@Nuin, The negative energy plane, if i'm not wrong, isn't evil by nature. The negative energy plane opposes directly all that is natural, but not what is exactly good.
it's possible the living hell of a druid, but not for a paladin, maybe.
Hexxat don't like her vampirism state, she doesn't enjoy be a vampire apparently. She may enjoy the pleasures that come with feed when she is feeding, but the state of vampire is one that she search how to be free even.
About Viconia? Yes, several times i see her acting with bloodlust and cruelty. In fact it's all an facade to hide her true feelings, but tell that to the ppl she incite Charname to kill during the adventure !.
Obs: Not all that happens in the game is core based on D&D rules. Vampires killed can't be brought back as their living previous selfs.
When I first addressed the OPs question, I light-halfheartedly tried to suggest that, since it is just a game, perhaps focusing too much on determining if pre-conceived conditions have been met is less rewarding than enjoying one's self. I also suggested that with sufficient effort, one could devise a back-ground story that would provide legitimacy to whatever decision was made. I've since read a variety of responses and some, though well thought out and frequently rationalized, I still found disturbing. Those that suggested in no uncertain terms, a Paladin would definitely NOT take Hexxat on their travels. I don't wish to drag a simple internet forum post into a grand discussion on peoples definitions of morality but I do have some questions I feel these posts now raise.
As a Bhaalspawn, I more than anyone need to discover if redemption is possible. I suggest part and purpose of my whole personal agenda (as a Paladin) is principal focus toward this endeavour.
I also must consider if there are redeeming qualities in those I take on my journey. Should I dismiss Imoen out-of-hand? I've known for years she is a thief. And what of all the other thieves that offer to join me? Dismiss or perhaps even apprehend them all? Should I slay Viconia on site? She is a Drow. My whole life I've been told they are a nemesis to all that I serve in this world. Should I dismiss Sarevok as irredeemably evil and scoff at his suggestion to join me?
Once I discover my Slayer ability, should I now surrender myself to the authorities for the betterment and safety of society? If I were to adhere to the "Paladin principals" suggested by some, then assuredly YES to all of the above.
Others have suggested that I should adhere to the principals as outlined by the deity to whom I plead allegiance. To this, I agree. Keep in mind, there are a LOT of deities, and even Helm accepts repentance vice death on occasion.
I prefer the consideration that I can develop a story-line in MY game world where an Undead Hunter, (with a Wisdom of 16 btw) has a second thought upon initial confrontation with Hexxat and just before killing her, elect to determine this as a sign; a tool has been placed in my hand that I can utilize for a greater good or just destroy and move on. I thereby elect to perform my service, and perhaps even determine an answer to my own conundrum, by bringing this scion of the damned along on my adventure, perhaps to find peace and redemption for us both. I also elect to be more than a simple tool myself. I disdain the phrase "lawful stupid" as it was on one occasion implied. In fact, I would suggest that a Paladin that believes his tenets are carved in granite is the epitome of "lawful stupid". I am more than an automaton that follows a set of prescribed rules to the letter, I suggest those whom think otherwise consider reviewing some of Keldorn's back stories.
Were I a DM and a player provided me coherent justification for bringing Hexxat on his/her campaign, I would 'high-five' that person in a heartbeat and simply state "hang on! it's gonna be a bumpy ride!".
Think outside the box. You'd be amazed how much fun it can be!
It's called the blind leading the blind. Just because your PC has issues doesn't give you the right to start collecting "damaged" people. That's a different kind of hyprocrisy. A very reflective Bhaalspawn paladin might simply let Hexxat go. It's a completely different thing to let her join you.
And don't compare Hexxat to Viconia/Sarevok/Korgan. Letting Viconia join you is a possible lesser evil. You are basicallly condemning her to die just because she's drow if you don't, and over time she might grow on you and you get to learn just how hard she's been trying to adapt to life on the surface if you romance her. Korgan is someone who you actually CAN control, like a BG2 version of Belkar Bitterleaf except Mazzy/Jan are his Lord Shojo. Letting Sarevok join you works because he does know more about the Bhaalspawn taint than you do and you can always put him under a geas.
I say again. If you take Hexxat you are willfully, intentionally choosing to pick a greater evil.
Interesting; You suggest there is justification in taking SOME evil people into your group but not others. You also tell me, not to compare some to others. You provide "conditions" for acceptance of some but not others, since they fail to meet your conditions. Well I suggest what that relays is simply your opinion. You are assuredly entitled to it. I suggest it is a bit of a stretch to insist I share it.
Oh, one other thing I might mention. Having total control over someone, as you suggest with Korgan and Sarevok, is no better than possession in my opinion. I can think of nothing more anathema to a Paladin's credo, regardless of deity. Just a consideration, of course.
@Nuin i understand your point of view, but see, you're metagaming here. Put yourself in the point that you have only traveled some months with Viconia in BG and you know that she needed you to survive there.
On Faerün, i can say without risk of error that much more people find the presence of a drow much more fearful than the presence of a vampire.
A vampire is a monster, powerful indeed, but still a know enemy of the surface. A drow normally precede an army or skirmishes and even when outcasts rarely act directly and you never know what kind of mischief they can bring along.
Indeed the moment of meet is totally different for Viconia and Hexxat. Viconia is being victmized by fanatics that are clearly being racists* while Hexxat was meet in the moment she killed an innocent to survive (feed). But 2 or 3 banters with viconia in the party are more than sufice to meet her bloodlust and cruelty (that is just a facade to hide her true nature and is buried in the depth of her personality, but you can't find it at the begin).
*Obs :let me call here a BIG difference between Faerün racism and our world racist. On normal word some ppl are racist cos they're just retard, on Faerün ppl is racists based on a well justified fear of bein victims of a slaughter, slavery, if not worst fates.
Both are terrifying to common people and i believe a lawful stupidy would go for the throat of both at first sight, but, if you can supress the holy rampage instinct in the first meet with one i have reasons to believe in both cases that could happen.
Maybe Hexxat first meet is too much to any paladin, i give that, but to say that no vampire can travel with a paladin... that's too short minded to me.
I tend to remember these times a good example, the game "The Witcher" were Geralt of Rivia, a monster hunter, had a great friend called Regis, that was a Higher Vampire (witch he knew and accepted).
Obviously a paladin would not tolerate an evil vampire in his party. Why are we even discussing it? One of the centrals tennets of a paladin is justice. Redemption is fine, but part of that is paying for your crimes first. Hexxat never does and commits murder in front of you.
The death of Clara calls for justice and a paladin will answer.
A paladin would also not choose to travel with Edwin, Dorn, Yoshimo and Korgan. Viconia is borderline. So is the alliance with the Shadow Thieves.
And the lawful "good" paladin who kills anyone scanning as evil is equally out of character in 2nd edition Faerun.
The other comparisons are strange. Bhaalspawn charname has not actually comitted any crimes because of his taint. Not turning yourself in if you can control the Slayer form is also ok, though you would be fully culpable if you lose control after all.
Also Hexxat is not evil only be because she is a vampire. It are her actions that condemn her.
As for Imoen, she is more a prankster than a hardened criminal. That is why she is good after all.
The discussion is meant to create some controversy, as in the end as player you do whatever you want in your game. From an AD&D perspective, I stay with my previous comments and agree with @Ammar .
In my opinion there are some incorrect statements in your post, @kamuizin: The Negative Material Plane is directly opposite to the Positive Material Plane. Negative material energy is being used for evil spells such as Unholy Blight and Cause xxx Wounds. Positive Material energy is used for the 'good' variants. As such I don't see where the opposition to neutrality is coming from.
I also don't agree with your comparison between Drow and Vampires. Drow are humanoids. Common people of Faerun will certainly have heard many terrifying tales about them. A very small minority may even have seen one, or fought some as part of a military campaign. While Drow are known to be evil as a race, mysterious, and dangerous, they still share traits with other humanoid races, such as Elves. As such they can be identified with to a certain extend. Vampires - and most other undead - on the other hand, are rarely ever encountered by commoners. Certainly they wouldn't live to tell the tale if they did. In the unlikely event they did survive an encounter with a Vampire, the creature probably didn't make its presence or identitiy known for its own reasons. Undead, and free willed undead, have nothing in common with the humanoid races, and are as such hard to identify yourself with. Commoners would have heard stories about them, much like witch stories used to be told in this world, but they'd certainly never want to meet one or expect to survive such a meeting. I certainly wouldn't consider such creatures as a 'known enemy of the surface'.
I also think references to non-D&D universes (games, movies, books) are not very constructive. You'll find any kind of Vampire plot and possibilities in literature, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Hexxat.
If you, like me, "rp" your paladin mainchars as a Gray Guard.. then there's a good chance you could justify her presence in the group. Unlike all other paladins, the Gray Guards do in fact say the ends justify the means. They're the gritty bastards, the ones that don't let code and ethics get in the way of what is good and right.
So.. if he thought Hexxat would be invaluable to help achieve his goals, then most certainly a Gray Guard would accept her presence on a temporary basis.. and then cave her skull in with a mace when her usefulness runs out.
Besides, given all the crap mainchar has to go through, such as subterfugue, ally with thieves, slay authority figures and so on and so forth, in my oppinion a mainchar paladin can't be anything other than a Gray Guard.
"Among the ranks of paladins there are some who have seen too much. The archetype of the noble-spirited paladin, resplendent in blessed armor and wielding a holy blade to smite the enemies of goodness, has gotten countless good men and women killed by their enemies' underhanded tactics. Taking a cue from their foes, certain churches have formed semi-secret groups from their most experienced and hard-hearted paladins and clerics, and trained them in the shadowy tactics favored by such worthies as the Church of Shar. These gray guards follow a looser code than the average paladin, and do whatever must be done to protect the innocent and helpless from those who would do them harm."
"The gray guard has seen the terrible realities of the world: orphaned children starving in gutters while the rich and powerful feast on the other side of a wall, tyrants abusing the law to expand their own power, and the supposedly devout using and abusing those they see as at best, beneath their notice, and at worst, heretics. The worst evil acts outwardly good and righteous, using honeyed words to seduce the unsuspecting masses. The code of a paladin can only go so far, because it forces them to act in the open, placing them at a disadvantage that can get them killed, and an inflexible code often not only allows evil to remain, but aids its spread. The gray guard has earned the right and freedom to do whatever it takes to take out the trash, even if it means committing a lesser evil to uphold the greater good.
Though he works toward the same goals as other members of his faith, he may find himself ostracized by his fellows. At best, he flirts with corruption, and at worst, embraces it. Paladins may see him as weak, for he has not (in their view) the courage to fight for justice with honor.
The gray guard is not proud of what he does, but rather sees it as a necessity forced upon him by the realities of the world. The freedom is not a boon but a loss, a tarnish of darkness on a once-pure soul. He resolves to do what is necessary, to do battle as valiantly as the greatest paladin, but as brutally as the most vile blackguard."
There's a difference dude, as stated before, Hexxat don't fight back her nature. She might not enjoy being an vampire, but nonetheless she accept her nature and do what she has to do to survive. It's not like she's avoiding feed until strictly needed or only feed on enemies or guilt ppl, she feed on peasants (aerie banters confirm this) and to satisfy her needs.
She's no Angel vampire (as the crossover buffy serie).
Do you condemn a lion for eating a deer?
Vampires drink people to live - you only need to make her drink more selectively - evil/bad humans instead of innocents.
Like you said it is her "nature" do you condemn something because they have a different diet than your own?
Plus even with Aerie banter there is of course a more logical way for Hex to feed - you have faced a ton of foes - she can feed on those to her content.
And even if Aerie says that Hexxat drinks from peasant - is this done "now" when she is with you or was it done in the past. Aerie case against Hexxat is about the things she has done in the past not in the now - when she is with you. Do you condemn just because of something done in the past.
And really after you have just meet her (and after she kills the first Hexxat) she gives you the means of destroying her by putting her coffin into your hands - effectively controlling her behavior if you want.
If you are a good alignment - playing a lawful good character/paladin then you have to decide if these arguments are worth someone's life.
Of course a lot of the evil NPCs have a colorful past before the join with you and tell their stories - do you condemn Dorn for joining with a demon? And how about Viconia and her difficulties before and after she is forced to remain in the surface world? And what about Baeloth and his crazy black pits and whatever else a drow sorcerer usually does? And if you meet Edwin in BG1 he even hired you to kill someone.
In the end as a role-player you have to decide how evil is too much evil. With Hex's coffin in your hand, her life is yours - and that gives you a chance to change her (
even if beamdog never gives us that option - and really her story does not really end on a satisfactory note - but you can decide if giving someone a chance is worth it.)
If a lion was in my neighborhood, i would want it banished to the far reaches of the Savanah. If I was a paladin and a vampire was prowling my neighborhood I would banish it to the far reaches of the abyss, or wherever it is dead vamps go. But its also a bad analogy because lions don't normally prey on humans. If vampires normally preyed on Baator's or whatnot, a paladin might not be so quick to slay them. If on the other hands humans were the preferred diet of lions, they kept coming back to my neighborhood, i would be very much in favor of extermination.
If you are a good alignment - playing a lawful good character/paladin then you have to decide if these arguments are worth someone's life.
To the extent that the law needs interpretation, yes. If you're lawful and a law has clear guidelines then you follow those. For example, with keldorn:
His wife has an affair, and if the law states that adulterers are to be put to death then her and her dude should probably be killed. However, there might be the question of what they did was actually an affair or not so they might be spared. Or if it's the law that they may be punished by death. In which case it's up to Keldorn.
But the case of Keldorn is a little off point, because it has more to do with specific actions of otherwise good people. My question is what do you do with someone with an Evil alignment, just based on their alignment? Are they sworn enemies, an opposing faction in a holy war? Does the law say destroy them? Does it say try to save them? Does it say something vague like "do good"?
In the end you have to decide what evil actually means. Does being evil mean you go around doing horrible things (like sacrifices, murdering innocents, mayhem and destruction, tyranny etc) or is it something society does not understand or tolerate because it is different. There is normally a ton of "evil" in regular fantasy society but would their alignment/detect evil spell, detect it if the said individual was more neutral and doing evil deeds.
Alignment in the AD&D universe is a bit restrictive considering all the shades of gray that are not covered in it. How can a thief not be evil is just odd especially as it relates to society even a fantasy society.
There are degrees of evil just like there are degree of good it is not just black and white. Good and evil are not strictly in opposition to one another - it really depends on the type of action and how you view it. That is not to say there are no purely evil creatures in fantasy there are some (demons come to mind) but being good does not mean you are automatically enemies with all evil creatures. Deeds/actions should in the end determine whether or not someone is an enemy not there mere alignment.
What does being a lawful good paladin actually entitle? Does it mean following human law? or following the tenets of your lawful deity? Do you uphold unlawful human rules because it is the law? As a holy warrior you follow a higher calling - what this means really is up to you (or your god) - but it should not mean that there is only black or white or this case good and evil only in the world because nothing is that simple really.
When I play a Paladin, my paladin is following a higher calling from his deity and that means acting in ways that might not make sense to normal human laws - as a holy warrior of your chosen god - consider a paladin as a special calling for some other purpose - yes it will usually mean fighting some kind of evil in the end but it doesn't mean you are automatically opposed to all evil aligned creatures - because if you were you wouldn't have much of a life as a paladin.
Yes, Hexxat is evil but she is a vampire and in the AD&D universe that makes her undead - and undead creatures are classified as evil even ghosts are considered evil in Ad&d- but to what extent do you classify her actions as evil? Yes, she killed someone by drinking their blood and you (the PC ) saw it - but being a vampire - humans are a source of nourishment - do you feel bad when you eat a chicken (okay not the same) but sometimes food is food even if you can have a conversation with it - and who is to say that Hexxat was not driven to a blood-hunger due to being locked away for so long without nourishment.
If you feel sorry for the stand-in consider this - in order for that thief to be dominated by Hexxat she had to be tomb robbing - so consider this punishment for that crime (although a bit harsh - but then again chopping someone hand off for stealing is harsh as well).
If you have Hexxat in your party you will notice certain things about her - she is a survivor but she also has a sense of honor that is a bit unusual for an 'evil' being.
Can you change Hexxat - no - because beamdog never gave us that option - well she change - probably not - being a vampire is hard, there is no going back - so you live with it and that is what she does; if nothing else she is practical about her condition and her survival. But it doesn't mean she cannot change how she eats or who she eats - you can imagine your paladin might be able to convince her to do.
Can't agree with all of the poster's conclusions, but it does highlight the fact paladins are meant to be a different breed. Kudos for him trying to play a hardcore paladin in this game vs all the half-assed posers out there.
But it's a good heat ! Ppl are fighting the good forum fight here!
About your statement @magisensei, as i said, Hexxat behavior is based on her nature. She's not selfish for being a vampire, she's selfish and also, she's a vampire.l
A ranger or another survival character can respect her will to survive, but a paladin, by rule, will not. For paladins it's about mathematic more or less, if i chance her redemption, how much innocents will perish in my lack of action? Does she reveal any chance of redemption?
I am truly impressed by the amount of controlled and civil discourse regarding such a sensitive topic. Sensitive? Assuredly, we are discussing in essence why and how we wish to have our main Character be a Paladin in the Baldur's Gate game series. Not an easy task by any means, as it is well noted to be the most restrictive class in all of AD&D. Not all of a Paladin's abilities were implemented in this game as documented in the 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook. And, I suppose fortunate for us, not all restrictions were hard coded into the game. I think both of these factors should be taken into consideration. I have the 2nd Ed. Players Handbook in front of me right now. Being written by mere mortals, heh it holds a few discrepancies within but regardless, it was written following votes by committee, not only by Gary in his study. A couple of quotes regarding Paladins are of interest wrt our current discussion.
Page 40; "A Paladin may employ only Lawful Good Henchmen (or those who act in such a manner when alignment is unknown). A Paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and deed. The Paladin realizes that most people simply cannot maintain his high standards. Even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil and are sincerely trying to reform. He will not abide the company of those who commit evil or unrighteous acts. Stealth in the cause of good is acceptable, though only as a last resort."
Now, we can parse these directives with a lawyer's finesse if you wish but that's not my purpose of providing it (i.e. "commit evil", it doesn't say "committed evil").
I think the more important consideration is whether or not it is appropriate within the restrictive confines provided to us by a pre-coded game; whether we should adhere to some specific directives WITHOUT personal intuitiveness and yet have no qualms dismissing others because they are simply unavailable.
I have always been a firm believer that "circumstance should dictate reasoned action".
I believe both the authors of the handbook and the developers of the game had similar thought.
As we are dealing with rational individuals, not robots with pre-coded programs, I believe Paladin's are at the least, allowed the discretion of evaluating circumstance and determining whether or not the tenets of their faith are compromised. If they become "fallen Paladins" by their actions, well I suppose they estimated wrongly. Does a Paladin become fallen (by game-code) if he elects to take Hexxat along with him? No. Does he become fallen (by game-code) if he kills an innocent? Yes. So the mechanism (to a degree) is there.
It is not as simple as that of course.
And my post is not meant to convince folk to change their personal convictions. Personal convictions are sometimes all we have in this bloody world ( in-game and out) that define who we are.
Perhaps, I provided something to give passing thought to though. That's sufficient for me.
On the fallen paladins mission the guy got fallen status for a night of pleasures with a courtesan he actually loved (but was not loved back). I found that a bit ridiculous.
There's a quest where the conclusion always left a bitter taste in my mouth!
But it's a good heat ! Ppl are fighting the good forum fight here!
About your statement @magisensei, as i said, Hexxat behavior is based on her nature. She's not selfish for being a vampire, she's selfish and also, she's a vampire.l
A ranger or another survival character can respect her will to survive, but a paladin, by rule, will not. For paladins it's about mathematic more or less, if i chance her redemption, how much innocents will perish in my lack of action? Does she reveal any chance of redemption?
I believe the point is more or less that.
Is being selfish something evil? No. Before being turned she was a thief - and thieves by there own class are a selfish bunch otherwise they would work for a living.
And really, if the paladin was that inflexible with adding Hexxat you have to wonder what kind of reasoning the paladin uses for cooperating with the shadow thieves.
As I said, alignments are really just a starting - there is a whole bunch of gray area out there - you can't just use a detect evil and decide to kill everything because everyone is evil to some degree - yes even a paladin is - if you think about it.
Without giving away spoilers or anything - all the new characters are more than what they seem - sometimes its takes traveling with them to fully appreciate them and the nuances that the writers put into each NPC.
If being a paladin doesn't allow you to bring Hexxat for this run, try it with a different class next time and see what happens the same goes for all the new NPCs.
In fact selfish is the epithet of neutral evil. Is in the character description.
While i agree that exist much more behaviors than the 9 alignment options, for the game we have to respect the system created.
Join the shadow thieves is a bit different than join arms with a vampire. It's my opinion only.
As you i would really like to have a reason to put her in my paladin team, however i prefer to not cheap my roleplay with weak justifications and until now, for hexxat at least, we found none decent.
By the way @Lorandar, a sword can do good or evil deeds, based on which hand holds it. I see the negative energy plane as this. In fact there's not a single mention to evil in the description of the negative energy plane.
It's like matter and anti-matter for me. Is anti-matter evil? I think not. another example is fire. Is fire evil, despite it's destructive potential?
Seizing the opportunity, here's a link to the description of the Negative Energy Plane. It's extremly hostile but viable to visite, unlike the positive energy plane that pratically explode any live being that enter there (description below the negative energy plane):
Only one other consideration do I wish to bring to the discussion and then I think I'm effectively done ( had great fun though!!!) As I personally have not yet reached the point of BG2 where I have opportunity to engage Hexxat ( I have been describing my intentions) I need to query those who have; Keldorn loses his mind if you have Viconia in your party. What is his response to having Hexxat? The answer does not dissuade my own convictions but some may use this as a metre for their own.
Only one other consideration do I wish to bring to the discussion and then I think I'm effectively done ( had great fun though!!!) As I personally have not yet reached the point of BG2 where I have opportunity to engage Hexxat ( I have been describing my intentions) I need to query those who have; Keldorn loses his mind if you have Viconia in your party. What is his response to having Hexxat? The answer does not dissuade my own convictions but some may use this as a metre for their own.
I believe the banter change and he attack at the first sight, very alike Anomen / Dorn reaction when you speak with one with the other in party.
If your team is a group of paladins then no there is justification for bringing Hexxat at all. Even if you wanted to bring her along some of the NPC paladins would eventually try to kill her as it does with Viconia and will happen with in all likelihood with Dorn and with Baeloth.
I can't imagine a group of paladins accepting a blackguard as a member.
Here is a thought - vampires are evil because it is in their nature to be evil - there is no choice at all. While thieves choose to be evil - and while you might argue that not all thieves are evil that is really just semantics because if you steal you are essentially evil - being selfish.
So who would you ally yourself with a creature that is evil because it has no choice but to be evil or a individual that chooses to be evil?
"Among the ranks of paladins there are some who have seen too much. The archetype of the noble-spirited paladin, resplendent in blessed armor and wielding a holy blade to smite the enemies of goodness, has gotten countless good men and women killed by their enemies' underhanded tactics. Taking a cue from their foes, certain churches have formed semi-secret groups from their most experienced and hard-hearted paladins and clerics, and trained them in the shadowy tactics favored by such worthies as the Church of Shar. These gray guards follow a looser code than the average paladin, and do whatever must be done to protect the innocent and helpless from those who would do them harm."
"The gray guard has seen the terrible realities of the world: orphaned children starving in gutters while the rich and powerful feast on the other side of a wall, tyrants abusing the law to expand their own power, and the supposedly devout using and abusing those they see as at best, beneath their notice, and at worst, heretics. The worst evil acts outwardly good and righteous, using honeyed words to seduce the unsuspecting masses. The code of a paladin can only go so far, because it forces them to act in the open, placing them at a disadvantage that can get them killed, and an inflexible code often not only allows evil to remain, but aids its spread. The gray guard has earned the right and freedom to do whatever it takes to take out the trash, even if it means committing a lesser evil to uphold the greater good.
Though he works toward the same goals as other members of his faith, he may find himself ostracized by his fellows. At best, he flirts with corruption, and at worst, embraces it. Paladins may see him as weak, for he has not (in their view) the courage to fight for justice with honor.
The gray guard is not proud of what he does, but rather sees it as a necessity forced upon him by the realities of the world. The freedom is not a boon but a loss, a tarnish of darkness on a once-pure soul. He resolves to do what is necessary, to do battle as valiantly as the greatest paladin, but as brutally as the most vile blackguard."
Quoting myself here, due to the fact I am building on it in this following post.
I think, that in light of the Gray Guards existing, you can't ever actually say that a Paladin must be Lawful Stupid. A Gray Guard is Lawful Good, just as strongly as any other paladin. The clue is that the Gray Guard is given freedom to act outside the code of Paladins. A good natured lawful guardsman is Lawful Good, but that doesn't mean he is anywhere near as zealous as a Paladin.. and can in many circumstances deviate from his alignment but still retain it.
This is where the Grey Guard lands. He'll always be Lawful Good, he'll always be a force of righteusness and good. But he is "allowed" to go to rather extreme measures to see that Law and Good are preserved and promoted on a grander scale, even if that means doing unspeakable things.
His soul will be tarnished by his dark deeds, but he may attone for his sins and retain his rank and status without loss deity powers.
So if we apply this to the game: Mainchar MUST ally with thieves or undead, neither of which is possible for a Paladin. In truth he should be giving the Shadow Thieves up to the government once he learned their identities.. and in truth, should have acted as a lawman long before then. He can not under any circumstance ally himself with an obviously evil and malevolent vampire and her cohorts.
A Gray Guard could, if it served a greater purpose.
Mainchar MUST infiltrate a LEGAL and official authority, the cowled wizards. A paladin could never do this. Breaking and entering, theft, trespassing and so on and so forth.
A Gray Guard could, if it served a greater purpose.
So my point is that under no uncertain terms is it even POSSIBLE for a regular paladin to ever complete the game and retain his status, because despite fighting for greater good (and mainly himself to be honest) he breaks laws all willy nilly with a complete and utter disregard for authority and law. This is due to the paladin being a very special breed of people and character limitations, set within a game that is built to cater to all kinds of chars. But the result is that it breaks the base lore on so many levels that it is mind boggling.
So at the end of the day, if you do in fact complete the BG series with a Paladin.. he really couldn't be anything other than a Gray Guard or lose his Paladin status before you even get half way through.. not to mention BG1 and how the official guard has you sneaking illegally into a compound all clandestine. In truth, you should have arrested Scar at the bridge of Baldur's Gate..
And as I said previously, a Gray Guard would most likely find some kind of use for Hexxat.. and at least postpone caving her skull in until her usefulness was spent.
So in my honest oppinion, your Paladin mainchar is either a Gray Guard or a Fighter/Cleric with a big flashy sword. OR.. you could in your head disregard certain aspects of the game, saying poor writing shouldn't limit what my char is.. but then you might as well disregard the aspect of the game that Hexxat is a vampire.. or evil for that matter.
You're a Gray Guard, mate. Now go liberally dispensing buttkicks of justice.
If you can think of exceptions then making one for Hexxat is not to hard.
There are exceptions of good vampires (neutral ones in fact), that doesn't mean a main char paladin must turn exception in rule to any vampire he meet, specially in Hexxat circumstances. You see, i really wished to find a justify to get hexxat togheter with a paladin, unfortunally it's not hexxat vampirism that refrain me from that but her natural evil behavior, one she had as a thief and one she has now as a vampire thief.
A paladin would not cooperate with her. The first time you meet her she commits a capital crime and as a Paladin you are required to uphold the law, unless the law itself is evil.
And even if the paladin believes strongly in redemption, redemptions requires you to first stop offending and then try to make restitution. Hexxat is totally unwilling to do this.
Compare it to the one time Claudius in Hamlet shows regret:
My fault is past. But O, what form of prayer Can serve my turn? Forgive me my foul murder? That cannot be, since I am still possess'd Of those effects for which I did the murder, My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen
It is the same for Hexxat. There can be no forgiveness or redemption for her, unless she stops feeding and starts making amends.
Look, even Mazzy is unwilling to tolerate her, and she is the most tolerant and most pure of the good characters.
A paladin would not cooperate with her. The first time you meet her she commits a capital crime and as a Paladin you are required to uphold the law, unless the law itself is evil.
And even if the paladin believes strongly in redemption, redemptions requires you to first stop offending and then try to make restitution. Hexxat is totally unwilling to do this.
Compare it to the one time Claudius in Hamlet shows regret:
My fault is past. But O, what form of prayer Can serve my turn? Forgive me my foul murder? That cannot be, since I am still possess'd Of those effects for which I did the murder, My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen
It is the same for Hexxat. There can be no forgiveness or redemption for her, unless she stops feeding and starts making amends.
Look, even Mazzy is unwilling to tolerate her, and she is the most tolerant and most pure of the good characters.
A small correction, if you allow me: Unless she stop kill when feeding. Feed is a need to survive. To kill while she feed is utterly unecessary.
Comments
it's possible the living hell of a druid, but not for a paladin, maybe.
Hexxat don't like her vampirism state, she doesn't enjoy be a vampire apparently. She may enjoy the pleasures that come with feed when she is feeding, but the state of vampire is one that she search how to be free even.
About Viconia? Yes, several times i see her acting with bloodlust and cruelty. In fact it's all an facade to hide her true feelings, but tell that to the ppl she incite Charname to kill during the adventure
Obs: Not all that happens in the game is core based on D&D rules. Vampires killed can't be brought back as their living previous selfs.
I also suggested that with sufficient effort, one could devise a back-ground story that would provide legitimacy to whatever decision was made.
I've since read a variety of responses and some, though well thought out and frequently rationalized, I still found disturbing. Those that suggested in no uncertain terms, a Paladin would definitely NOT take Hexxat on their travels.
I don't wish to drag a simple internet forum post into a grand discussion on peoples definitions of morality but I do have some questions I feel these posts now raise.
As a Bhaalspawn, I more than anyone need to discover if redemption is possible. I suggest part and purpose of my whole personal agenda (as a Paladin) is principal focus toward this endeavour.
I also must consider if there are redeeming qualities in those I take on my journey.
Should I dismiss Imoen out-of-hand? I've known for years she is a thief.
And what of all the other thieves that offer to join me? Dismiss or perhaps even apprehend them all?
Should I slay Viconia on site? She is a Drow. My whole life I've been told they are a nemesis to all that I serve in this world.
Should I dismiss Sarevok as irredeemably evil and scoff at his suggestion to join me?
Once I discover my Slayer ability, should I now surrender myself to the authorities for the betterment and safety of society?
If I were to adhere to the "Paladin principals" suggested by some, then assuredly YES to all of the above.
Others have suggested that I should adhere to the principals as outlined by the deity to whom I plead allegiance. To this, I agree. Keep in mind, there are a LOT of deities, and even Helm accepts repentance vice death on occasion.
I prefer the consideration that I can develop a story-line in MY game world where an Undead Hunter, (with a Wisdom of 16 btw) has a second thought upon initial confrontation with Hexxat and just before killing her, elect to determine this as a sign; a tool has been placed in my hand that I can utilize for a greater good or just destroy and move on.
I thereby elect to perform my service, and perhaps even determine an answer to my own conundrum, by bringing this scion of the damned along on my adventure, perhaps to find peace and redemption for us both.
I also elect to be more than a simple tool myself. I disdain the phrase "lawful stupid" as it was on one occasion implied. In fact, I would suggest that a Paladin that believes his tenets are carved in granite is the epitome of "lawful stupid". I am more than an automaton that follows a set of prescribed rules to the letter, I suggest those whom think otherwise consider reviewing some of Keldorn's back stories.
Were I a DM and a player provided me coherent justification for bringing Hexxat on his/her campaign, I would 'high-five' that person in a heartbeat and simply state "hang on! it's gonna be a bumpy ride!".
Think outside the box. You'd be amazed how much fun it can be!
A very reflective Bhaalspawn paladin might simply let Hexxat go. It's a completely different thing to let her join you.
And don't compare Hexxat to Viconia/Sarevok/Korgan.
Letting Viconia join you is a possible lesser evil. You are basicallly condemning her to die just because she's drow if you don't, and over time she might grow on you and you get to learn just how hard she's been trying to adapt to life on the surface if you romance her. Korgan is someone who you actually CAN control, like a BG2 version of Belkar Bitterleaf except Mazzy/Jan are his Lord Shojo. Letting Sarevok join you works because he does know more about the Bhaalspawn taint than you do and you can always put him under a geas.
I say again. If you take Hexxat you are willfully, intentionally choosing to pick a greater evil.
You suggest there is justification in taking SOME evil people into your group but not others.
You also tell me, not to compare some to others.
You provide "conditions" for acceptance of some but not others, since they fail to meet your conditions.
Well I suggest what that relays is simply your opinion.
You are assuredly entitled to it.
I suggest it is a bit of a stretch to insist I share it.
Having total control over someone, as you suggest with Korgan and Sarevok, is no better than possession in my opinion.
I can think of nothing more anathema to a Paladin's credo, regardless of deity.
Just a consideration, of course.
On Faerün, i can say without risk of error that much more people find the presence of a drow much more fearful than the presence of a vampire.
A vampire is a monster, powerful indeed, but still a know enemy of the surface. A drow normally precede an army or skirmishes and even when outcasts rarely act directly and you never know what kind of mischief they can bring along.
Indeed the moment of meet is totally different for Viconia and Hexxat. Viconia is being victmized by fanatics that are clearly being racists* while Hexxat was meet in the moment she killed an innocent to survive (feed). But 2 or 3 banters with viconia in the party are more than sufice to meet her bloodlust and cruelty (that is just a facade to hide her true nature and is buried in the depth of her personality, but you can't find it at the begin).
*Obs :let me call here a BIG difference between Faerün racism and our world racist. On normal word some ppl are racist cos they're just retard, on Faerün ppl is racists based on a well justified fear of bein victims of a slaughter, slavery, if not worst fates.
Both are terrifying to common people and i believe a lawful stupidy would go for the throat of both at first sight, but, if you can supress the holy rampage instinct in the first meet with one i have reasons to believe in both cases that could happen.
Maybe Hexxat first meet is too much to any paladin, i give that, but to say that no vampire can travel with a paladin... that's too short minded to me.
I tend to remember these times a good example, the game "The Witcher" were Geralt of Rivia, a monster hunter, had a great friend called Regis, that was a Higher Vampire (witch he knew and accepted).
The death of Clara calls for justice and a paladin will answer.
A paladin would also not choose to travel with Edwin, Dorn, Yoshimo and Korgan. Viconia is borderline. So is the alliance with the Shadow Thieves.
And the lawful "good" paladin who kills anyone scanning as evil is equally out of character in 2nd edition Faerun.
The other comparisons are strange. Bhaalspawn charname has not actually comitted any crimes because of his taint. Not turning yourself in if you can control the Slayer form is also ok, though you would be fully culpable if you lose control after all.
Also Hexxat is not evil only be because she is a vampire. It are her actions that condemn her.
As for Imoen, she is more a prankster than a hardened criminal. That is why she is good after all.
In my opinion there are some incorrect statements in your post, @kamuizin:
The Negative Material Plane is directly opposite to the Positive Material Plane. Negative material energy is being used for evil spells such as Unholy Blight and Cause xxx Wounds. Positive Material energy is used for the 'good' variants. As such I don't see where the opposition to neutrality is coming from.
I also don't agree with your comparison between Drow and Vampires. Drow are humanoids. Common people of Faerun will certainly have heard many terrifying tales about them. A very small minority may even have seen one, or fought some as part of a military campaign. While Drow are known to be evil as a race, mysterious, and dangerous, they still share traits with other humanoid races, such as Elves. As such they can be identified with to a certain extend.
Vampires - and most other undead - on the other hand, are rarely ever encountered by commoners. Certainly they wouldn't live to tell the tale if they did. In the unlikely event they did survive an encounter with a Vampire, the creature probably didn't make its presence or identitiy known for its own reasons. Undead, and free willed undead, have nothing in common with the humanoid races, and are as such hard to identify yourself with. Commoners would have heard stories about them, much like witch stories used to be told in this world, but they'd certainly never want to meet one or expect to survive such a meeting. I certainly wouldn't consider such creatures as a 'known enemy of the surface'.
I also think references to non-D&D universes (games, movies, books) are not very constructive. You'll find any kind of Vampire plot and possibilities in literature, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Hexxat.
Unlike all other paladins, the Gray Guards do in fact say the ends justify the means.
They're the gritty bastards, the ones that don't let code and ethics get in the way of what is good and right.
So.. if he thought Hexxat would be invaluable to help achieve his goals, then most certainly a Gray Guard would accept her presence on a temporary basis.. and then cave her skull in with a mace when her usefulness runs out.
Besides, given all the crap mainchar has to go through, such as subterfugue, ally with thieves, slay authority figures and so on and so forth, in my oppinion a mainchar paladin can't be anything other than a Gray Guard.
"Among the ranks of paladins there are some who have seen too much. The archetype of the noble-spirited paladin, resplendent in blessed armor and wielding a holy blade to smite the enemies of goodness, has gotten countless good men and women killed by their enemies' underhanded tactics. Taking a cue from their foes, certain churches have formed semi-secret groups from their most experienced and hard-hearted paladins and clerics, and trained them in the shadowy tactics favored by such worthies as the Church of Shar. These gray guards follow a looser code than the average paladin, and do whatever must be done to protect the innocent and helpless from those who would do them harm."
"The gray guard has seen the terrible realities of the world: orphaned children starving in gutters while the rich and powerful feast on the other side of a wall, tyrants abusing the law to expand their own power, and the supposedly devout using and abusing those they see as at best, beneath their notice, and at worst, heretics. The worst evil acts outwardly good and righteous, using honeyed words to seduce the unsuspecting masses. The code of a paladin can only go so far, because it forces them to act in the open, placing them at a disadvantage that can get them killed, and an inflexible code often not only allows evil to remain, but aids its spread. The gray guard has earned the right and freedom to do whatever it takes to take out the trash, even if it means committing a lesser evil to uphold the greater good.
Though he works toward the same goals as other members of his faith, he may find himself ostracized by his fellows. At best, he flirts with corruption, and at worst, embraces it. Paladins may see him as weak, for he has not (in their view) the courage to fight for justice with honor.
The gray guard is not proud of what he does, but rather sees it as a necessity forced upon him by the realities of the world. The freedom is not a boon but a loss, a tarnish of darkness on a once-pure soul. He resolves to do what is necessary, to do battle as valiantly as the greatest paladin, but as brutally as the most vile blackguard."
Source: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gray_guard
Vampires drink people to live - you only need to make her drink more selectively - evil/bad humans instead of innocents.
Like you said it is her "nature" do you condemn something because they have a different diet than your own?
Plus even with Aerie banter there is of course a more logical way for Hex to feed - you have faced a ton of foes - she can feed on those to her content.
And even if Aerie says that Hexxat drinks from peasant - is this done "now" when she is with you or was it done in the past. Aerie case against Hexxat is about the things she has done in the past not in the now - when she is with you. Do you condemn just because of something done in the past.
And really after you have just meet her (and after she kills the first Hexxat) she gives you the means of destroying her by putting her coffin into your hands - effectively controlling her behavior if you want.
If you are a good alignment - playing a lawful good character/paladin then you have to decide if these arguments are worth someone's life.
Of course a lot of the evil NPCs have a colorful past before the join with you and tell their stories - do you condemn Dorn for joining with a demon? And how about Viconia and her difficulties before and after she is forced to remain in the surface world? And what about Baeloth and his crazy black pits and whatever else a drow sorcerer usually does? And if you meet Edwin in BG1 he even hired you to kill someone.
In the end as a role-player you have to decide how evil is too much evil. With Hex's coffin in your hand, her life is yours - and that gives you a chance to change her (
But the case of Keldorn is a little off point, because it has more to do with specific actions of otherwise good people. My question is what do you do with someone with an Evil alignment, just based on their alignment? Are they sworn enemies, an opposing faction in a holy war? Does the law say destroy them? Does it say try to save them? Does it say something vague like "do good"?
Alignment in the AD&D universe is a bit restrictive considering all the shades of gray that are not covered in it. How can a thief not be evil is just odd especially as it relates to society even a fantasy society.
There are degrees of evil just like there are degree of good it is not just black and white. Good and evil are not strictly in opposition to one another - it really depends on the type of action and how you view it. That is not to say there are no purely evil creatures in fantasy there are some (demons come to mind) but being good does not mean you are automatically enemies with all evil creatures. Deeds/actions should in the end determine whether or not someone is an enemy not there mere alignment.
What does being a lawful good paladin actually entitle? Does it mean following human law? or following the tenets of your lawful deity? Do you uphold unlawful human rules because it is the law? As a holy warrior you follow a higher calling - what this means really is up to you (or your god) - but it should not mean that there is only black or white or this case good and evil only in the world because nothing is that simple really.
When I play a Paladin, my paladin is following a higher calling from his deity and that means acting in ways that might not make sense to normal human laws - as a holy warrior of your chosen god - consider a paladin as a special calling for some other purpose - yes it will usually mean fighting some kind of evil in the end but it doesn't mean you are automatically opposed to all evil aligned creatures - because if you were you wouldn't have much of a life as a paladin.
Yes, Hexxat is evil but she is a vampire and in the AD&D universe that makes her undead - and undead creatures are classified as evil even ghosts are considered evil in Ad&d- but to what extent do you classify her actions as evil? Yes, she killed someone by drinking their blood and you (the PC ) saw it - but being a vampire - humans are a source of nourishment - do you feel bad when you eat a chicken (okay not the same) but sometimes food is food even if you can have a conversation with it - and who is to say that Hexxat was not driven to a blood-hunger due to being locked away for so long without nourishment.
If you feel sorry for the stand-in consider this - in order for that thief to be dominated by Hexxat she had to be tomb robbing - so consider this punishment for that crime (although a bit harsh - but then again chopping someone hand off for stealing is harsh as well).
If you have Hexxat in your party you will notice certain things about her - she is a survivor but she also has a sense of honor that is a bit unusual for an 'evil' being.
Can you change Hexxat - no - because beamdog never gave us that option - well she change - probably not - being a vampire is hard, there is no going back - so you live with it and that is what she does; if nothing else she is practical about her condition and her survival. But it doesn't mean she cannot change how she eats or who she eats - you can imagine your paladin might be able to convince her to do.
Can't agree with all of the poster's conclusions, but it does highlight the fact paladins are meant to be a different breed. Kudos for him trying to play a hardcore paladin in this game vs all the half-assed posers out there.
But it's a good heat
About your statement @magisensei, as i said, Hexxat behavior is based on her nature. She's not selfish for being a vampire, she's selfish and also, she's a vampire.l
A ranger or another survival character can respect her will to survive, but a paladin, by rule, will not. For paladins it's about mathematic more or less, if i chance her redemption, how much innocents will perish in my lack of action? Does she reveal any chance of redemption?
I believe the point is more or less that.
Sensitive?
Assuredly, we are discussing in essence why and how we wish to have our main Character be a Paladin in the Baldur's Gate game series.
Not an easy task by any means, as it is well noted to be the most restrictive class in all of AD&D.
Not all of a Paladin's abilities were implemented in this game as documented in the 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook.
And, I suppose fortunate for us, not all restrictions were hard coded into the game.
I think both of these factors should be taken into consideration.
I have the 2nd Ed. Players Handbook in front of me right now.
Being written by mere mortals, heh it holds a few discrepancies within but regardless, it was written following votes by committee, not only by Gary in his study.
A couple of quotes regarding Paladins are of interest wrt our current discussion.
Page 40;
"A Paladin may employ only Lawful Good Henchmen (or those who act in such a manner when alignment is unknown). A Paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and deed. The Paladin realizes that most people simply cannot maintain his high standards. Even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil and are sincerely trying to reform. He will not abide the company of those who commit evil or unrighteous acts. Stealth in the cause of good is acceptable, though only as a last resort."
Now, we can parse these directives with a lawyer's finesse if you wish but that's not my purpose of providing it (i.e. "commit evil", it doesn't say "committed evil").
I think the more important consideration is whether or not it is appropriate within the restrictive confines provided to us by a pre-coded game; whether we should adhere to some specific directives WITHOUT personal intuitiveness and yet have no qualms dismissing others because they are simply unavailable.
I have always been a firm believer that "circumstance should dictate reasoned action".
I believe both the authors of the handbook and the developers of the game had similar thought.
As we are dealing with rational individuals, not robots with pre-coded programs, I believe Paladin's are at the least, allowed the discretion of evaluating circumstance and determining whether or not the tenets of their faith are compromised.
If they become "fallen Paladins" by their actions, well I suppose they estimated wrongly.
Does a Paladin become fallen (by game-code) if he elects to take Hexxat along with him? No.
Does he become fallen (by game-code) if he kills an innocent? Yes.
So the mechanism (to a degree) is there.
It is not as simple as that of course.
And my post is not meant to convince folk to change their personal convictions. Personal convictions are sometimes all we have in this bloody world ( in-game and out) that define who we are.
Perhaps, I provided something to give passing thought to though. That's sufficient for me.
m2c
There's a quest where the conclusion always left a bitter taste in my mouth!
And really, if the paladin was that inflexible with adding Hexxat you have to wonder what kind of reasoning the paladin uses for cooperating with the shadow thieves.
As I said, alignments are really just a starting - there is a whole bunch of gray area out there - you can't just use a detect evil and decide to kill everything because everyone is evil to some degree - yes even a paladin is - if you think about it.
Without giving away spoilers or anything - all the new characters are more than what they seem - sometimes its takes traveling with them to fully appreciate them and the nuances that the writers put into each NPC.
If being a paladin doesn't allow you to bring Hexxat for this run, try it with a different class next time and see what happens the same goes for all the new NPCs.
While i agree that exist much more behaviors than the 9 alignment options, for the game we have to respect the system created.
Join the shadow thieves is a bit different than join arms with a vampire. It's my opinion only.
As you i would really like to have a reason to put her in my paladin team, however i prefer to not cheap my roleplay with weak justifications and until now, for hexxat at least, we found none decent.
By the way @Lorandar, a sword can do good or evil deeds, based on which hand holds it. I see the negative energy plane as this. In fact there's not a single mention to evil in the description of the negative energy plane.
It's like matter and anti-matter for me. Is anti-matter evil? I think not. another example is fire. Is fire evil, despite it's destructive potential?
Seizing the opportunity, here's a link to the description of the Negative Energy Plane. It's extremly hostile but viable to visite, unlike the positive energy plane that pratically explode any live being that enter there (description below the negative energy plane):
Negative Energy Plane.
As I personally have not yet reached the point of BG2 where I have opportunity to engage Hexxat ( I have been describing my intentions) I need to query those who have;
Keldorn loses his mind if you have Viconia in your party. What is his response to having Hexxat?
The answer does not dissuade my own convictions but some may use this as a metre for their own.
I can't imagine a group of paladins accepting a blackguard as a member.
Here is a thought - vampires are evil because it is in their nature to be evil - there is no choice at all. While thieves choose to be evil - and while you might argue that not all thieves are evil that is really just semantics because if you steal you are essentially evil - being selfish.
So who would you ally yourself with a creature that is evil because it has no choice but to be evil or a individual that chooses to be evil?
An example is Jander Sunstar
Quoting myself here, due to the fact I am building on it in this following post.
I think, that in light of the Gray Guards existing, you can't ever actually say that a Paladin must be Lawful Stupid.
A Gray Guard is Lawful Good, just as strongly as any other paladin.
The clue is that the Gray Guard is given freedom to act outside the code of Paladins.
A good natured lawful guardsman is Lawful Good, but that doesn't mean he is anywhere near as zealous as a Paladin.. and can in many circumstances deviate from his alignment but still retain it.
This is where the Grey Guard lands. He'll always be Lawful Good, he'll always be a force of righteusness and good. But he is "allowed" to go to rather extreme measures to see that Law and Good are preserved and promoted on a grander scale, even if that means doing unspeakable things.
His soul will be tarnished by his dark deeds, but he may attone for his sins and retain his rank and status without loss deity powers.
So if we apply this to the game:
Mainchar MUST ally with thieves or undead, neither of which is possible for a Paladin. In truth he should be giving the Shadow Thieves up to the government once he learned their identities.. and in truth, should have acted as a lawman long before then. He can not under any circumstance ally himself with an obviously evil and malevolent vampire and her cohorts.
A Gray Guard could, if it served a greater purpose.
Mainchar MUST infiltrate a LEGAL and official authority, the cowled wizards.
A paladin could never do this. Breaking and entering, theft, trespassing and so on and so forth.
A Gray Guard could, if it served a greater purpose.
So my point is that under no uncertain terms is it even POSSIBLE for a regular paladin to ever complete the game and retain his status, because despite fighting for greater good (and mainly himself to be honest) he breaks laws all willy nilly with a complete and utter disregard for authority and law.
This is due to the paladin being a very special breed of people and character limitations, set within a game that is built to cater to all kinds of chars. But the result is that it breaks the base lore on so many levels that it is mind boggling.
So at the end of the day, if you do in fact complete the BG series with a Paladin.. he really couldn't be anything other than a Gray Guard or lose his Paladin status before you even get half way through.. not to mention BG1 and how the official guard has you sneaking illegally into a compound all clandestine. In truth, you should have arrested Scar at the bridge of Baldur's Gate..
And as I said previously, a Gray Guard would most likely find some kind of use for Hexxat.. and at least postpone caving her skull in until her usefulness was spent.
So in my honest oppinion, your Paladin mainchar is either a Gray Guard or a Fighter/Cleric with a big flashy sword. OR.. you could in your head disregard certain aspects of the game, saying poor writing shouldn't limit what my char is.. but then you might as well disregard the aspect of the game that Hexxat is a vampire.. or evil for that matter.
You're a Gray Guard, mate. Now go liberally dispensing buttkicks of justice.
- Murders Clara in front of you
- Sneaks out at night to feed on ordinary people
- One of her previous victims includes Jan's niece
A paladin would not cooperate with her. The first time you meet her she commits a capital crime and as a Paladin you are required to uphold the law, unless the law itself is evil.And even if the paladin believes strongly in redemption, redemptions requires you to first stop offending and then try to make restitution. Hexxat is totally unwilling to do this.
Compare it to the one time Claudius in Hamlet shows regret: It is the same for Hexxat. There can be no forgiveness or redemption for her, unless she stops feeding and starts making amends.
Look, even Mazzy is unwilling to tolerate her, and she is the most tolerant and most pure of the good characters.
Look, even Mazzy is unwilling to tolerate her, and she is the most tolerant and most pure of the good characters.
A small correction, if you allow me: Unless she stop kill when feeding. Feed is a need to survive. To kill while she feed is utterly unecessary.