisov

Yeah, for true evil RP-ing, for a party consisting of evil characters when the player doesn't want to have low prices because of high REP, any additional hit to REP doesn't mean a thing. Especially at that later stage of the game, when you reach the BG city.

I played with a few evil parties and embraced low REP and its consequences. When you're constantly around 4-6 reputation and use donations when needed, another -1-3 to REP doesn't affect gameplay at all. And you really wouldn't worry about another character attacking you, when you just recently have killed 10 Amnian soldiers in Nashkel, or 5 Flaming Fist officers just on the way to that tavern.

kale

sarevok57 wrote: »

one of the problems though is that what happens if only 1 team mate is evil and the rest are good? holmes is just going to go psycho and take out the whole team? wouldn't that also destroy his reputation and make him become fallen for killing innocent chums that have done nothing wrong, especially if the group's REP is around 16?

This is mostly where I'm coming from. I usually play good-neutral parties with one "baddie" thrown in and that's almost always Viconia. Drow occupy somewhat of a special spot, because it probably would be in character for others to attack her on sight, even it was unethical to do so. The Phandalyn encounter doesn't take into account though as far as I know, it's just an alignment check.

I recently played with a paladin as charname and Viconia (cheating a bit, because I played with the "unhappy npcs never leave" mod - I always assume that it makes no sense for Viconia to run off while being on the surface). I rescued Viconia out of Helmite pity; Phandalyn then proceeds to attack a fellow paladin without even hesitating ...

Arvia wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that killing a paladin in public would be very odd not to affect your public reputation.
This is an RPG.

I can see that happening and I think you're right on this. But isn't it equally likely that "the public" would see an unprovoked attack for what it is, even if it is done by a paladin?

And that's still my main beef - the encounter is badly scripted. The game shouldn't force this situation on you. Give the player a chance to react somehow - even if it's just getting a smaller reputation penatly for knocking him unconcious (but then he would have to stop attacking again...). Or provide more of a background story for this encounter. But it's just not fun to play as it is.