Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 03, 2004, 06:23:04 PM »

b) For any lawfulness hit that brought their lawfulness index below 12
 . . .
That is, Paladins must stay Lawful Good, but they don't need to guard their lawfulness as vigilantly as their goodness--as long as they live on-balance lawful lives, they're allowed the occasional slip, but one *bad* act and it's over.
technically correct, inasmuch as they may atone for purely chaotic acts.  but atonement is still required (this is of course a bit more to ask for from an already historical mod).
 i'll quote 1e later tonight if i'm not beaten to the punch.
Posted by: belboz
« on: December 03, 2004, 01:29:27 PM »

It's been a long time since I've looked at the P&P rules, but I could *swear* there's nothing in there about Paladins falling if they ever once perform a chaotic act (unlike evil acts, which *do* trigger immediate fall). It seems to me that a lawfulness index would be perfectly acceptable, even without modifying the quests themselves, if a Paladin fell:

a) For any virtue hit whatsoever
b) For any lawfulness hit that brought their lawfulness index below 12

That is, Paladins must stay Lawful Good, but they don't need to guard their lawfulness as vigilantly as their goodness--as long as they live on-balance lawful lives, they're allowed the occasional slip, but one *bad* act and it's over. A Paladin can conscientiously object to a single order (even one lawfully legitimate) if they think it's evil, but they can't make a habit of disregarding orders (even for the greater good)--they must, in general, live lawful and regimented lives with appropriate respect for authority.
Posted by: Mongoose87
« on: July 13, 2004, 09:08:20 PM »

IMO lawfulness is far less paramount than good to a paladin and perhaps they could be permitted as many as (pushing it a little) four unlawful actionms before falling.
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:39:07 PM »

I think this thread shows already it'd probably be more trouble than it's worth to do. ;)

Agreed. :) You'd have to re-write half the quests.
Posted by: rreinier
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:14:13 PM »

True. Forget I said anything.  :)
Posted by: Andyr
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:05:17 PM »

I think this thread shows already it'd probably be more trouble than it's worth to do. ;)
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 13, 2004, 11:57:50 AM »

That is the Law versus Good conflict Imrahil.

I agree that it's a law (intentional lower case) vs. Good conflict, but disagree that it's the Lawful vs. Good conflict.  When I think of a Paladin's Code of Conduct, I envision tenets like "Help the helpless", "Give to the poor", "Fight those who would do Evil", etc. (although with more flowery language).  I don't see "Never steal" as one of those tenets, so I don't actually see a conflict arising.

It would depend on the order, but "Thou Shalt Not Steal" would make sense as part of the code of honor for a classic Christian knight, along with "Slaves, obey thy masters" (Ephesians 6:6, Colossians 3:22) and many other very restrictive tennents. However, it is also true that FR paladins are not Christian knights, and would have their own rules to follow.
Posted by: Imrahil
« on: July 13, 2004, 08:41:01 AM »

That is the Law versus Good conflict Imrahil.

I agree that it's a law (intentional lower case) vs. Good conflict, but disagree that it's the Lawful vs. Good conflict.  When I think of a Paladin's Code of Conduct, I envision tenets like "Help the helpless", "Give to the poor", "Fight those who would do Evil", etc. (although with more flowery language).  I don't see "Never steal" as one of those tenets, so I don't actually see a conflict arising.

Quote
In fiction, one classic answer is to have the conflicted character choose "good", but that is an un-lawful choice. Another classic answer is to have the conflicted character throw down his badge / resign his commission / fulfill his oath of service and then become a Ronin . . . 

I could see this as a possibility for the Paladin only if he'd sworn an oath to serve the Roenalls.  As long as he's still following the tenets of his Order, though, there's no Lawful conflict in disregarding the laws of Athkatla (or Trademeet or Ust Natha) in order to accomplish the greater good.

- Imrahil
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 13, 2004, 04:58:31 AM »

One of the common misconceptions of paladins is that they must obey every law in existence.  In actual fact, they must only obey those laws they/their order/their deity percieves as being good  laws.  For example:

-  In a country where slavery is legal, a paladin is perfectly entitled to be part of a group dedicated to freeing slaves.

-  If a person is imprisoned because of an unjust law (e.g. they refuse to get married to someone their parents betrothed them too when they were still a small child), a paladin is free to rescue that person.

-  In a city where anyone found on the street after midnight is killed on sight by the city guards, a paladin is within his rights to defend a person under attack.


Of course in all the above scenarios, the paladin is encouraged to go through legal channels first, but obviously that won't always work.

I am aware of this. Still, our hypothetical Paladin sneaking into a noble's home to find and take evidence is violating laws against illegal entry and theft that he probably does agree with, even if he is doing so for the greater good. The game designers may have left no other options except abandoning Nalia to her fate, but it still seems to be a very un-Paladinesque act. The Lawful course would be to go to the council and demand justice (done), then to the Order and ask for aid, and to challenge Roenall to a duel if that failed.

I'm not suggesting a re-write of the entire sequence, just pointing out that it is an un-Lawful action.
Posted by: NiGHTMARE
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:34:46 AM »

One of the common misconceptions of paladins is that they must obey every law in existence.  In actual fact, they must only obey those laws they/their order/their deity percieves as being good  laws.  For example:

-  In a country where slavery is legal, a paladin is perfectly entitled to be part of a group dedicated to freeing slaves.

-  If a person is imprisoned because of an unjust law (e.g. they refuse to get married to someone their parents betrothed them too when they were still a small child), a paladin is free to rescue that person.

-  In a city where anyone found on the street after midnight is killed on sight by the city guards, a paladin is within his rights to defend a person under attack.


Of course in all the above scenarios, the paladin is encouraged to go through legal channels first, but obviously that won't always work.
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 12, 2004, 09:57:55 PM »

Nalia's abdution was Lawful; it was legal under the laws of Amn. It was also evil, bein performed on trumped up charges brought by a criminal. Fighting it was Good, and presenting evidence to prove Isea was a criminal was Lawful, but I'd say that breaking into his house to get that evidence was Unlawful.

But by similar reasoning, a Paladin should leave Imoen in Spellhold.  She broke the Law of Athkatla.  Similarly, there's no reason to pursue Irenicus, since the Law has already taken care of him (as far as CHARNAME ever knows) & vengeance isn't Just.  Hence, no story.

I don't see being Lawful as following *all* Laws.  If the Laws of Athkatla have led to injustice (Imoen, Nalia, what they suggest for Keldorn), they must be ignored in favor of the Paladin's own moral code.  That's the one he must follow at all costs, not the Law of the Land (if killing an innocent once a day was a Law in Athkatla, would you propose a Lawful Good or even Lawful Neutral player should obey it?).

- Imrahil

That is the Law versus Good conflict Imrahil. In fiction, one classic answer is to have the conflicted character choose "good", but that is an un-lawful choice. Another classic answer is to have the conflicted character throw down his badge / resign his commission / fulfill his oath of service and then become a Ronin . . .

As was pointed out earlier, the limits of the CRPG environment make these choices much harder to implement. That doesn't make them invalid.
Posted by: Imrahil
« on: July 12, 2004, 09:07:43 PM »

Nalia's abdution was Lawful; it was legal under the laws of Amn. It was also evil, bein performed on trumped up charges brought by a criminal. Fighting it was Good, and presenting evidence to prove Isea was a criminal was Lawful, but I'd say that breaking into his house to get that evidence was Unlawful.

But by similar reasoning, a Paladin should leave Imoen in Spellhold.  She broke the Law of Athkatla.  Similarly, there's no reason to pursue Irenicus, since the Law has already taken care of him (as far as CHARNAME ever knows) & vengeance isn't Just.  Hence, no story.

I don't see being Lawful as following *all* Laws.  If the Laws of Athkatla have led to injustice (Imoen, Nalia, what they suggest for Keldorn), they must be ignored in favor of the Paladin's own moral code.  That's the one he must follow at all costs, not the Law of the Land (if killing an innocent once a day was a Law in Athkatla, would you propose a Lawful Good or even Lawful Neutral player should obey it?).

- Imrahil
Posted by: Caswallon
« on: July 12, 2004, 07:45:46 PM »

Should we then permit Neutral Good paladins in the game? ;)

I'm probably joining in here because I sense difficulties in playing the game. If we fill the gaps of the current Virtue mod by judging every action of the game, a paladin will become close to unplayable if he still falls at Virtue -1 OR Lawfulness -1 (as proposed in the first post). BG2 is no PnP; its story and interaction opportunities don't offer the same freedom as PnP roleplaying between players and DM, and you have to take the limitations of choice into account.
Some of them is the impossibility to redeem once sins, regain favour with your godhead/the order, explain your actions to your superiors, await and accept their judgement, etc.
This is a computer game with a predefined story and predetermined reactions; without greatly expanding interaction, the judgement of actions won't be fair.
That includes the evil ways on the other edge of the spectrum - the lack of opportunities for evil players has often been lamented, and though they don't suffer the same technical penalties like paladins, they often don't have much choice than being good or leaving the quest be.
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 12, 2004, 07:44:00 PM »

I'm not sure whether it is possible to implement (should be, I guess), but maybe it would be more worthwhile then to switch to PS:T style alignment consistently. That is, don't rate actions dependent on alignment, but change alignment dependent on actions.

As for the proposed scenario: What do you do when good and lawful (or evil and chaotic, or whatever) clash? To have Keldorn's wife thrown into prison, or to let Nalia rot there, *might* be lawful, but it certainly isn't good. What is my paladin supposed to do to keep his status?

And that's the problem isn't it? :) Is Law or Good more important to your Paladin?

In practical terms, almost certainly Good, as otherwise you'd need to add code to permit Lawful Neutral paladins in game. ;)
Posted by: Caswallon
« on: July 12, 2004, 07:33:23 PM »

I'm not sure whether it is possible to implement (should be, I guess), but maybe it would be more worthwhile then to switch to PS:T style alignment consistently. That is, don't rate actions dependent on alignment, but change alignment dependent on actions.

As for the proposed scenario: What do you do when good and lawful (or evil and chaotic, or whatever) clash? To have Keldorn's wife thrown into prison, or to let Nalia rot there, *might* be lawful, but it certainly isn't good. What is my paladin supposed to do to keep his status?