Pocket Plane Group
BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: SixOfSpades on December 28, 2004, 01:00:10 AM
-
Because it essentially prohibits my playing a Paladin, ever again. Losing a single point of Virtue is enough to make me Fall? What sort of logic is that? Wouldn't it be more natural to have them Fall if their Virtue drops below 17, or they lose multiple points at once?
Scenario 1: With the current version of Virtue installed, a hostile Wizard casts Chaos on the party, and Valygar gets Confused as a result. Now, there are a lot of Commoners around, and Valygar is currently equipped with a Longbow. Option a: Leave Valygar alone and let him shoot a Commoner. Large Virtue hit, instant Fallen Cavalier. Option b: Kill Valygar before he can shoot a Commoner. Smaller Virtue hit, but instant Fallen Cavalier anyway.
Scenario 2: In Watcher's Keep, I am greviously insulted by a Red Dragon who is blissfully unaware that my party could whip his sorry butt a dozen times over. Since there are no conversations that allow me to be as rude to him as he is to me, or even to warn him that to continue to taunt me would be most unwise, the only way I can save my tarnished reputation is to shout my battle cry, which for some reason penalizes my Virtue and I end up a Fallen Cavalier once again.
Scenario 3: With the current versions of Virtue and Quest Pack installed, my PC Cavalier wants to eradicate every single den of Thieves in the entire city. But to declare war on Mae'Var's Guild, I would have to work for Edwin and kill Rayic Gethras, which means an unavoidable Virtue hit. In order to serve the greater good and decimate the city's criminal element, I have to sacrifice my own honor, and indeed, everything that makes me a Paladin.
What's to do? Use Reload knowledge to save all the possible Virtue drops until right before doing the Windspear Hills?
Scenario 1 is just silly, how is it "unvirtuous" if a party member happens to have a less-than-perfect Save vs. Spells?
Scenario 2 is the weakest of the three, and doesn't argue for increased Virtue tolerance for PC Paladins as much as it does for more conversation options with Saladrex.
Scenario 3 is mitigated with the inclusion of the "Betray Edwin" quest in the next Quest Pack, but for a mod to rely on other mods is unprofessional. I contend that it is perfectly in character for a Paladin to root out a known den of Evil Thieves, especially if the local citizenry know that it's a den of Evil Thieves (and they do). A second point was partially sparked by Gibberlings Three's upcoming Song & Silence mod, which (among other things) expands the alignment selection for Rogues, including--wait for it--Lawful Good Thieves. Now, I was about to object to that obvious contradiction in terms, but had to cut myself short: I myself once designed a recruitable NPC, a Lawful Good Bounty Hunter who worked for Chief Inspector Brega in locating & apprehending various criminals, and who wore a nonremovable Amulet that permanently kept his Pick Pockets score locked at 0. Now, if the gamer wants to roleplay such a character, why should we modders deny him permission? Similarly, why should you be so sanctimonious as to forbid an Inquisitor to go Mae'Var-whacking?
-
Scenario 1: With the current version of Virtue installed, a hostile Wizard casts Chaos on the party, and Valygar gets Confused as a result. Now, there are a lot of Commoners around, and Valygar is currently equipped with a Longbow. Option a: Leave Valygar alone and let him shoot a Commoner. Large Virtue hit, instant Fallen Cavalier. Option b: Kill Valygar before he can shoot a Commoner. Smaller Virtue hit, but instant Fallen Cavalier anyway.
Scenario 1 is just silly, how is it "unvirtuous" if a party member happens to have a less-than-perfect Save vs. Spells?
For you to be attacked by "hostile wizards" in a place with lots of commoners milling around means you are probably in Athkatla, and someone in your group cast a spell and got the attention of the Cowled Ones, yes? The simplest solution is to turn off party AI while in Athkatla. If you get attacked by the random bandit or thug, your melee guys should be able to handle it just fine. Either that or shell out the gold and buy a magic license. Then the Cowlies will leave you alone. I promise.
Scenario 2: In Watcher's Keep, I am greviously insulted by a Red Dragon who is blissfully unaware that my party could whip his sorry butt a dozen times over. Since there are no conversations that allow me to be as rude to him as he is to me, or even to warn him that to continue to taunt me would be most unwise, the only way I can save my tarnished reputation is to shout my battle cry, which for some reason penalizes my Virtue and I end up a Fallen Cavalier once again.
Scenario 2 is the weakest of the three, and doesn't argue for increased Virtue tolerance for PC Paladins as much as it does for more conversation options with Saladrex.
This issue was discussed at length, IIRC, in this thread: http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php?topic=17004.0
I dunno.. I've never killed Saladrex; but then again, I've never allowed Wraith Sarevok to provoke me to turning into the Slayer during the hell trials either so... (*shrug*)
Scenario 3: With the current versions of Virtue and Quest Pack installed, my PC Cavalier wants to eradicate every single den of Thieves in the entire city. But to declare war on Mae'Var's Guild, I would have to work for Edwin and kill Rayic Gethras, which means an unavoidable Virtue hit. In order to serve the greater good and decimate the city's criminal element, I have to sacrifice my own honor, and indeed, everything that makes me a Paladin
Scenario 3 is mitigated with the inclusion of the "Betray Edwin" quest in the next Quest Pack, but for a mod to rely on other mods is unprofessional. I contend that it is perfectly in character for a Paladin to root out a known den of Evil Thieves, especially if the local citizenry know that it's a den of Evil Thieves (and they do). A second point was partially sparked by Gibberlings Three's upcoming Song & Silence mod, which (among other things) expands the alignment selection for Rogues, including--wait for it--Lawful Good Thieves. Now, I was about to object to that obvious contradiction in terms, but had to cut myself short: I myself once designed a recruitable NPC, a Lawful Good Bounty Hunter who worked for Chief Inspector Brega in locating & apprehending various criminals, and who wore a nonremovable Amulet that permanently kept his Pick Pockets score locked at 0. Now, if the gamer wants to roleplay such a character, why should we modders deny him permission? Similarly, why should you be so sanctimonious as to forbid an Inquisitor to go Mae'Var-whacking?
This might be tricky, because I know Edwin attacks you if you don't agree to do his little errands, but if Edwin goes hostile, then every thief in Mae'var's guildhall also goes hostile. You said you wanted to wipe out every den of thieves in Athkatla? Well... there's your chance!
-
Paladins are supposed to show humility and consider pride a sin, so you aren't really properly roleplaying such a character in scenario #2 anyway ;).
On a different note, however: the very reason for the existence of cavaliers is to slay evil beings such as demons and chromatic dragons, and here you have a chromactic dragon...
-
Scenario 1: With the current version of Virtue installed, a hostile Wizard casts Chaos on the party, and Valygar gets Confused as a result. Now, there are a lot of Commoners around, and Valygar is currently equipped with a Longbow. Option a: Leave Valygar alone and let him shoot a Commoner. Large Virtue hit, instant Fallen Cavalier. Option b: Kill Valygar before he can shoot a Commoner. Smaller Virtue hit, but instant Fallen Cavalier anyway.
That would be a, uh, bug. :) Will fix, thanks.
Scenario 2: In Watcher's Keep, I am greviously insulted by a Red Dragon who is blissfully unaware that my party could whip his sorry butt a dozen times over. Since there are no conversations that allow me to be as rude to him as he is to me, or even to warn him that to continue to taunt me would be most unwise, the only way I can save my tarnished reputation is to shout my battle cry, which for some reason penalizes my Virtue and I end up a Fallen Cavalier once again.
I don't think something being rude to you is a terribly good reason to kill it. I'd have been dead long ago if that were the case. :)
Scenario 3: With the current versions of Virtue and Quest Pack installed, my PC Cavalier wants to eradicate every single den of Thieves in the entire city. But to declare war on Mae'Var's Guild, I would have to work for Edwin and kill Rayic Gethras, which means an unavoidable Virtue hit. In order to serve the greater good and decimate the city's criminal element, I have to sacrifice my own honor, and indeed, everything that makes me a Paladin.
All I can suggest is that the Bioware handling of this situation isn't ideal, and that Quest Pack will hopefully make it more bearable. Gameplay wise, killing Rayic making you fall does suck, if there's no alternative.
Scenario 3 is mitigated with the inclusion of the "Betray Edwin" quest in the next Quest Pack, but for a mod to rely on other mods is unprofessional.
I don't believe one does rely on the other (although I also don't believe it's unprofessional; ironically, Virtue actually DOES rely on Oversight). Virtue still makes sense by giving you the Virtue penalty for murder (or not, as Kish may think), but you're limiting your fun by not installing Quest Pack, which is a cool mod too. :)
I contend that it is perfectly in character for a Paladin to root out a known den of Evil Thieves, especially if the local citizenry know that it's a den of Evil Thieves (and they do).
Isn't it possible to kill Mae'Var's entire guild without doing Edwin's quest?
A second point was partially sparked by Gibberlings Three's upcoming Song & Silence mod, which (among other things) expands the alignment selection for Rogues, including--wait for it--Lawful Good Thieves. Now, I was about to object to that obvious contradiction in terms, but had to cut myself short: I myself once designed a recruitable NPC, a Lawful Good Bounty Hunter who worked for Chief Inspector Brega in locating & apprehending various criminals, and who wore a nonremovable Amulet that permanently kept his Pick Pockets score locked at 0. Now, if the gamer wants to roleplay such a character, why should we modders deny him permission? Similarly, why should you be so sanctimonious as to forbid an Inquisitor to go Mae'Var-whacking?
Part of the problem with standing back and making an objective decision about whether something is good or evil is trying to ensure it doesn't suck the fun out of the game. In Rayic's case, it probably does, for some characters, but I find it a better mechanism to say "install Quest Pack and this will suck less" rather than "I'll let you off the murder because you can't proceed without it".
-
In scenario 1's case, there are other factors that should be counted as "not being your normal self", when applying Virtue bonus/penalty. Here are a list of states that should be taken into consideration:
STATE_PANIC
STATE_BERSERK (I might leave this one out in various circumstances)
STATE_CHARMED
STATE_FEEBLEMINDED (given that you simply stand there, I might leave this one out too)
STATE_CONFUSED
-Galactygon
-
Do people fight if they're STATE_PANIC? Because actually, if they do, I'm not sure whether that SHOULD qualify for excluding a Virtue drop. STATE_BERSERK definitely shouldn't.
[EDIT] Wait. Cursed sword.
-
Correction: Upon reflection, I should have titled this thread What I don't like about Virtue. :)
Apart from the points I made above, I don't like the way that when each of your party members says how they feel about the party's current Virtue (which is every eight seconds), they stop whatever they're doing in order to share their feelings with the world. So you have to issue your command all over again. Annoying as hell. But my version of Virtue is a few months old, you've probably fixed that by now.
For you to be attacked by "hostile wizards" in a place with lots of commoners milling around means you are probably in Athkatla, and someone in your group cast a spell and got the attention of the Cowled Ones, yes?
Oh, so the only hostile Wizards in the game are the Cowled Wizards? I wish! Do the names "Githyanki" and "Improved City Encounters" ring any bells?
This issue was discussed at length, IIRC, in this thread:
It was discussed, yes, but nothing was actually done about the fact that a Cavalier would automatically Fall if he killed a Chromatic Dragon that's known to be Evil.
This might be tricky, because I know Edwin attacks you if you don't agree to do his little errands, but if Edwin goes hostile, then every thief in Mae'var's guildhall also goes hostile. You said you wanted to wipe out every den of thieves in Athkatla? Well... there's your chance!
Slaughtering Edwin and the Thieves would be perfectly fine.....if only Arkanis Gith didn't show up as well. Fact of life: If you ever turn on any Shadow Thief that you happen to be working for at the moment, say hello to STDEATH.
I don't think something being rude to you is a terribly good reason to kill it. I'd have been dead long ago if that were the case. :)
But if it's rude and a very powerful being that's known to be Evil, a lot of people would consider that a darn good reason to kill it. And those people would naturally take umbrage at being robbed of the opportunity to properly roleplay their dungeon-clearing Cavalier.
Now, one can argue the case that since Saladrex cannot leave Watcher's Keep (he doesn't have the Wardstone and makes no attempt to get it from you), he clearly isn't a danger to any innocents. But that's still no reason to be denied conversation options that allow you to retain your dignity as a Paladin.
Isn't it possible to kill Mae'Var's entire guild without doing Edwin's quest?
Nope. From the moment you show Gorch your Contact Letter to the moment you hand over the letter from the Night Knives, any of Mae'Var's Thieves turning Hostile to you means instant Arkanis Gith. So, unless you kill them all in a Time Stop, or Feeblemind everybody, or are able to handle Arkanis, there's no way.
An interesting paradox of the Mae'Var / Virtue intersection is that there's a Virtue hit for killing an Evil person who knowingly works for an Evil organization, but not for robbing a Temple. Now, I've never stolen the Statuette of Lathander since installing Virtue, but even nicking the Necklace of Talos should be considered unvirtuous. Still, I stand by my claim that it should be possible for a Paladin to complete the Mae'Var quest without Falling, simply to allow for those who wish to roleplay that character. Hell, if Keldorn doesn't complain about stealing the Necklace or whacking Gethras, doesn't that prove that certain Paladins are okay with it?
I find it a better mechanism to say "install Quest Pack and this will suck less" rather than "I'll let you off the murder because you can't proceed without it".
And even better is saying "I won't let you off the murder charge, but I'll make it so it doesn't ruin your character, either."
Galactygon's analysis of the scripts seems spot-on to me, except for one thing: Implementing those changes in the "Virtue detection" script would mean that, in the example I gave where Valygar got Confused, I would recieve no Virtue penalty for letting Valygar slaughter half of the Docks district....but I still would be penalized for temporarily killing Valygar in order to save the civilians. Can the script be further modified, to allow forgiveness for killing party members who are Charmed or Confused?
Wait. Cursed sword.
Ummm, I disagree. Is it unvirtuous to equip a magical item without first Identifying it? No....it's rather stupid, but it's not dishonorable. But given that all Cursed items Identify themselves upon equipping, is it unvirtuous to leave the thing on, instead of getting the curse removed right away? Considering the obvious risk to Commoners involved, hell yes. Especially since there's a Temple right downstairs from where you picked the thing up in the first place.
-
what if you're withouth any clerics or money, but with an INT of 2?
-
Apart from the points I made above, I don't like the way that when each of your party members says how they feel about the party's current Virtue (which is every eight seconds), they stop whatever they're doing in order to share their feelings with the world. So you have to issue your command all over again. Annoying as hell. But my version of Virtue is a few months old, you've probably fixed that by now.
I'm fairly sure I fixed this.
It was discussed, yes, but nothing was actually done about the fact that a Cavalier would automatically Fall if he killed a Chromatic Dragon that's known to be Evil.
How do you know it's evil? With Oversight, I think he's coded as chaotic neutral. Without, he's coded as evil. Buuut, he's not doing any harm, really, so the question becomes "is it okay to murder someone who's evil but not doing anything?"
Slaughtering Edwin and the Thieves would be perfectly fine.....if only Arkanis Gith didn't show up as well. Fact of life: If you ever turn on any Shadow Thief that you happen to be working for at the moment, say hello to STDEATH.
That's odd... I seem to remember Renal chiding me for just killing Mae'Var and not bringing the evidence he needed, but maybe I made that up.
But if it's rude and a very powerful being that's known to be Evil, a lot of people would consider that a darn good reason to kill it. And those people would naturally take umbrage at being robbed of the opportunity to properly roleplay their dungeon-clearing Cavalier.
If "a character doing what he does best" is a reason for killing things, then what about all the clearly non-evil undead in the game? Should an Undead Hunter immediately attack the chaotic good (?) lich in the Graveyard? Or indeed try to kill the spectre looking for its bear?
An interesting paradox of the Mae'Var / Virtue intersection is that there's a Virtue hit for killing an Evil person who knowingly works for an Evil organization, but not for robbing a Temple. Now, I've never stolen the Statuette of Lathander since installing Virtue, but even nicking the Necklace of Talos should be considered unvirtuous.
Why? Stealing a trinket from an evil organisation is nowhere near cold-blooded murder.
Still, I stand by my claim that it should be possible for a Paladin to complete the Mae'Var quest without Falling, simply to allow for those who wish to roleplay that character.
And again, Quest Pack does a fairly good job of clearing it up. It seems to me that saying I shouldn't rely on Quest Pack is like saying I shouldn't rely on Oversight, but instead make excuses for the incorrect alignments not affecting Virtue the way you'd expect.
Hell, if Keldorn doesn't complain about stealing the Necklace or whacking Gethras, doesn't that prove that certain Paladins are okay with it?
I'm sure there are plenty of other situations ingame where party members don't have specific dialogue to express their disapproval of evil actions.
And even better is saying "I won't let you off the murder charge, but I'll make it so it doesn't ruin your character, either."
So the essence of what you're proposing is more leeway for Paladins. Say, a Virtue drop of two before they fall? I'm certainly more willing to discuss that.
Galactygon's analysis of the scripts seems spot-on to me, except for one thing: Implementing those changes in the "Virtue detection" script would mean that, in the example I gave where Valygar got Confused, I would recieve no Virtue penalty for letting Valygar slaughter half of the Docks district....but I still would be penalized for temporarily killing Valygar in order to save the civilians. Can the script be further modified, to allow forgiveness for killing party members who are Charmed or Confused?
Yeh, I can do that too. Obviously it can be exploited, but avoiding people cheating the system is very, very low on my list of things to do.
Ummm, I disagree. Is it unvirtuous to equip a magical item without first Identifying it? No....it's rather stupid, but it's not dishonorable. But given that all Cursed items Identify themselves upon equipping, is it unvirtuous to leave the thing on, instead of getting the curse removed right away? Considering the obvious risk to Commoners involved, hell yes. Especially since there's a Temple right downstairs from where you picked the thing up in the first place.
I'm not sure there are always going to be circumstances where it CAN be removed immediately. On top of that, it isn't really good the items identifying themselves when equiped, because it's out-of-game knowledge. I doubt the items whisper "I'm cursed, and I do X, Y and Z" in the character's ear.
-
So the essence of what you're proposing is more leeway for Paladins. Say, a Virtue drop of two before they fall? I'm certainly more willing to discuss that.
I seem to remember reverandthatbastard mentioning something about paladins being able to commit certain non-paladin like actions (somewhat dubious morals type actions) provided that they atoned for their actions later. Allowing virtue drops of several points would be a good idea, as it would allow for the paladin to atone for their actions (gain a few virtue points) without going below the limit that causes them to fall.
-
Paladins are supposed to show humility and consider pride a sin, so you aren't really properly roleplaying such a character in scenario #2 anyway ;).
On a different note, however: the very reason for the existence of cavaliers is to slay evil beings such as demons and chromatic dragons, and here you have a chromactic dragon...
I agree, on both points. I don't see why a paladin has leave to kill Saladrex simply because Saladrex is arrogant and won't acknowledge how powerful the paladin is. I'm sorry, but that's just silly. ???
As for scenario #3: Paladin's aren't supposed to commit evil acts just because one can rationalize that it will bring about the greater good. Any other character can freely behave that way, but paladins cannot, or else they fall (and rightly so).
Besides, unless you have foreknowledge of how the quest will turn out, how do you know that completing the quest given to you by Renal will result in a perfectly wiped out thieves guild? It's my opinion that a paladin shouldn't be working for Renal away, nor should they work for Mae'var or Edwin with the intention of betraying them later.
-
I seem to remember reverandthatbastard mentioning something about paladins being able to commit certain non-paladin like actions (somewhat dubious morals type actions) provided that they atoned for their actions later. Allowing virtue drops of several points would be a good idea, as it would allow for the paladin to atone for their actions (gain a few virtue points) without going below the limit that causes them to fall.
I do kinda like the idea of atonement, but I'm not sure how it'd be implemented ingame.
-
In pnp (3E onwards at least), Atonement is a Priest spell. Basically you do some important thing for the deity you want to get back in the good books of, cast the spell and you're ok again. Hmm, actually it might be spell then quest.
I agree, though, I don't know how to implement it ingame.
-
I'm not sure, but I seem to have read somewhere that there is a quest one can do for Radiant Heart that can restore Fallen Paladins.
-
In pnp (3E onwards at least), Atonement is a Priest spell. Basically you do some important thing for the deity you want to get back in the good books of, cast the spell and you're ok again. Hmm, actually it might be spell then quest.
I agree, though, I don't know how to implement it ingame.
It was in the Temple of Elemental Evil game, although I never needed to use it myself. :)
-
What I was thinking of was a simple system that said that a paladin's virtue had to remain above a certain point. The default setting of the paladin's virtue would allow for two single point drops before the paladin falls. The 2 point lee-way would allow the paladin to do some 'badish' stuff and then atone for it by building back their leeway.
However, I'm not sure how well this would fit in with your current virtue implementation which somewhat mirrors how reputation starts out. That said, I could see a good argument that says certain classes should start with higher virtue levels and others lower virtue levels.
-
To go along with what Caedwyr just said, perhaps you could add a timer that would give the paladin a time limit to atone for their "baddish" behavior. This would allow the spirit of the paladin code to be upheld (ie: no leaving the virtue at the lowest point without falling) without making the paladin fall for stupid reasons. I'm not sure what a good interval would be, but perhaps three days, with warnings at the beginning of each day?
-
The hard part about that is the player may not know when the next possible virute raising game point is without meta gaming. An incentive to not play around with their virtue too much would be to apply a saving throw penalty, or casting penalty that could be done as a representation of the disfavour of their god/patron deity. A paladin could be in disfavour for quite some time, but not have their actions cause them to fall. From a rp perspective lots of things can be done with this, and from a game mechanics perspective it encourages a paladin to not violate their code without being excessive in the punishment for minor transgressions. Also, an undispellable penalty (you'd want to have some sort of portrait icon for it) on the paladin would encourage the player to go out and find some way to atone for the misdeed.
You'd probably want to have some sort of feedback message when the penalty is applied that alerts the player as to what has happened and maybe hint at what can be done to cure them.
-
what if you're withouth any clerics or money, but with an INT of 2?
The fight where you gained the Cursed Sword also provides you with enough cash/loot to have the sword removed. And any Paladin who insists on controlling the party despite his 2 INT deserves to Fall.
How do you know it [Saladrex] is evil? With Oversight, I think he's coded as chaotic neutral. Without, he's coded as evil. Buuut, he's not doing any harm, really, so the question becomes "is it okay to murder someone who's evil but not doing anything?"
I've never asked that the Virtue hit for killing Saladrex be removed outright, only for the addition of conversation options. Perhaps an 'arrogant' thread, where the speaker goads Saladrex into attacking first, and a 'bite your lip' thread, where the odds of Saladrex deciding whether to (teach this puny humanoid a lesson / be polite to someone you don't know) depend on the speaker's CHA / Reputation?
Also, there's the point that the person talking to Saladrex might not be the party leader. A PC Paladin shouldn't Fall simply because Anomen got too big for his britches and started casting spells without consulting the rest of the party.
If "a character doing what he does best" is a reason for killing things, then what about all the clearly non-evil undead in the game? Should an Undead Hunter immediately attack the chaotic good (?) lich in the Graveyard? Or indeed try to kill the spectre looking for its bear?
The "character doing what he does best" is only the icing on the cake, the most ironic point of the Cavalier vs. Saladrex issue. An Undead Hunter should not immediately kill the Lich or Wellyn because they are not obviously Evil, a distinction which is not the case with Saladrex.
As for the Lich, I take it you are speaking of Nevazaiah? For that matter, I say Paladins (but probably only Paladins or other LG PCs) should take a Virtue hit for every Evil NPC they keep in the party for more than a week. the character can't exactly look at their Record screen to see their Alignment, but after a week you're pretty much guaranteed to have seen enough of their banters to remove all doubt--especially in Korgan's case. So you want to "redeem" Viconia? Okay, so that's a Virtue drop of 1 point per week, there's enough Virtue floating around in the game to keep you at 17 or above....provided you don't dawdle when you're trying to rescue Imoen and save Suldenessellar.
Why? Stealing a trinket from an evil organisation is nowhere near cold-blooded murder.
But robbing a church is blasphemy, and Paladins of all people (well, except Clerics of course) should know to respect that. Neither the Statuette nor the Necklace is on an altar, exactly, but any Paladin should still know better. (Hey, kids, watch me practically contradict myself with my very next point!)
I'm sure there are plenty of other situations ingame where party members don't have specific dialogue to express their disapproval of evil actions.
If you're sure, let's hear some of them. Situations that are as quest-specific as stealing the Storm Necklace or killing Gethras.
Heck, Keldorn doesn't object to raiding the Temple of Talos, when even Jan has his misgivings about it.
(What I'm saying here is that Keldorn should give you some warning that you're playing with fire here, in the form of Torm's displeasure.)
So the essence of what you're proposing is more leeway for Paladins. Say, a Virtue drop of two before they fall? I'm certainly more willing to discuss that.
Yep! I'd favor a system where non-Fallen Paladins started with a Virtue of 15 (other Lawful Goods start at 12), due to the assumption that they must have been pretty honorable during BG1. From then on, any loss of Virtue that puts them below 17 means they will Fall, so the young Paladin has to perform three more virtuous deeds before he's allowed any slippage at all.
Can the script be further modified, to allow forgiveness for killing party members who are Charmed or Confused?
Yeh, I can do that too. Obviously it can be exploited, but avoiding people cheating the system is very, very low on my list of things to do.
I'm curious about possible exploits--I thought you couldn't Charm or Confuse your own party members? You'd have to let someone else Charm them, then Confuse them and Charm them back.
I doubt the items whisper "I'm cursed, and I do X, Y and Z" in the character's ear.
True, that is rather unrealistic....in the case of the Sword. You are unable to put it down, but you won't know what happens when you see an enemy until you see that enemy. But consider Cursed items like the Bracers of Binding--as soon as you put them on, the penalties to DEX, THAC0, and maybe even spellcasting should be immediately obvious. The Ring of Folly is even more blatant. No, unless there's some enemy that has a Special Ability of making your party members go Berserk in a room full of innocents, I'd say that STATE_BERSERK still means that you're responsible for your actions.
As for scenario #3: Paladin's aren't supposed to commit evil acts just because one can rationalize that it will bring about the greater good. Any other character can freely behave that way, but paladins cannot, or else they fall (and rightly so).
And I'd agree with you in regards to Scenario 3, except that I don't regard it as an evil act. True, you go there at Edwin's behest and you very likely intend to kill the man, but Rayic himself is Evil (a Paladin has enough time to pop a Detect Evil to prove this, before Gethras turns hostile), a member of an Evil organization that deserves to be eradicated, and he creates/employs Imps and Mephits, which almost exclusively serve only Evil Wizards. Killing him would be even less of an evil act if you told him you would spare his life if he would reveal the location of Spellhold--a conversation option which would be welcomed (and used) by many roleplayers.
It's my opinion that a paladin shouldn't be working for Renal away, nor should they work for Mae'var or Edwin with the intention of betraying them later.
And certain types of Paladins would not, they would refuse to dirty their hands in such a manner, and I say more power to them. But not all Paladins are that way, some would willingly lower themselves a bit (and take the Virtue penalty for it) in order to get the job done in whatever way seems most expedient. And to force all gamers to play the Type A Paladin seems....tacky.
Regarding atonement.....
As I've said before, I like Paladins being allowed to remain "safe" while in the 20-18 or 20-17 range. In cases where the player needs to raise his Virtue, but doesn't know of any actions that will raise it (or went way 'above' 20 in the early game, and has now exhausted all the quests), he might be allowed to donate money to Good-aligned Temples anonymously, so that Virtue goes up instead of Reputation.
I think a time limit for atoning for your actions would be a bit labor-intensive to implement--I'd instead favor a penalty for as long as the Paladin was "at the brink." Lack of spellcasting abilities is good except that it wouldn't work for the Inquisitor--a +2 penalty to Saving Throws seems to fit the bill, as it nicely counteracts the -2 bonus that comes as a free advantage of the Paladin class.
-
Things you can say to Saladrex without starting a fight include:
I am no mouse, Wyrm! I have killed your Githyanki followers - now I shall kill you!
I am <GABBER> - a hero of great reknown! Try to be civil, or I shall have to teach you some manners.
Oh for the love of Bhaal! Give me a break!
Why not? Too scared to face the real world?
So you're saying you've got a few scales loose in the old head hide. It shows.
Hold on, sulphur-breath! I sat through your chatter, now I need some questions answered!
I don't really see the need for options to be even ruder. Judging by Saladrex's absolute lack of a violent reaction to anything but being outright attacked (he even tries to talk you out of fighting if you say the first line I quoted above), he is apparently impervious to taunting. I also find the idea that rudeness is punishable by death--ah--not very suited to a paladin. Or...to anyone who isn't evil or psychotic, really.
-
And I'd agree with you in regards to Scenario 3, except that I don't regard it as an evil act. True, you go there at Edwin's behest and you very likely intend to kill the man, but Rayic himself is Evil (a Paladin has enough time to pop a Detect Evil to prove this, before Gethras turns hostile), a member of an Evil organization that deserves to be eradicated, and he creates/employs Imps and Mephits, which almost exclusively serve only Evil Wizards. Killing him would be even less of an evil act if you told him you would spare his life if he would reveal the location of Spellhold--a conversation option which would be welcomed (and used) by many roleplayers.
So in other words, marching into his home and threatening to kill him is not so bad if you get something you want out of it? You won't kill the man (who isn't necessarily directly responsible for Imoen's imprisonment) as long as he bargains with you? Is that really paladin-like???
And certain types of Paladins would not, they would refuse to dirty their hands in such a manner, and I say more power to them. But not all Paladins are that way, some would willingly lower themselves a bit (and take the Virtue penalty for it) in order to get the job done in whatever way seems most expedient. And to force all gamers to play the Type A Paladin seems....tacky.
Don't complain to me, take it up with whoever wrote the code paladins are supposed to follow. Paladins aren't free to simply do the job in the most expdient fashion if it involves commiting evil acts. It goes back to the idea that an evil act is still an evil act, regardless of what the ultimate outcome (which no one can know) turns out to be. Paladins are not supposed to commit evil acts just because they think it will bring about the greater good (what is that, anyway? Ever hear the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions?). "The Greater Good" can be used to rationalize an entire plethora of evil acts.
If you believe that making a paladin play as a paladin is supposed to be played "tacky", then why not just be a LG fighter or cleric?
-
I play paladins often and I have no problems with virture.
I do agree on the watchers keep red dragon though.
-
Things you can say to Saladrex without starting a fight include:
I am <GABBER> - a hero of great reknown! Try to be civil, or I shall have to teach you some manners.
Hold on, sulphur-breath! I sat through your chatter, now I need some questions answered!
I don't really see the need for options to be even ruder.
Good point, I see it's obvious that I haven't been through Watcher's Keep in a while. (Too many SoA trivia quizzes, I suppose.) But happily I have a comeback: None of the indignant, callous or outright rude conversation options you have will result in Saladrex giving you even a modicum of respect. They all funnel you right back into Saladrex's completely linear speech. In my book, if Reply B is treated exactly the same as Reply A, then Reply B might as well not even be there.
I also find the idea that rudeness is punishable by death--ah--not very suited to a paladin.
I never said it was, only that the conversation needs work, and cannot really be used as an accurate indicator of virtue in its current state.
So in other words, marching into his home and threatening to kill him is not so bad if you get something you want out of it? You won't kill the man (who isn't necessarily directly responsible for Imoen's imprisonment) as long as he bargains with you? Is that really paladin-like???
Due to game limitations, there's no such thing as ringing the doorbell and asking if Mister Gethras is there, the only option is to "march into his home." As for extracting information (information which, in all honesty, deserves to be dragged out into the sunlight anyway) at the point of a blade, why not? Given all the information about the Cowled Wizards and their behavior flying around out there (a very large amount of which can be in the PC's hands by Chapter 3), anyone of Good alignment and even the tiniest bit of sense would see that the Cowls are a blight on the city that needs to be eradicated, and removing their strongarm technique of immediate life imprisonment without trial is just the way to do it. As far as whether a Paladin would move against an established feature of law-abiding society, I must point out that the Cowled Wizards themselves are not Lawful. Sure, they're written into the Amnish Constitution (or its equivalent), they control the major aspects of Athkatla's government, and they sometimes move with actual represntatives of the law-enforcement community, but do they really uphold the law and protect the citizens? HELL, NO! Their rule is one of bribery, corruption, nepotism, double standards, and greed, without regard to the very thing that they claim to hold most dear: Keeping dangerous spellcasters from hurting innocent people. Find me a qualitative difference between the Cowled Wizards and the following:
"Hi there, man. Hey, those are some really nice shoes."
"Uh....thanks."
"Yeah, too bad."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you're walkin' on Vinny's side of the street, aintcha?"
"Who's Vinny?"
"Oh man, oh man. Big Vinny's the guy who runs this area, so you're gonna have to give us half your money."
"What!?! That's illegal!"
"No, it ain't. Big Vinny makes the rules here, and he says that anyone walking on his side of the street has to give half of whatever's in their wallet."
"I'm not gonna do any such thing! And where the hell's the sign, saying 'Don't walk here or you'll get mugged?'"
"Don't need no sign, the whole city knows it. And this ain't no mugging, this is just a toll. You know what a toll bridge is, right?"
"Well, what about that guy? He's walking here too, and you're not bothering him!"
"Oh, he already paid, and he's a friend of Vinny's, so he's allowed to take a cut of the toll. And if you refuse to pay your fair share, Vinny says we're authorized to 'apprehend' you and take all of what you got."
I see no inherent difference between the Cowled Wizards and the nightly gangs of Ruffians (and upon close observation, neither would a Paladin)....unless you count the fact that the Cowls have more style.
....It goes back to the idea that an evil act is still an evil act, regardless of what the ultimate outcome (which no one can know) turns out to be. Paladins are not supposed to commit evil acts just because they think it will bring about the greater good.
Agreed, but.....where's the evil act? Killing a high-ranking Cowled Wizard? Acting as messenger boy to carry some documents, the sale of which Edwin had already arranged? Handling some trivial matters of treachery among Thieves, and then executing same? Sorry, but I don't see how any innocents are wronged by what the party does. Perhaps a Virtue penalty can be applied for killing Gethras and Embarl, as that shows that you're just killing indiscriminately.
No, the only matters at stake here are stealing from a church, and doing the bidding of Evil Thieves. But I hardly think those considerations outwiegh the opportunity to kill at least one high-ranking Evil Thief, which Renal makes clear to you before you even accept his quest.
-
Marching into the home of a wizard to kill him, even if said wizard is supposedly evil (though you've never even heard about any of his crimes, let alone have any evidence that he's committed them) may well be a good act, but it most certainly is not a lawful good act. It's a chaotic good act, and chaotic acts can cause a paladin to fall just as easily as evil ones can.
-
Marching into the home of a wizard to kill him, even if said wizard is supposedly evil (though you've never even heard about any of his crimes, let alone have any evidence that he's committed them) may well be a good act, but it most certainly is not a lawful good act. It's a chaotic good act, and chaotic acts can cause a paladin to fall just as easily as evil ones can.
I agree, although I still don't see why it would be good, either, unless it really is true that killing an evil aligned creature is itself an act of good (which is an idea some people agree with, apparently).
Whether it's good or chaotic or both, it makes perfect sense that a paladin should fall for killing Rayic--SimDingo (and his mod) are in the right here.
-
Good point, I see it's obvious that I haven't been through Watcher's Keep in a while. (Too many SoA trivia quizzes, I suppose.) But happily I have a comeback: None of the indignant, callous or outright rude conversation options you have will result in Saladrex giving you even a modicum of respect.
And I ask you this: So what...? Why does Saladrex even owe you a modicum of respect? More importantly, why does his not giving you respect give your paladin the right to kill him? As Nightmare said, paladins aren't supposed to indulge their pride, and they certainly aren't supposed to kill for the sake of their egos.
I never said it was, only that the conversation needs work, and cannot really be used as an accurate indicator of virtue in its current state.
How is that relevant to anything? You don't get a virtue penalty unless you attack and kill Saladrex, who never attacks you unless your PC provokes it.
Due to game limitations, there's no such thing as ringing the doorbell and asking if Mister Gethras is there, the only option is to "march into his home."
Not true--you have the option not to go there to begin with. You have the option to turn down Edwin's request that you kill a man you know nothing about, other than the fact that he is a Cowled Wizard. You have the option not to work for Renal (and by extension, Mae'var) to begin with, which is the option I personally believe you should take if you are actually serious about roleplaying a paladin. You never have to do anything for the thieves at all, until you must help Aran Linvail to get Imoen back. The quests we are discussing are COMPLETELY optional.
As for extracting information (information which, in all honesty, deserves to be dragged out into the sunlight anyway) at the point of a blade, why not?
Why not? Because a paladin is not merely a character who is good, and he is not merely someone who is "Lawful Good". A paladin is a specially blessed individual. He is someone who refuses to fight evil with evil, refuses to commit an evil act regardless of the potential gain involved, and refuses to sink down to the bad guy's level. A paladin who commits evil and/or chaotic acts will fall, and rightfully so.
Up to the point of confrontation we are discussing, you have agree to work with one thief against another thief. You are helping Mae'var with the intention of double-crossing him later. You've stolen something from a temple. And now you are working for an evilly-aligned Red Wizard--in fact, you've just agreed to kill a man just because he says you should. None of those acts are very paladin-like (if fact, a paladin should have fallen already), and to add insult to injury, you think it's perfectly OK to threaten to kill this man unless he gives you something you want. I still can't believe you don't see what's wrong with this, or why a paladin should fall after having done these things.
Given all the information about the Cowled Wizards and their behavior flying around out there (a very large amount of which can be in the PC's hands by Chapter 3), anyone of Good alignment and even the tiniest bit of sense would see that the Cowls are a blight on the city that needs to be eradicated, and removing their strongarm technique of immediate life imprisonment without trial is just the way to do it.
Remember what I said about not commiting evil acts, just because you can rationalize that some good may happen because of it? Or not sinking to the bad guys level? Well, that is how a paladin is supposed to behave. If you find that “tacky” or too restricting, then I have to wonder why the paladin class hold appeal for you at all, and why you don’t simply play a character with fewer moral restrictions. Why not be CG, or just plain neutral? That way at least your character won’t be a hypocrite.
I see no inherent difference between the Cowled Wizards and the nightly gangs of Ruffians (and upon close observation, neither would a Paladin)....unless you count the fact that the Cowls have more style.
You're partly right, because a paladin isn't supposed to wantonly kill either the Cowled Wizard or the ruffian unless they attack him first. Killing Embarl is presented in the game as a bad thing, so why doesn't that apply to Rayic?
Agreed, but.....where's the evil act? Killing a high-ranking Cowled Wizard? Acting as messenger boy to carry some documents, the sale of which Edwin had already arranged? Handling some trivial matters of treachery among Thieves, and then executing same? Sorry, but I don't see how any innocents are wronged by what the party does.
Like Nightmare said, paladins are supposed to be lawful as well as good--if they aren't, they fall. And yes, killing a high-ranking Cowled Wizard is chaotic or evil or both (take your pick!) as you know nothing about what he has done other than be a member of an ethically questionable wizard, and you are taking orders from people who are not legitimate authorities. Remember what I said about paladins valuing mercy, even to people who may not deserve it? Remember Embarl? You don't know that Rayic has anything to do with the orders to take Imoen, so that in itself is a pretty poor reason to punish him.
No, the only matters at stake here are stealing from a church, and doing the bidding of Evil Thieves. But I hardly think those considerations outwiegh the opportunity to kill at least one high-ranking Evil Thief, which Renal makes clear to you before you even accept his quest.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...remember we are talking about paladins here, right? How many times do I have to repeat that paladins are not morally free to do whatever they want to achieve their goals? You don't know that Mae'var is evil (or even that he exists) until you agree to betray him to Renal. For all you may know, maybe Mae'var is a CG thief who is upsetting Renal by not allowing people to commit evil acts to bring in money for the guild. In other words, agreeing to kill Mae'var "because he is evil!" is meta-gaming. And where did you get the idea that commiting evil acts is OK as long as you sufficiently "outweigh" those acts with good acts? An evil act is an evil act is an evil act. As I said before, you may as well just play a neutral fighter. I rest my case. *sigh*
-
I still don't see why it would be good, either, unless it really is true that killing an evil aligned creature is itself an act of good.
You know, it's kind of sad when you belong to an organization whose moral paragon is a guy who lives out in the boonies and doesn't do jack to help his neighbors--he spends him time trying to make Golems and can't even get that right. Yessir, I'm talking about Jermien, the single known member of the Cowled Wizards (unless you count those who helped apprehend Irenicus) who doesn't appear to deserve punishment for his actions. Now, if only Jermien teleported in to help the party when/if they find themselves on the recieving end of Fael's Twisted Rune pals, I'd say he embodies what the Cowled Wizards are supposed to be: Lawful Neutral recluses who only come out when somebody casts dangerous magic in their immediate area.
Let's compare/contrast Jermien with Gethras. Jermien is annoyingly unconcerned with the Shade Wolf attacks on Imnesvale, while Gethras is similarly blase' about the Vampires. Both are (assumedly) voluntary members in a group which rules Athkatla with an iron fist, but is more benign out in the country. This physical separation seems relevant, for Athkatla is full of tales of the Cowls' abuse of power, while the residents of Imnesvale know of none whatever. Neither Jermien nor Gethras is able/willing to supply you with any information on Spellhold. Jermien has no Evil creatures working for him, nor is he Evil himself. Jermien does not turn Hostile for any reason except a direct attack, while Gethras is both uncooperative and uncommunicative in the extreme. Jermien has an air of being semi-retired (he lives in a normal home and has raised a family), while Gethras is actively engaged in pursuing a Mage that, while Evil, certainly appears to be obeying the prohibition of outdoor Wizard spells to the letter.
Whether it's good or chaotic or both, it makes perfect sense that a paladin should fall for killing Rayic--SimDingo (and his mod) are in the right here.
A question: Consider a political revolution, the action of removing a corrupt establishment from power in order to replace it with a better, more just system. Is such an action to be deemed Chaotic or Lawful?
I don't mind a Paladin losing Virtue for killing Gethras--but he shouldn't Fall because of it. It's nowhere near as dishonorable as stealing a holy artifact, IMHO. It's not like the Necklace of Talos was hurting anybody, after all.
And I ask you this: So what...? Why does Saladrex even owe you a modicum of respect? More importantly, why does his not giving you respect give your paladin the right to kill him?
I have never asked for a squeaky-clean, guilt-free way to kill Saladrex. I am asking for a more thorough conversation tree. Saladrex owes the party respect because, in his own opinion, power itself deserves respect. If he's going to act all high-and-mighty because he's a spiffy Dragon sitting on some spiffy treasure in a spiffy dungeon, he should wise up to the fact that these guys are walking around in gear that's ten times as spifferific, and he'd be wise to avoid pissing them off.
You have the option to turn down Edwin's request that you kill a man you know nothing about, other than the fact that he is a Cowled Wizard. You have the option not to work for Renal (and by extension, Mae'var) to begin with, which is the option I personally believe you should take if you are actually serious about roleplaying a paladin.
And that's where we are never going to agree. You believe all PC Paladins should be held to a rigid standard of certain major quests, even Good-aligned quests, being closed to the party outright (or, alternatively, forcing the PC to metagame and delay the Windspear Hills as an antidote), while I believe that we modders would be overstepping our authority to deny players the right to roleplay a Thieves' Guild-clearing Paladin.
None of those acts are very paladin-like (if fact, a paladin should have fallen already), and to add insult to injury, you think it's perfectly OK to threaten to kill this man unless he gives you something you want. I still can't believe you don't see what's wrong with this, or why a paladin should fall after having done these things.
Is it wrong to punish a criminal who refuses to renounce his ways? That, essentially, is what Gethras is, you are offering him the opportunity to redeem himself by helping you open up the heart of the Cowled Wizards' stranglehold on Athkatla. As far as I'm concered, killing Cowled Wizards is no more inherently wrong than killing Slavers. I admit that working for Thieves, planning betrayals, temple-robbing, and quasi-assassinations are hardly deeds of which a Paladin can be proud, but then neither is splashing around in a pool of human blood in Bodhi's lair, and I'd be willing to bet your precious Paladins do that on a regular basis. Now, do I think your Paladin would prefer a more sanitary way to get the Mace of Disruption? Darn right I do. Do I think my Paladin would prefer a less surreptitious manner of cleansing Mae'Var's guildhall? Ditto. But until such a way exists, I don't think the penalty for their actions should be as permanently crippling as Falling is.
....a paladin is not merely a character who is good, and he is not merely someone who is "Lawful Good".
In essence, what I see you asking for is a double standard of Virtue: Paladins should be penalized for things that other PCs, even Lawful Good PCs, should not be. I doubt Sim would be all too eager to code that.
You're partly right, because a paladin isn't supposed to wantonly kill either the Cowled Wizard or the ruffian unless they attack him first. Killing Embarl is presented in the game as a bad thing, so why doesn't that apply to Rayic?
Correction: He can also maintain the moral high ground if he knows of them attacking innocents. This can range from the random Commoner on the roof of the Copper Coronet to people like Imoen and Ribald's friend who cast Tenser's Floating Disk. Killing Embarl is nonvirtuous because the player has the opportunity to learn, then and there, that Embarl is really more of a Neutral character, that the hit on him was called for no good reason, and that there's a more ethical and humane way to do things. In Gethras's case, killing him practically is the humane thing to do. A human Dungeon Master who would make his Paladins Fall for killing an uncooperative and Hostile member of a group as Evil as the Cowled Wizards are proven to be may very well be following the very strictest of the oaths set down by Torm, but that's small consolation when he's going to have a lot of trouble getting people to game with him ever again.
Remember what I said about paladins valuing mercy, even to people who may not deserve it? Remember Embarl? You don't know that Rayic has anything to do with the orders to take Imoen, so that in itself is a pretty poor reason to punish him.
Hey, I agree with you on something! Yes, Paladins should value mercy as a cardinal virtue, but unfortunately, in BG, the penal code is rather sloppy--pretty much the only penalty, for crimes ranging from trespassing all the way up to serial murder, is death. Yes, a less violent solution (such as imprisonment until all the Cowls have been, well, cowed, and their individual deeds assessed and their order disbanded) would be more suitable, but I'm afraid the script simply doesn't allow that.
True, Gethras shouldn't be killed based on whether or not he was involved in sending Imoen to Spellhold. But the condition of whether or not individual Cowls are willing to help you cleanse their order by divulging at least the location of Spellhold is a reliable indicator of whether or not they think their control of the city is a good thing.
You don't know that Mae'var is evil (or even that he exists) until you agree to betray him to Renal. For all you may know, maybe Mae'var is a CG thief who is upsetting Renal by not allowing people to commit evil acts to bring in money for the guild. In other words, agreeing to kill Mae'var "because he is evil!" is meta-gaming.
Looks like you need to spend some more time talking to the Commoners in the Docks district, huh?
-
You know, it's kind of sad when you belong to an organization whose moral paragon is a guy who lives out in the boonies and doesn't do jack to help his neighbors--he spends him time trying to make Golems and can't even get that right. Yessir, I'm talking about Jermien, the single known member of the Cowled Wizards (unless you count those who helped apprehend Irenicus) who doesn't appear to deserve punishment for his actions. Now, if only Jermien teleported in to help the party when/if they find themselves on the recieving end of Fael's Twisted Rune pals, I'd say he embodies what the Cowled Wizards are supposed to be: Lawful Neutral recluses who only come out when somebody casts dangerous magic in their immediate area.
Let's compare/contrast Jermien with Gethras. Jermien is annoyingly unconcerned with the Shade Wolf attacks on Imnesvale, while Gethras is similarly blase' about the Vampires. Both are (assumedly) voluntary members in a group which rules Athkatla with an iron fist, but is more benign out in the country. This physical separation seems relevant, for Athkatla is full of tales of the Cowls' abuse of power, while the residents of Imnesvale know of none whatever. Neither Jermien nor Gethras is able/willing to supply you with any information on Spellhold. Jermien has no Evil creatures working for him, nor is he Evil himself. Jermien does not turn Hostile for any reason except a direct attack, while Gethras is both uncooperative and uncommunicative in the extreme. Jermien has an air of being semi-retired (he lives in a normal home and has raised a family), while Gethras is actively engaged in pursuing a Mage that, while Evil, certainly appears to be obeying the prohibition of outdoor Wizard spells to the letter.
But none of this explains why it is perfectly acceptable for a paladin to kill Gethras. Besides, if it's "OK" to kill Gethras for being evil, why isn't OK to just kill Edwin? Heck, why is a paladin even following him? Is a paladin who willingly does the bidding of evil thieves and Red Wizards (who aren't legitimate authorities) really so much better and more moral than members of a corrupt cabal? Perhaps the paladin is even worse, because he has turned his back on what he supposedly believes in. Perhaps your paladin also deserves death by the first overly enthusiastic adventurer who hears about what he has done--ever think of it that way, Six? I'm simply looking at it from the same perspective you are.
I don't mind a Paladin losing Virtue for killing Gethras--but he shouldn't Fall because of it. It's nowhere near as dishonorable as stealing a holy artifact, IMHO. It's not like the Necklace of Talos was hurting anybody, after all.
You have no actual proof that Gethras was hurting anybody, either. And yes, taking life with no good reason to is a perfect reason to fall. Killing someone in their home just because you think it *may* do some good does not constitute a good reason either. The fact is that you--as a paladin--shouldn't be taking assassination assignments from Edwin and Mae'var to begin with. If it weren't for that, you probably would never had even heard of Gethras, let alone march into his private home and kill him.
I have never asked for a squeaky-clean, guilt-free way to kill Saladrex. I am asking for a more thorough conversation tree. Saladrex owes the party respect because, in his own opinion, power itself deserves respect. If he's going to act all high-and-mighty because he's a spiffy Dragon sitting in a spiffy dungeon, he should wise up to the fact that these guys are walking around in gear that's ten times as spifferific, and he'd be wise to avoid pissing them off.
Eh, I still don't see what the problem is here, nor to I see what it has to do with Virtue. Dragons (of any alignment) are by their nature quite arrogant. Not only that, Saladrex knows nothing about you other than the fact that you are probably adventurers and may well be there just to steal his treasure. I don't see why that warrants such a great amount of respect from him. Why do you want it so badly, anyway?
As I said, none of this has anything to do with the Virtue mod--you are complaining about something that was in the original version of ToB. Then there is the fact that you weren't roleplaying a paladin correctly: you wanted to be rude to Saladrex, and kill him because he doesn't say, "Yes, I'm sure you could kick my tail quite easily."
And that's where we are never going to agree. You believe all PC Paladins should be held to a rigid standard of certain major quests, even Good-aligned quests, being closed to the party outright (or, alternatively, forcing the PC to metagame and delay the Windspear Hills as an antidote), while I believe that we modders would be overstepping our authority to deny players the right to roleplay a Thieves' Guild-clearing Paladin.
No, I'm not saying what I believe, Six. I'm merely relaying what the sourcebooks have always said about the way this class is supposedly to be played. Paladins get many special, powerful abilities, and the "payment" for that, so to speak, is that they must obey a rigid standard of conduct. You can complain about that until you are blue in the face, and I will repeat that if you think it sucks, then don't play a paladin, play a character who is morally free to do anything he wants.
You aren't merely talking about walking into a Thieves Guild and clearing it out. You want your paladin to engage in deception, murder, theft, and double-crossing to achieve those ends. Is it about me being "rigid" or "implacable", or you wanting your paladin to do whatever he wants as long as you can rationalize it later?
Is it wrong to punish a criminal who refuses to renounce his ways? That, essentially, is what Gethras is, you are offering him the opportunity to redeem himself by helping you open up the heart of the Cowled Wizards' stranglehold on Athkatla.
Ah, but you can't do that in the game. And even if you could do that, the fact is you know nothing whatsoever about Gethras--you gain little bits of knowledge here and there (mostly after storming into his house), but you have no specific knowledge about him other than the fact that he is a Cowled Wizard and Edwin wants him dead. You certainly don't know that he is a criminal. How does being a CW mean "he's evil"? The Shadow Thief organization is evil, but then there is Mook, who is coded as CG.
As far as I'm concered, killing Cowled Wizards is no more inherently wrong than killing Slavers. I admit that working for Thieves, planning betrayals, temple-robbing, and quasi-assassinations are hardly deeds of which a Paladin can be proud, but then neither is splashing around in a pool of human blood in Bodhi's lair, and I'd be willing to bet your precious Paladins do that on a regular basis.
I have to laugh at this, because I haven't yet actually played a paladin in BG2. ::) That doesn't mean I know nothing about them (I have read very, very much about D&D), however, but we are making some interesting assumptions here, aren't we? Don't place a bet. You would lose.
Besides, I don't see how getting yourself dirty or blood-covered makes you less of a paladin. That's part of being a warrior...heck, when you first meet Keldorn, he is trudging through the sewers to kill undead creatures. I don't think that makes him less of a paladin. It's the deeds and intent behind them that count, and that is what we are talking about. And don't call it a "quasi-assassination". It *IS* and assassination.
You have evidence about slavers, and you can even catch them in the act. Some of them attack you first without warning. None of that is true for Gethras.
Now, do I think your Paladin would prefer a more sanitary way to get the Mace of Disruption? Darn right I do. Do I think my Paladin would prefer a less surreptitious manner of cleansing Mae'Var's guildhall? Ditto. But until such a way exists, I don't think the penalty for their actions should be as permanently crippling as Falling is.
I can't believe you can even comparing keeping physically clean to being morally clean when we are talking about paladins.
In essence, what I see you asking for is a double standard of Virtue: Paladins should be penalized for things that other PCs, even Lawful Good PCs, should not be. I doubt Sim would be all too eager to code that.
No, you see incorrectly. Any other character may lose Virtue, but they wouldn't lose their class abilities. A paladin will *FALL*, and lose his special class abilities, becoming a low-rent version of the fighter. There is a big difference here; there is no double standard because the other classes aren't restricted the same way paladins are.
Correction: He can also maintain the moral high ground if he knows of them attacking innocents. This can range from the random Commoner on the roof of the Copper Coronet to people like Imoen and Ribald's friend who cast Tenser's Floating Disk. Killing Embarl is nonvirtuous because the player has the opportunity to learn, then and there, that Embarl is really more of a Neutral character, that the hit on him was called for no good reason, and that there's a more ethical and humane way to do things. In Gethras's case, killing him practically is the humane thing to do.
No, it isn't. You are the one applying double standards, here: Embarl was a Shadow Thief, and may well have done any number of the evil things Shadow Thieves ususally do. Why are you judging Gethras by his organization, but not Embarl?
A human Dungeon Master who would make his Paladins Fall for killing an uncooperative and Hostile member of a group as Evil as the Cowled Wizards are proven to be may very well be following the very strictest of the oaths set down by Torm, but that's small consolation when he's going to have a lot of trouble getting people to game with him ever again.
I'm sure he wouldn't mind all that much when players who don't want to actually play by the rules are reluctant to game with him. And remember--Gethras isn't uncooperative or hostile until YOU attack him. You went into his house to assassinate him, and now you are calling HIM hostile???
Hey, I agree with you on something! Yes, Paladins should value mercy as a cardinal virtue, but unfortunately, in BG, the penal code is rather sloppy--pretty much the only penalty, for crimes ranging from trespassing all the way up to serial murder, is death. Yes, a less violent solution (such as imprisonment until all the Cowls have been, well, cowed, and their individual deeds assessed and their order disbanded) would be more suitable, but I'm afraid the script simply doesn't allow that.
Yes, but the game also doesn't force you to assasinate Gethras either, or have anything to do with Renal or Mae'var or Edwin, the people who bid you to assasinate others. I would say that if you go into someone's house to kill them, you are the one who is truly in need of mercy, because it is *you* who are in the wrong there, not your chosen victim.
True, Gethras shouldn't be killed based on whether or not he was involved in sending Imoen to Spellhold. But the condition of whether or not individual Cowls are willing to help you cleanse their order by divulging at least the location of Spellhold is a reliable indicator of whether or not they think their control of the city is a good thing.
Of course they think their control is a good thing. Any person in power--even good aligned--does, or else they would abdicate. Does a person deserve death just for belonging to a corrupt organization? How do you know that all of them are evil? You don't meet each and every wizard in the game, and you know nothing of Gethras until you agree to kill him. Youre character and most good characters that people play (myself included) probably think most if not all of their choices are good, and bring about good. How do you know the Cowled Wizards don't really think they are also doing something good for society? And I hope you don't mean "cleanse" the same way you intend to "cleanse" the Thieves Guilds. ::) Threatening to kill someone isn't the best way to change a person's heart.
Looks like you need to spend some more time talking to the Commoners in the Docks district, huh?
So you believe everything you hear other people say? Is hearsay the perfect reason to kill someone?
Do you kill the ogres in Imnesvale just because a lot of people in town hate them, fear them, and believe they are the cause of all the town's troubles?
-
In pnp (3E onwards at least), Atonement is a Priest spell. Basically you do some important thing for the deity you want to get back in the good books of, cast the spell and you're ok again. Hmm, actually it might be spell then quest.
I agree, though, I don't know how to implement it ingame.
Atonement is clearly a non-player spell (otherwise it would be cast every morning).
You simply do some quest for a good temple, and get some virtue bonus.
-
From the Player's Handbook:
Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter. The character's level remains unchanged when this occurs and experience points are adjusted accordingly. Thereafter the character is bound by the rules for fighters.
From the Complete Paladin's Handbook:
When will a paladin take a life? A paladin kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his ruler or church. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime.
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. He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.
-
This post is long, rambling, and ultimately pointless, so feel free to skip.
You know, my favorite television show is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I have it all on DVD, even.
(Yes, it is relevant. If you've seen it, you probably know how.)
You seem to have changed your view of the Cowled Wizards since we last argued over them, SixOfSpades. :P I'm certainly not complaining.
Going and killing kuo-toa because they're kuo-toa is wrong. Fighting your way through their territory--you have a right to defend yourself, but no right to kill other intelligent creatures for their parts. Going and killing beholders because they're beholders, or illithid because they're illithid, or red dragons because they're big and scaly and red...wrong. Why do I say that? Define the word "intelligent." And define the word "evil." And maybe you'll see. But probably you won't, unless you already agree with me anyway. Don't say I didn't warn you the post was pointless.
Now, if only Jermien teleported in to help the party when/if they find themselves on the recieving end of Fael's Twisted Rune pals, I'd say he embodies what the Cowled Wizards are supposed to be: Lawful Neutral recluses who only come out when somebody casts dangerous magic in their immediate area.
Well, there's no way for that to happen without killing Adalon and finishing the Human Flesh armor. At that point, Jermien might well figure the best possible thing for everyone is if you finish each other off.
Jermien has no Evil creatures working for him, nor is he Evil himself.
Jermien not being coded as Evil means one of two things. If you mean without the Oversight Mod, it means the alignment coder was using cocaine on the day s/he coded Jermien and speed on the day s/he coded Rayic Gethras, as evidenced by the band of Lawful Good bandits who hold Jaheira hostage. (You may have noticed I refer to them fairly regularly. That's because they're the most flagrant example of the meaninglessness of alignment codings in unmodded BG2 that I can think of, though they're very far from the only one. I could say something about the Chaotic Good brain golems, for variety.) If, on the other hand, you mean with Oversight, then it just means I more or less agree with you about the morality of Rayic and Jermien--and I'm hardly the final authority here (though if I was, it would be so much easier, wouldn't it?) Look into my eyes.
But none of this explains why it is perfectly acceptable for a paladin to kill Gethras. Besides, if it's "OK" to kill Gethras for being evil, why isn't OK to just kill Edwin?
But it is. No Virtue penalty for killing Edwin, or Korgan, or even Viconia. And considering Edwin introduced himself back in BG1 by trying to hire you to murder an innocent and very very quickly illustrates to you he hasn't turned over a new leaf, nor is he likely to, I'd say even if there is one for killing Rayic, the beholders, the kuo-toa, the illithid, and even Viconia, there shouldn't be one for killing Edwin.
Heck, why is a paladin even following him? Is a paladin who willingly does the bidding of evil thieves and Red Wizards (who aren't legitimate authorities) really so much better and more moral than members of a corrupt cabal? Perhaps the paladin is even worse, because he has turned his back on what he supposedly believes in. Perhaps your paladin also deserves death by the first overly enthusiastic adventurer who hears about what he has done--ever think of it that way, Six? I'm simply looking at it from the same perspective you are.
Now that is a much better question. Killing anyone for Edwin is very dodgy. Much dodgier than killing a Cowled Wizard, in and of itself.
I don't mind a Paladin losing Virtue for killing Gethras--but he shouldn't Fall because of it. It's nowhere near as dishonorable as stealing a holy artifact, IMHO. It's not like the Necklace of Talos was hurting anybody, after all.
But you can always loot the bodies of your fallen enemies, right? So is it less evil to grab the Necklace if you kill every priest in the Temple of Talos to get it? I know that sounds insane, but keep reading (if you got this far) before you reply. Talassans are dedicated to a god of pure evil. Unlike the Cowled Wizards, and very much unlike dragons/beholders/kuo-toa/illithid/drow, there is no way to be a Talassan without spreading suffering, destruction and misery. Every time a priest of Talos successfully casts a spell, it's proof that s/he has done a good enough job of wrecking people's lives recently to still have the favor of the Raging One. That doesn't mean they can't change (losing their spells immediately), but if there's any group in the game that can be killed without regret or doubts, it's priests of evil deities. So...is it wrong to kill the priests of Talos? Wrong to take the necklace after killing them? Wrong to take the necklace without killing them? Wrong, necklace aside, to refrain from killing them?
You have no actual proof that Gethras was hurting anybody, either. And yes, taking life with no good reason to is a perfect reason to fall. Killing someone in their home just because you think it *may* do some good does not constitute a good reason either. The fact is that you--as a paladin--shouldn't be taking assassination assignments from Edwin and Mae'var to begin with.
*Kish scratches in the name "Ardulace" in Murdane's list of people not to take assassination assignments frm before expressing his wholehearted agreement.*
I have never asked for a squeaky-clean, guilt-free way to kill Saladrex. I am asking for a more thorough conversation tree. Saladrex owes the party respect because, in his own opinion, power itself deserves respect.
But he doesn't say that. He just says he's magnificent, and calls you a mouse. (I think he might call you puny, too. And maybe he calls you tiny, but from his perspective that's a simple statement of fact.) Because he's powerful? Because he's bigger than you (hard to argue)? Because he's older than you (also hard to argue)? Because he's Saladrex and you're not (hardest of all to argue. Unless you named your PC Saladrex. Which you could)? Either way. If you're rude to him he'll ask you to leave his home; if you're polite to him he'll give you information (which can be very useful--he gave me the hint I needed to figure out the solution to the torches puzzle my first game); if you express a desire to fight him he'll try to talk you out of it. Hm, maybe he thinks he's better than this paladin he's interacting with because he's not insecure enough to become homicidal over people being rude to him... Anyone who can't shrug off words, however rude s/he finds the words, without resorting to violence over them has no business claiming to be a paladin. Or even well-adjusted.
Is it wrong to punish a criminal who refuses to renounce his ways? That, essentially, is what Gethras is, you are offering him the opportunity to redeem himself by helping you open up the heart of the Cowled Wizards' stranglehold on Athkatla.
Ah, but you can't do that in the game.
That's true. It's also very annoying.
Besides, I don't see how getting yourself dirty or blood-covered makes you less of a paladin. That's part of being a warrior...heck, when you first meet Keldorn, he is trudging through the sewers to kill undead creatures.
While I agree with you entirely here, since it's after 4 AM where I am, I'm going to mention that Keldorn is a bad example of proper paladinly behavior in general. Why? Because if he was the protagonist, with Virtue, he'd Fall (and not even for one of the penalties I disagree with). He wants to leave Viconia to burn. Try doing that sometime, and see what happens to your Virtue. (He also doesn't mind going after Rayic, commenting wryly when Edwin gives you the quest that he knows better than to think of a Cowled Wizard as an innocent.)
Do I think my Paladin would prefer a less surreptitious manner of cleansing Mae'Var's guildhall? Ditto. But until such a way exists, I don't think the penalty for their actions should be as permanently crippling as Falling is.
It's metagaming to know such a way doesn't exist, though. Your paladin has no way to know about Arkanis Gath and, thus, no reason not to just walk into the Guildhall and slaughter everyone there. (Actually, does Arkanis Gath even show up if you attack Mae'Var? Since there are lines in the game where Renal complains about you jumping the gun and killing Mae'Var without proof of his treachery, it seems likely it's possible somehow, or at least meant to be.)
It's not good roleplaying to assume your character knows as much about the Underdark/dragons/the Umar Hills chickens as you do, from reading sourcebooks and/or playing though the game before. It's really bad roleplaying to assume your character also knows, with metagaming conviction, that what is stated in those sourcebooks is the absolute truth. I only played with one DM who didn't change things around in ways that would have made that extremely dangerous, and I played with him quite briefly, because as a DM he sucked. He had no imagination, he was a rules lawyer, and his games were totally hack-and-slash.
So, yeah. In case anyone is on any level unclear on my views, in descending order of evil...
Killing Saladrex: Beyond the pale. He's friendly, albeit arrogant, and you have no evidence that he's evil--except his species, which he was hatched with.
Killing the kuo-toa for Ardulace: Bad. If you have a right to kill anything because you want one of its parts, Irenicus certainly has a right to kill the child of an evil god because he wants a soul, and you have no business going after him at all. Poisoning the kuo-toa tadpoles: Beyond the pale, again. They're completely innocent.
Killing the beholders for Ardulace: Bad. Killing more beholders than you have to to defend yourself while leaving their city if you stumble into it: Bad. Going out of your way to kill intelligent creatures when you don't have to is wrong.
Killing more kuo-toa than you have to to get through their area to escape the Underdark: Bad.
Killing the illithid for Ardulace: Bad. Killing them to escape their city and/or rescue the slaves, if you get to their city some other way: Not bad.
Scouring Ust Natha to make sure you kill every single drow there: Bad. Killing the egg guards, grabbing the eggs, and leaving the city as quickly and efficiently as possible, killing every drow who tries to block your way: Not bad.
Killing Rayic Gethras: Bad. He is wearing evidence of a choice to join an evil organization...but just because he wears the cowl doesn't necessarily mean it wears him, so to speak. There's more to him than being a Cowled Wizard (or there would be, if he wasn't a character in a computer game, but it's absolutely essential to be willing to immerse oneself and treat the characters as real for roleplaying to be anything but a joke). There is so much more to any person--and when I say "person," I mean "intelligent creature"--than we can see of Rayic's appearance, or the beholders' appearance, in the game, and killing them means that everything they are or could be is gone forever. While killing Rayic is wrong, it compares favorably to the unnecessary death of a single beholder in the Underdark.
-
But none of this explains why it is perfectly acceptable for a paladin to kill Gethras.
I don't know why you insist on mentally equating my request for "a way to do it without automatically Falling" with it being "perfectly acceptable." I agree that the majority of the actions that the party is asked to perform during Renal's quest are of dubious moral character, and have always stated as such. But the fact remains that the party can take significant strides towards Law and Goodness as a result of these quests, and the party is informed of this before accepting the quest.
I'm perfectly okay with a Virtue hit or some similar penalty for killing Gethras--you do, after all, essentially perform a hit on someone you don't personally know--but I don't believe such an action should automatically make you Fall, due to the large amount of supplementary reasons why a man like Gethras would deserve death.
Perhaps your paladin also deserves death by the first overly enthusiastic adventurer who hears about what he has done--ever think of it that way, Six?
"Hey, look, there's CHARNAME--he left the Order and walked into a building in the Docks District (which we obviously don't know is a Thieves' Guild or we would have raided it by now), and last I heard, he bought some documents off a guy in a tavern! Such heinous actions are nothing short of blasphemy! Attack now, in Torm's name!!"
No, I never actually thought of it that way, funny.
You have no actual proof that Gethras was hurting anybody, either.
This is true. A pity that the Cowled Wizards don't have names when they're doing their dirty work--very much like the KKK in that regard.
And yes, taking life with no good reason to is a perfect reason to fall.
And Keldorn's fate upon knowingly causing the death of Sir William of Thorpe, and the imprisonment (of unspecified duration) of Lady Maria should have been what, precisely?
Eh, I still don't see what the problem is here, nor to I see what it has to do with Virtue. Why do you want it so badly, anyway?
Essentially because the encounter, no matter what you do, essentially leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth. I have to keep thinking of ways to improve it until everybody's happy. If that includes a conversation thread that essentially forces Saladrex to acknowledge that you might be more powerful than he is, or at least apologize for being so pompous, then so be it.
I'm merely relaying what the sourcebooks have always said about the way this class is supposedly to be played. You can complain about that until you are blue in the face, and I will repeat that if you think it sucks, then don't play a paladin, play a character who is morally free to do anything he wants.
Yeah, your message is "don't play a Paladin." I get that message from the current version of Virtue already, thanks. Kinda ironic how the class that, on the surface, is all about rooting out Evil is the one class that has to fill out the proper forms in triplicate and get them notarized before they're even allowed to draw their sword. If even then. Yep, might as well pretend that whole class isn't even implemented in the game, then, and what a lot of fun that'll be.
You want your paladin to engage in deception, murder, theft, and double-crossing to achieve those ends. Is it about me being "rigid" or "implacable", or you wanting your paladin to do whatever he wants as long as you can rationalize it later?
Well, heck, if Keldorn can rationalize betraying the Shadow Thieves, why can't the PC? Take him to see Booter sometime--he'll mention his desire to "bring in a troop of cleansing light once we no longer have need of these people." Yep, you heard that right, he relishes the thought of walking up to the people that helped him and stabbing them in the back, because they are Evil Thieves who use torture a lot. Now what was Mae'Var doing with Lin, again?
No, it's not about playing a Paladin as if he had no moral compass whatsoever, it's about your refusing to recognize that not everyone wants to play a Paladin like you do. You don't see me arguing that all Kensai have to be Humans and can only use Kara-Turan weaponry, do you?
Ah, but you can't do that [offer to essentially let Gethras join your quest to find Spellhold] in the game. And even if you could do that, the fact is you know nothing whatsoever about Gethras--you gain little bits of knowledge here and there (mostly after storming into his house), but you have no specific knowledge about him other than the fact that he is a Cowled Wizard and Edwin wants him dead. You certainly don't know that he is a criminal. How does being a CW mean "he's evil"? The Shadow Thief organization is evil, but then there is Mook, who is coded as CG.
Of course I know that the conversation with Gethras is hardly worthy of the term, but anyone roleplaying their character would have, as a perfectly honorable motivation for going in to see Gethras, the possibility that here, finally, might be a Cowled Wizard who doesn't agree with the organization's strongarm tactics. And then, of course, comes the realization that he harbors Mephits, will not tell you where Imoen is, and that he's Evil himself. Ah, what a shame. He's just like all the other Cowled Wizards. Whack.
Besides, I don't see how getting yourself dirty or blood-covered makes you less of a paladin.
It's the spiritual nature of the blood, not the stain potential, to which I was referring. Getting splattered with the fluids of a few Zombies whacked in honorable combat is waaaaay different from submerging yourself in the blood of the innocent.
And don't call it a "quasi-assassination". It *IS* and assassination.
I meet a Cowled Wizard on the street. He's Evil, works for an Evil organization, helps to send innocent people off to life imprisonment without trial, and is perfectly okay with that. Well, I'm not. Whack. Gethras is just the same, only you do it in his house.
You have evidence about slavers, and you can even catch them in the act. Some of them attack you first without warning. None of that is true for Gethras.
I think guilt by association goes a long way, in Gethras's case. If it looks like a duck, dresses like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs out with ducks, odds are pretty darn good that it's a duck, regardless of whether or not you have any evidence of it acting like a duck. You keep waving around the fact that the PC doesn't know for sure that Gethras has ever done anything Evil, but have yet to acknowledge that the probability that he has is a whole lot higher than the alternative.
We should treat him as innocent until proven guilty, you say? Well, that's not exactly the stance the Cowls took with Imoen, now, is it?
You are the one applying double standards, here: Embarl was a Shadow Thief, and may well have done any number of the evil things Shadow Thieves ususally do. Why are you judging Gethras by his organization, but not Embarl?
Because Embarl isn't Evil. Because Embarl actually rebelled (well, sort of) against his Evil group. Because Embarl isn't a member of an organization that is witholding critical information from you. And most of all, because Embarl is perfectly willing to talk to you about his case, and even cooperate with you so you can perform your task in whatever way seems most agreeable to you.
A human Dungeon Master who would make his Paladins Fall for killing an uncooperative and Hostile member of a group as Evil as the Cowled Wizards are proven to be may very well be following the very strictest of the oaths set down by Torm, but that's small consolation when he's going to have a lot of trouble getting people to game with him ever again.
I'm sure he wouldn't mind all that much when players who don't want to actually play by the rules are reluctant to game with him.
Funny, I thought games were supposed to be rather user-friendly.
Besides, a human DM has one big advantage that BG does not: In a P&P game, the guy playing the Paladin can absent himself from whatever morally sticky actions need to be done, thus suffering only the stigma of "allowing" it to occur while he wasn't even there. With BG, however, we must assume that the PC is personally responsible for each and every one of Jan's turnip burps, with the result that PC Paladins get screwed big-time.
How do you know the Cowled Wizards don't really think they are also doing something good for society?
I think it was the part when they fried a Beggar with their Lightning Bolts, after they tried to arrest me for casting Stoneskin. Or maybe when they casually spoke of using Charm spells to lower Imoen's social inhibitions. Or it might have been when they finally caught on to the fact that their precious spellcasting license doesn't to a damn thing to keep dangerous spellcasters off the streets.
And I hope you don't mean "cleanse" the same way you intend to "cleanse" the Thieves Guilds.
No. I'm of the opinion that the Cowled Wizards are actually undergoing a major schism, with the younger, more Neutral Evil members ousting the senior Lawful Neutral officers from power. If only it were implelemented, I would love an option that allowed the party to reach Spellhold by working for (one side of) the Cowled Wizards (by wiping out the other side).
So you believe everything you hear other people say? Is hearsay the perfect reason to kill someone? Do you kill the ogres in Imnesvale just because a lot of people in town hate them, fear them, and believe they are the cause of all the town's troubles?
I listen to the people of Imnesvale and hear, not that Ogres are behind it, but that there are a whole bunch of theories flying around and nobody knows what to do. My reaction: I go to the Ogres, talk to them, and discover that they're actually an all-right bunch of folks.
I listen to the people of the Docks, on the other hand, and hear that Mae'Var is a monster who tortures people and then leaves them out in front of his guildhouse for everyone to see. My reaction: I go to Mae'Var, talk to him, and discover that he's a monster who tortures people.
I see no ethical paradox here.
From the Player's Handbook:
Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably.
Too bad the exact alignment of killing Gethras is difficult to determine. Although I do notice that Chaotic actions can be atoned for simply by hanging around with Aerie or Anomen (which in itself is a form of penance. :D )
From the Complete Paladin's Handbook:
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.
And I agree. Ideally, you would be able to neutralize and apprehend Gethras in some way, not kill him. Killing him IS wrong, it's simply not as wrong as NOT killing him.
-
From the Player's Handbook:
Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter. The character's level remains unchanged when this occurs and experience points are adjusted accordingly. Thereafter the character is bound by the rules for fighters.
From the Complete Paladin's Handbook:
When will a paladin take a life? A paladin kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his ruler or church. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime.
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. He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.
THANK you. at last. 8)
and thanks, murdane, for fighting the stickler-fight.
i admit that with my first bg2 paladin - a cavalier, even - i attacked saladrex, for all the reasons sos described. but i (the player) actually felt guilty afterwards! and i'd never even heard of >any< mod, let alone Virtue.
my first rpg character ever was a 1e paladin (1983... a gamer i should turn to be), pure dungeoneer. my roleplaying range was even narrower than that of the average "crpg" today. got him to 4th level, then foully slain in his sleep by a vile illusionist.
i agree with 6 insofar as resonates with my boundless craving for more vast spectra of dialogue / quest permutations. there are indeed too many interactions where one might as well just have a 'continue' or 'end dialog', rather than 3+ different ways to express oneself which don't alter anything at all. but in my mind's eye, that's all just a matter of time (and seems to me like one of the simplest matters for home-rule-customization). (won' t know until i've given my own work a test run, of course)
but i agree with murdane more, regarding the idea that there are some class-nonspecific quests that a paladin worth their salt has no business getting embroiled in to begin with (or at least >currently< has no rational/justifiable bait for legitimate involvement).
plus, anyone who gets to use Carsomyr really oughtn't complain about how restricted/restrictive their path is. :P
i don't have any complaints about virtue - the only 'problem' is that it doesn't (YET!) have the sophistication to handle the aforementioned distinction, between temporary chaotic falling and permanent evil falling.
actually, and this could tack onto a few threads, i'm of the opinion that an 'improved paladins' mod - or 'paladin-depth' mod, or something - would be a better solution (or add-on for Virtue) than tweaking 'universal' rewards and penalties. as with unavoidable plotlines where no particularly paladinny statements / choices are in evidence (particularly before/during the drow disguise). . .
slow virtue loss for keeping evil in the party is an excellent notion.
-
The first RPG I ever played was Ultima 7, and in that series virtue is one of most important elements of the game world. Consequently I generally roleplay my paladins to follow the Avatar's (the player character in the Ultimas) virtues of compassion, honesty, valour, humility, sacrifice, honour, justice, spirituality, and the three principles of truth, love and courage :).
-
The first RPG I ever played was Ultima 7, and in that series virtue is one of most important elements of the game world. Consequently I generally roleplay my paladins to follow the Avatar's virtues . . .
i too extended the avatar's spread to the behavior of most good-aligned, and even quite a few neutral-aligned, characters. the ultima series is one of my all-time favorites (at least starting with IV, which was the one that introduced the quest of the avatar). bonus trivia for the masses 8) - ultima has/had a paladin class, for whom Honor (the product of Truth and Courage) is the chief virtue.
-
. But the fact remains that the party can take significant strides towards Law and Goodness as a result of these quests, and the party is informed of this before accepting the quest.
i'm not remembering any such thing (we're talking about renal's quest and edwin's subquest, right?); remember that renal's jobs are unrelated to gaelan/aran's offer for mutual assistance. and i wouldn't call edwin's bald manipulation of charname's concerns "informative" of potential to "take significant strides towards law and goodness".
--you do, after all, essentially perform a hit on someone you don't personally know--but I don't believe such an action should automatically make you Fall, due to the large amount of supplementary reasons why a man like Gethras would deserve death.
'supplementary reasons' - sounds pretty flimsy for someone who has pledged their life to a stringent code of honor. what happened to "tangible evidence" or "certain knowledge"? edwin is running the show, which all but guarantees that it's a thoroughly underhanded venture...
And yes, taking life with no good reason to is a perfect reason to fall.
And Keldorn's fate upon knowingly causing the death of Sir William of Thorpe, and the imprisonment (of unspecified duration) of Lady Maria should have been what, precisely?
and the person claiming that keldorn is a suitable example of a paladin was whom, precisely? :P
i do indeed find it ridiculous that whereas so much of anomen's potential depends on one crucial choice, keldorn [who has always lived with the possibility of losing his exceptional powers] remains a solid inquisitor no matter what choice he might [be led to] make in the matter of an affair he was too neglectful of his family to notice.
i definitely don't think the problem is with Virtue; it's with the limitations and corner-cuts inherent in the original development of bg2. that's why we're all here, right? how to change it for the better? my argument is that rather than paladins rationalizing what they want to get credit/xp/glory/et al. for, their options across the board need to be enhanced. and until then, roleplaying a strict code at individual discretion (w/ or w/o Virtuemod) is what we have to work with. of course it's not yet perfected. but if i'm not mistaken, the premise was accountability in roleplaying? which 'ideally' wouldn't rely on a program, now would it?
Yeah, your message is "don't play a Paladin." I get that message from the current version of Virtue already, thanks. Kinda ironic how the class that, on the surface, is all about rooting out Evil is the one class that has to fill out the proper forms in triplicate and get them notarized before they're even allowed to draw their sword. If even then. Yep, might as well pretend that whole class isn't even implemented in the game, then, and what a lot of fun that'll be.
what?? the only 'whole class implemented in the game' is Fighter, anyway. barely. perhaps Barbarian and Sorcerer as well, except that they were never 2e classes, which is a whole other slippery slope.
cmiiw, but isn't the bottom line here that you want [at least in the context of three relatively unimportant opportunities throughout the course of an epic campaign] paladins to get away with what non-paladins can get away with? and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of devotion to a code that sets their standards above those of others?
if Keldorn can rationalize betraying the Shadow Thieves, why can't the PC? Take him to see Booter sometime--he'll mention his desire to "bring in a troop of cleansing light once we no longer have need of these people." Yep, you heard that right, he relishes the thought of walking up to the people that helped him and stabbing them in the back, . . .
wait - if an NPC paladin's personality isn't bound by the game mechanics despite several contradictions of the code he supposedly swore to, why should i roleplay my PC paladin any more appropriately? i know my answer.
and not that i'm really into defending keldorn or anything, but "bring in a troop of cleansing light" doesn't sound at all backstabby, and everybody knows that's the shadow thief headquarters. true, they give you a key to that particular level, but once you find out what's below, there is surely some justification. . .
No, it's not about playing a Paladin as if he had no moral compass whatsoever, it's about your refusing to recognize that not everyone wants to play a Paladin like you do. You don't see me arguing that all Kensai have to be Humans and can only use Kara-Turan weaponry, do you?
racial/cultural restrictions = almost always arbitrary. (not to mention that it's entirely modded/moddable)
code of honor that is [not really arguably] the foundation of the paladin's numerous blessings = pretty freakin' far from arbitrary.
obviously, every copy of bg2 has its own DM (if not several), but there's got to be a line drawn somewhere when a group is hurling conflicting ideas at a modder. (duh, i know.) in the case of mechanically implementing the paladin's code, "not everyone wants to play a paladin like you do" only goes so far. in a medium where we can't fully implement total roleplaying {i hereby replace the term "pnp" with "TRPG" 8)}, those who aren't willing to follow the code will always have a handful of ways to avoid it. that doesn't in itself mean that Senhor Dingo should ease up on you. ;D
you're especially lucky that they didn't/couldn't implement the paladin's restriction on number of magic items, and automatic tithes! i feel like a grumpy elder who can't believe how spoiled the new generation is. ;)
And don't call it a "quasi-assassination". It *IS* and assassination.
I meet a Cowled Wizard on the street. He's Evil, works for an Evil organization, helps to send innocent people off to life imprisonment without trial, and is perfectly okay with that. Well, I'm not. Whack. Gethras is just the same, only you do it in his house.
?? is it only an assassination when it happens in the sewers or above the fourth storey of a municipal building?
don't get me wrong, i approve of the outward form of the rationalization you apply to 'tricking edwin' and all that ;), but i still don't see sufficient justification for the initial employment as the game stands.
I think guilt by association goes a long way, in Gethras's case. If it looks like a duck, dresses like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs out with ducks, odds are pretty darn good that it's a duck, regardless of whether or not you have any evidence of it acting like a duck. You keep waving around the fact that the PC doesn't know for sure that Gethras has ever done anything Evil, but have yet to acknowledge that the probability that he has is a whole lot higher than the alternative.
We should treat him as innocent until proven guilty, you say? Well, that's not exactly the stance the Cowls took with Imoen, now, is it?
1) use of magic is officially forbidden. imoen used magic. offensive magic. i think it's obvious that even a solidly Neutral CW organization wouldn't wait around in a recently demolished public space to debate the extenuating AND immediately unprovable circumstances of the kidnapping, the party not [necessarily] knowing where they are [and not that yoshimo comes forth with the anti-magic ordinance anyway], etc., in lieu of taking the culprits to be "held" and "judged".
2) "innocent until proven guilty" is more of a LG stance than a LN stance. surely nobody has claimed that the CWs have a notable LG representation.
3) probability is so not the issue.
4) you don't actually know that imoen is being imprisoned-for-life or tortured (you can worry all you want that irenicus is really in control, even though there's no real evidence outside of dreams until you meet perth or just get into the asylum.
Because Embarl isn't a member of an organization that is witholding critical information from you.
so now we're assuming that the paladin tackles the thief-stronghold quest after returning from the underdark? because that's the only way that statement holds true.
And most of all, because Embarl is perfectly willing to talk to you about his case, and even cooperate with you so you can perform your task in whatever way seems most agreeable to you.
very impressive: some would say that trust is a virtue of the paladin's code! ;) too bad 'detect lie' and 'ESP' aren't infinity-implemented. because wouldn't, say, a paladin who is [allegedly] working within a guild of thieves in order to better wipe it out (sound familiar?), possibly be suspicious of a thief, presumably outnumbered and already in fear for his life? not registering under 'detect evil' sure as hell isn't conclusive evidence that you can trust a thief, or anything he says... btw, please don't infer that i'm suggesting you kill him instead. ::) however, i always considered it a plothole that you can spare embarl, and mae'var, who knew where to send you to find him in the first place, suddenly doesn't have >any< eyes/ears to report to him that you're pulling a fast one. (handy, then, to suggest that, say, all of mae'var's underlings besides the ones in the dungeon with him are sympathetic to embarl's plight... but is that a way for thieves to behave? ad infinitum...)
A human Dungeon Master who would make his Paladins Fall for killing an uncooperative and Hostile member of a group as Evil as the Cowled Wizards are proven to be may very well be following the very strictest of the oaths set down by Torm, but that's small consolation when he's going to have a lot of trouble getting people to game with him ever again.
as evil as they are proven to be? again, if the rayic incident is happening post-asylum/underdark, what tangible evidence/certain knowledge do we have? i won't dismiss the "practice my charm spells on that one" line, even though technically it's metagaming nonsense just so we won't feel sympathy when irenicus kills those CWs as we might have felt when he toasted the bunch at the promenade. so, add to that: corneil, who's just an asshole; tolgerias - there's no reason to believe he is being 'monitored' by any other CWs, he can give lots of enforcers orders (such as the order to ambush the party at valygar's townhouse, which isn't an evil act if it's carried out by those who 'accept' that they're following justified orders) - i've always thought of him as an uppity 'rogue' CW; perth, who apparently has been completely dominated by irenicus and therefore can't exactly count; you've covered jermien, of course; where's the parade of clearly dastardly cowled wizards? valygar's testimony is almost indubitably prejudiced, but who wouldn't defend themselves? (besides imoen) (and we don't know the specifics of the orders given to the CWs against whom V. defended himself) {admittedly, i would like to be able to 'play politics' when conferring with the inmates to assault irenicus, and would generally prefer to leave wanev out of it - but, him being soft in the head, you only have irenicus' word to go on as far as his 'guilt'.}
back to rayic, i don't see how 'uncooperative and Hostile' aren't justified by the fact that you've intruded on his home... (not to mention if you've destroyed any of his guards/pets/projects/whatever they might be)
and following your analogy, i'm not particularly overwhelmed by the number of people 'not gaming with simding0' {not using Virtue} compared to those who have/are/haven't complained so protractedly ;).
a point was recently made elsewhere that paladins shouldn't be a core class. i thoroughly agree, as they are quite frequently abused in the name of the Fun Directive. forgive me if i take so seriously, within game, the abstract concept of upholding the most demanding mortal standards of honor and justice.
Or it might have been when they finally caught on to the fact that their precious spellcasting license doesn't to a damn thing to keep dangerous spellcasters off the streets.
hm. seemed pretty obvious to me [from what negligible evidence is really available] that it does do a damn thing, apart from certain potential examples to the contrary by one particular [and undeniably exceptional] party.
No. I'm of the opinion that the Cowled Wizards are actually undergoing a major schism, with the younger, more Neutral Evil members ousting the senior Lawful Neutral officers from power. If only it were implelemented, I would love an option that allowed the party to reach Spellhold by working for (one side of) the Cowled Wizards (by wiping out the other side).
amen. if you hadn't said that bit about the schism, i would have. however, it gives the lie to your previous insistence (twice?) that the organization itself is evil, as an excuse to kill gethras. :P
{don't forget how twisted the asylum was supposedly growing even before J&B got their hooks into it - corruption of profound proportions? what kind of leadership could be expected?}
great idea with the playing off of sides, too.
i think it's important that a righteous charname ought to go through valygar's quest and/or get the scoop from Bylanna about how discretion-happy and 'above the law' the CWs are before developing serious discrimination.
(i also think that one route to the asylum should be attracting the CWs attention and then getting subdued and captured, although it wouldn't make sense for korgan, yoshimo, etc.)
Too bad the exact alignment of killing Gethras is difficult to determine. Although I do notice that Chaotic actions can be atoned for simply by hanging around with Aerie or Anomen (which in itself is a form of penance. :D )
assassination is consistently evil as far as AD&D is concerned.
and 'hanging around' + actual penance (validation of which is the real purpose for the atonement spell) could easily make up for the precious XP one might miss out on by following the code and not working for renal or edwin. but again, mo'modding, mo'modding, mo'modding.
Killing more kuo-toa than you have to to get through their area to escape the Underdark: Bad.
and how is one supposed to know which turns to make? :P i think it'd be a useful part of the 'paladin-depth' mod/extension, to have someone give precise directions through the kuo-toa lair, so that this was actually a call that Virtue could make.
tangent-probably-not-worth-a-new-thread: is there a virtue hit for making an animal sacrifice to demogorgon and summoning the death knights?
-
the only way atonement works for a paladin is if he was forced to commit an evil act. Either by enchantment magic or being tricked (like what Firkraag does)
A paladin who willfully commits an evil act can NEVER regain there status.
-
the only way atonement works for a paladin is if he was forced to commit an evil act. Either by enchantment magic or being tricked (like what Firkraag does)
...or if he commits a chaotic act. as noted 3+ times above.
A paladin who willfully commits an evil act can NEVER regain there status.
correct.
-
Kish's list is what had to be established. Kudos.
I meet a Cowled Wizard on the street. He's Evil, works for an Evil organization, helps to send innocent people off to life imprisonment without trial, and is perfectly okay with that. Well, I'm not. Whack. Gethras is just the same, only you do it in his house.
RRB is definitely right with his replies to this above. I cannot see any clue that the CWs are even evil to begin with. If the local authorities would draw any conclusion from Lavok or Irenicus, they would certainly advise for mages to be more thoroughly monitored. The CWs are law enforcers in Amn. Not a single paladin could dispute that. It may not be good or fair by higher standards, but if it is the law it is certainly lawful to act in accordance to it
Because Embarl isn't a member of an organization that is witholding critical information from you
So the people you meet are valued by their usefullness to you and their compliance to your requests? Evil means not helping much?
tangent-probably-not-worth-a-new-thread: is there a virtue hit for making an animal sacrifice to demogorgon and summoning the death knights?
Are summoned creatures created when summoned or are they individuals missing somewhere else like gated creatures?
-
If being a member of an organization that witholds information from people is evil, then the typical Harper is the most evil person your player character is ever likely to meet...
-
Jes: Summoned creatures are drawn from a different plane. So they did exist before. When the spell expires, or when they are killed, they are returned unharmed to their home plane.
-
Hoo boy! I've let this thread slide for way too long--watch me fall on my ass I as I try to get back on top again. Sorry for the break in continuity here, but I just have to reply to this first:
I cannot see any clue that the CWs are even evil to begin with.
Oh...my...god. You have GOT to be kidding me. Have you quietly taken leave of your senses, jester? I'd learned to expect much better than this from you. Let me just state that in BG2, the Cowls are blatantly, overpoweringly, screamingly Evil. More Evil than the Shadow Thieves. Probably not quite as Evil as Bodhi--but it's close. Let's take this simple quiz:
1) Name all the people in the game who have been released from Spellhold.
2) Name all the people in the game who know someone who has been released from Spellhold.
3) Name all the people in the game who once heard that someone, anyone, had been released from Spellhold.
The Cowls don't just arrest people--they disappear them. This is, essentially, Nazi Germany meets the Spanish Inquisition: All it takes is for someone to report you as being "not loyal to the Party," and that's all the official explanation required to erase you completely. (With another parallel being that the rest of the government is legally powerless to intervene, since Hitler was democratically elected.) Even those who don't cast magic in the streets aren't safe from Cowled scrutiny, if Rayic's pursuit of Edwin is any indication. In this light, Edwin's directing you to kill Gethras is completely justifiable self-defense.
You actually say the Cowls don't come off as Evil in the game? Tell you what: With the exceptions of Jermien and the cutscene where Irenicus & Imoen are arrested, I'd really love to see how many examples you can come up with of the Cowls acting anything but Evil. And once you fail, I truly hope that'll be an end to all this "Cowled Wizards aren't Evil" jazz.
Let's get back to the thread.
. But the fact remains that the party can take significant strides towards Law and Goodness as a result of these quests, and the party is informed of this before accepting the quest.
i'm not remembering any such thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Renal stating that you would be asked to kill Mae'Var (who is known throughout the Docks to be a sadistic maniac) at the end of your investigations. Not to mention the inside information--on BOTH guilds--that you could gather and provide to someone like Inspector Brega.
'supplementary reasons' - sounds pretty flimsy for someone who has pledged their life to a stringent code of honor. what happened to "tangible evidence" or "certain knowledge"? edwin is running the show, which all but guarantees that it's a thoroughly underhanded venture...
True, up to a point. There's a famous quote that says "It is better for a good person to tell a lie than for a bad person to tell the truth," because people generally lie/tell the truth to further their own code of ethics. Therefore, Edwin may very well have a darker purpose in mind when asking you to kill Gethras. (Of course, he could also be pulling a Vizzini on you: Suppose he tells you to commit an act that might be Evil, knowing that you will refuse and wind up doing something more Evil instead.)
But I say that as soon as you can confirm for yourself that Rayic is actually a Cowled Wizard, and is indeed Evil, and is actively persecuting spellcasters (I think we can take Edwin's word at least this far), he can therefore safely be assumed to be the moral equivalent of a Slaver, until/unless proven otherwise. Up until that point, all you've done is get past a few Mephits and Golems--and you don't even need to harm them at all if at least one party member can be invisible in some way.
and the person claiming that keldorn is a suitable example of a paladin was whom, precisely? :P
If we're to respect BioWare's intentions enough to come up with an entire Unfinished Business quest of of the words "This wasn't supposed to happen, this isn't what was promised to me," I think we can indulge in a little interpretation of Keldorn's quest. No matter which way you go, you have to do something that goes against the grain of being a Paladin: You can either condemn the adults entangled in this mess to death, prison, and mental anguish/grief, and the children to a twisted upbringing in a broken home, OR you can break a law and one of Keldorn's sacred oaths. All over an action that has not truly wronged anyone. Now, since BioWare seemingly went out of their way to write a quest where there is NO truly right answer (you must either be non-Lawful, or non-Good) and yet Keldorn does not Fall as a result, I take that as their endorsement that Paladins should be allowed at least a little bit of leeway in their actions.
Remember that Reputation used to be Virtue, and Paladins were allowed to go as low as 12.
my argument is that rather than paladins rationalizing what they want to get credit/xp/glory/et al. for, their options across the board need to be enhanced.
Indeed. If it remains implemented that a Paladin can't do Renal's quest without Falling, an option to stage a direct assault on Mae'Var's (and Renal's, too, for that matter) guild would be a good place to start.
cmiiw, but isn't the bottom line here that you want [at least in the context of three relatively unimportant opportunities throughout the course of an epic campaign] paladins to get away with what non-paladins can get away with? and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of devotion to a code that sets their standards above those of others?
To a certain extent, yes. I'm not asking that they be allowed to poison the Druid Grove, or make the Human Flesh Armor, but I would like to see them have SOME way to bring some law & order to the Docks District without unavoidably Falling in the process.
and not that i'm really into defending keldorn or anything, but "bring in a troop of cleansing light" doesn't sound at all backstabby, and everybody knows that's the shadow thief headquarters.
It does if the cleansing is being applied by Paladins at the end of long, sharp swords, and the person fantasizing about bringing them in currently working for their intended victims. See: betrayal.
obviously, every copy of bg2 has its own DM (if not several), but there's got to be a line drawn somewhere when a group is hurling conflicting ideas at a modder. in the case of mechanically implementing the paladin's code, "not everyone wants to play a paladin like you do" only goes so far.
Fair enough, but doesn't that still mean we should err on the user-friendly side rather than the alternative?
1) use of magic is officially forbidden. imoen used magic. offensive magic. i think it's obvious that even a solidly Neutral CW organization wouldn't wait around in a recently demolished public space to debate the extenuating AND immediately unprovable circumstances of the kidnapping, the party not [necessarily] knowing where they are [and not that yoshimo comes forth with the anti-magic ordinance anyway], etc., in lieu of taking the culprits to be "held" and "judged".
2) "innocent until proven guilty" is more of a LG stance than a LN stance. surely nobody has claimed that the CWs have a notable LG representation.
3) probability is so not the issue.
4) you don't actually know that imoen is being imprisoned-for-life or tortured (you can worry all you want that irenicus is really in control, even though there's no real evidence outside of dreams until you meet perth or just get into the asylum.
1) Okay, so they want to apprehend the two people observed to cast Wizard spells and get them contained as quickly as possible, that's perfectly all right. Good thing they also left some of their agents behind, to.....um, question any witnesses to find out what happened before they got there, and uh, let people know when the trial would be, and, er, write up a complete report of the incident and stuff.
2) I don't care if it's innocent until proven guilty or vice versa, as long as something gets proven. No organization that gets by on "She cast a Magic Missile at the guy who was Disitegrating you? She's a deviant, let her rot in Spellhold" could have any part of a legal charter.
3) Nalia is probably telling the truth about her Keep. There probably isn't any illusion, like there was in the Windspear Hills, that makes the invading army of Rakshasa look and act like servants and guards and make the Good-aligned soldiers honorably defending their home look and act like Trolls. You probably aren't going to be blamed for the whole thing after Nalia reveals that you've just destroyed a respected noble family and everything they stood for. Yeah, there's reason to doubt Nalia, but you kill those whom she tells you to kill anyway. Is the fact that she turns out to be telling the truth enough to mean that you can virtuously kill dozens of intelligent creatures at her command, but not a single one for Edwin?
4) If Ribald's friend was disappeared for a simple Floating Disc, in spite of ignorance of the law, I think we can take it as read that BioWare wanted the Cowls painted with one of the blackest brushes they had. The player is given no indication that the Cowls might ever find Imoen not guilty of breaking the law, or think of any mitigating circumstances (despite the fact that she was on their side), or give her time off for good behavior. Instead, the player is given many examples of the Cowls' corruption, including one that could logically be taken to mean that the Cowls use their better-looking captives as unwilling concubines. If a human DM presented the kind of situation that we see emerging from Jon's dungeon and Chapter 1, I'd say the message was pretty clear: The Cowls are the BAD guys.
Because Embarl isn't a member of an organization that is witholding critical information from you.
so now we're assuming that the paladin tackles the thief-stronghold quest after returning from the underdark? because that's the only way that statement holds true.
Well, after Chapter 4, the Cowls simply become an organization that had witheld that info, whereas Mae'Var's entire guild most likely never had that info at all. The Cowls know it, they know that you need it, they probably know that you need it for a good cause, and they will move heaven and earth to ensure that you don't succeed.
not registering under 'detect evil' sure as hell isn't conclusive evidence that you can trust a thief, or anything he says...
Given that Mae'Var wants him dead and therefore diametrically opposed to him on *something,* who do you think is the more trustworthy of the pair?
as evil as they are proven to be?
Damn Right.
amen. if you hadn't said that bit about the schism, i would have. however, it gives the lie to your previous insistence (twice?) that the organization itself is evil, as an excuse to kill gethras. :P
If it was implemented, it would indeed prove me wrong. This is what happens when my Philosophic self and my Modder self get going in the same thread, sorry I confused anyone.
IF the split in the Cowled order is implemented, the Paladin thing to do would be to judge all Cowls by their standing on the LN / NE dichotomy, and kill or not kill accordingly. But until that happens, I shall assume guilty unless hinted innocent.
assassination is consistently evil as far as AD&D is concerned.
With the exception of not being able to get into Gethras's house unless Edwin tells you to, Rayic Gethras essentially IS Mekrath: You enter his home, kill his classically Evil-aligned pets, learn some damning evidence (Mekrath endorses slavery, Gethras is a Cowl, and both are Evil) and you kill them. But killing Mekrath is kosher, while Gethras is called "assassinating?"
The CWs are law enforcers in Amn. Not a single paladin could dispute that. It may not be good or fair by higher standards, but if it is the law it is certainly lawful to act in accordance to it
What good is the law (or its enforcers), if it is not enforced in a lawful manner? Suppose your overeager Paladin starts attacking Jan simply for being a Thief--Jan will cast spells to defend himself, and no Cowls will Dimension Door in to chastise the Gnome. Therefore, Jan must have a license, right? But when you recruit Jan, what happens? Oh, no, you have to pay gold before we'll let you use magic! Obvious Lesson: The whole thing is a setup to get your (and others') money.
As for being law enforcers, ever seen what happens when some Cowls DD in next to an Amnish Guard? Guess whose side he's on.
Because Embarl isn't a member of an organization that is witholding critical information from you
So the people you meet are valued by their usefullness to you and their compliance to your requests? Evil means not helping much?
Evil means Evil. Evil that is sitting on information that they know I need to rescue at least one innocent person is even more Evil. In contrast, Evil that has that information, and has taken pains to let me know that they will help me if I help them, is less Evil. Now, the Cowled Wizards obviously know where their own prison is. True, its location might be classified and known only to only certain members of their order, but if they remain tight-lipped even after you take extensive pains to get on their good side (you can pester Teos about it all through the Mage Stronghold quests and he still won't tell you), proving that they're major-league buttheads and even more deserving of the axe. The Shadow Thieves know where the prison is, too, and they go out of their way to make sure Gaelan is able to waylay you and inform you of their ability to help--for a price that, when you think about it, is about the same as it would cost to charter, man, and equip a ship for a journey to the Pirate Isles.
Embarl not knowing how to get to Spellhold means that he's almost definitely telling you the truth.
A Cowled Wizard not knowing how to get to Spellhold means he's full of @&%*.
-
New Stuff:
Interesting thought: Even if the Virtue leeway for Paladins was extended to allow a range of 17-20 without Falling, the class most suited to redeeming Evil people would be the least capable of it: If your Virtue is low enough to keep an Evil person in the party without them getting mad and leaving, the -1 per week penalty would be practically guaranteed to make you Fall.
Since it apparently deserves a Virtue penalty to lie, betray, cheat, steal, or knowingly work for an Evil person (not that I'm arguing any of that), here is a partial list:
Keeping Keldorn in the party: +1 per week
Keeping Korgan in the party: -1 per week
Keeping Mazzy in the party: +1 per week
Keeping Viconia in the party: -1 per week
Wearing the Ring of Gaxx: -1 per week
Wearing the Robe of Vecna: -1 per week
Wearing the Human Flesh armor: -1 per week
Carrying Blackrazor: -1 per week
Working for Renal Bloodscalp: -1
Working for Mae'Var: -1
Working for Edwin: -1
Working for Solaufein / Imrae: -1
Working for Phaere: -1
Working for Matron Mother Ardulace: -1
Working for the Aboleth: -1
Working for Jarlaxle: -1
Working for Gaal: -1
Working for Simyaz: -1
Working for Lord Khellon Menold: -1
Working for Teos: -1
Working for the Hidden: -1
Working for Aran Linvail: -1
Working for Bodhi: -2
Working for Firkraag (Dragon): -1
Working for Xzar: -1
Working for King Ixilthetocal: -1
Working for Priestess Tlyysixxous / Prince Villynaty: -1
Working for Lady Lurraxol: -1
Working for Lord Alibakkar: -1
Working for Khan Zahraa: -1
Working for Ka'rashur: -1
Working for Tahazzar: -1
Working for Lehtinan: -1
Killing any Good-aligned party member: -2
Killing Mencar Pebblecrusher: -1
Killing Brennan Risling after he becomes blue-circled: -1
Killing Captain Dennis: -1
Killing Gont of Riatavin: -1
Killing Bedlen Daglefodd: -1
Killing the Elemental Lich: -1
Killing the Shade Lich: -1
Killing Nevazaiah: -1
Killing Sion AFTER going to the Roenall Estate: +1
Killing Sion WITHOUT already having been inside the Roenall Estate: -1
Killing Rayic Gethras: -1
Killing Saladrex: -1
Killing Reyna: -2
Killing any Baalor/Tanar'ri/Glabrezu/Fallen Deva/Fallen Planetar: +1
Killing the Lesser Demon Lord: +3
Killing any Ruffian Captain: +1
Killing Baron Metrich: +1
Killing Drizzt: -3
Killing Captain Haegan: +1
Killing Neb: +2
Killing Lady Galvena: +1
Killing Tolgerias: +1
Killing Darsidian Moor: +2
Killing Drush after getting the Gong from him: -1
Killing Embarl: -1
Killing Firkraag: +1
Buying anything from Arledrian: -1
Buying anything from Roger the Fence: -1
Buying anything from Jayes: -1
Buying anything from Cutpurse: -1
Buying anything from Fovem: -1
etc.
Helping Anomen raid the Fahrrad Estate: -1
Telling Keldorn to "kill the bastard": -1
Telling Keldorn to break the law: -1
Stealing the Necklace of Talos: -1
Stealing the Statuette of Lathander: -2
Giving Littleman to Wellyn or his parents: +1
Freeing the Slave being taken through the Slums: +1
Freeing Hendak: +1
Giving ale to the Imnesvale Three: -1
Taking the Imnesvale Three's money and not giving them jack: -1
Freeing Malaaq: +1
Freeing Dola Fadoon: +1
Freeing the Enslaved Genie: +1
Killing the Enslaved Genie: -1
Taking Yoshimo's heart to a Temple of Ilmater: +1
Freeing the Drow Slaves (equipped): +2
Freeing the Drow Slaves (unequipped): +1
Freeing Derg the Orc: +1
Freeing Flaylan the Orc: +1
Helping Ginia & Ason: +1
Freeing Glacias: +1
Killing Glacias after freeing him: -2
Poisoning the Druid Grove: -2
Killing Garren Windspear: -1
Entering the 2nd floor of the Galvarey Estate: -1
Giving the illithium alloy to Sir Sarles: -1
I encourage those who think any of these actions (or any others) should result in automatically Falling to compile their own list.
Stuff I haven't decided yet: Not being sporting with Aesgareth and attacking him for the gem? Killing Conster after he begs for mercy? Attacking Fll'Yissetat? As you can see, I'm not too hot with my ToB stuff.
-
Giving the Mantle of Waukeen to Lord Coprith: -1
Err what? This should be +1, surely?
Killing Garren Windspear: -1
I'd say this should be -2 at least.
-
I think Human Skin armour would be at least a penalty of 1 per day.
-
I cannot see any clue that the CWs are even evil to begin with.
Oh...my...god. You have GOT to be kidding me. Have you quietly taken leave of your senses, jester? I'd learned to expect much better than this from you. Let me just state that in BG2, the Cowls are blatantly, overpoweringly, screamingly Evil. More Evil than the Shadow Thieves. Probably not quite as Evil as Bodhi--but it's close. Let's take this simple quiz:
1) Name all the people in the game who have been released from Spellhold.
2) Name all the people in the game who know someone who has been released from Spellhold.
3) Name all the people in the game who once heard that someone, anyone, had been released from Spellhold.
You are mixing metagaming knowledge with assumptions what you do not get to see in the game. Spellhold boasts how many inhabitants? So you are telling me they only arrested a dozen people? Jon freed them? You do not get to see their sekrit dungeon lair with 10.000 more prisoners?
The Cowls don't just arrest people--they disappear them. This is, essentially, Nazi Germany meets the Spanish Inquisition: All it takes is for someone to report you as being "not loyal to the Party," and that's all the official explanation required to erase you completely. (With another parallel being that the rest of the government is legally powerless to intervene, since Hitler was democratically elected.) Even those who don't cast magic in the streets aren't safe from Cowled scrutiny, if Rayic's pursuit of Edwin is any indication. In this light, Edwin's directing you to kill Gethras is completely justifiable self-defense.
If you are so fond of real world comparisons (which always go awry to my knowledge) you should have rather picked Guantanamo and the clandestine part run by the CIA. A paladin would have defended Dyn at least when they met and never accepted Edwin in the group in the first place. Pursuing Edwin is as evil as pursuing Xzar I take it from their fame and alignment.
You actually say the Cowls don't come off as Evil in the game? Tell you what: With the exceptions of Jermien and the cutscene where Irenicus & Imoen are arrested, I'd really love to see how many examples you can come up with of the Cowls acting anything but Evil. And once you fail, I truly hope that'll be an end to all this "Cowled Wizards aren't Evil" jazz.
You take your assumptions from what the game gives you and I mine. I know that you can only claim that 'every swan is white' until you see the first black swan. The fact that others can cast magic, but you are punished is not simply unfair. It is a game weakness and not part of the story. Obviously everybody is meant to be punished. No casting outside, but in an Inn full of people? A game glitch, sadly.
Let's get back to the thread.
OMG we lost teh thread. ..... Oh there it is! :D
I agree with you about a certain game mechanic leeway for paladins and rangers.
A direct assault on Renal's before Spellhold is impossible IIRC.
The CWs are law enforcers in Amn. Not a single paladin could dispute that. It may not be good or fair by higher standards, but if it is the law it is certainly lawful to act in accordance to it
What good is the law (or its enforcers), if it is not enforced in a lawful manner?
Lawful means by the rules. Amnish rules are just that: No magic unless the authorities let you. In quasi-medieval settings like the FR law means whatever the council, Lord Suchandsuch or others who hold the power say. Correct me, if I am wrong, but the Council of Six is not really elected by the people for the people.
As for being law enforcers, ever seen what happens when some Cowls DD in next to an Amnish Guard? Guess whose side he's on.
Nope, but I have seen a lot of cops speeding. :D
-
Addendum:
The content of the list ranges from tricky to implement to downright silly.
As an example:
Why should my virtue fall to zero by simply having Viconia in my party, having her unhappy all the way until I *spoiler* her and doing every good thing along the way?
-
I don't think Virtue penalties for having evil party members makes much sense at all. Maybe a paladin wouldn't do it, I don't know, but taking Edwin along with you to help fry some vampires isn't doing a great deal of harm to anyone. On the other hand, if Edwin kills someone good/innocent (including the lich on the Nether Scroll quest, which is beyond the player's direct control), the party DOES incur a Virtue hit. So, yes, you're responsible for the actions of your party members, but no, I don't consider them tagging along to be an act worthy of inducing a Virtue hit.
And I've just confirmed that, as I suggested earlier, in vanilla BG2 you CAN kill Mae'Var without even speaking to Edwin.
-
Giving the Mantle of Waukeen to Lord Coprith: -1
Err what? This should be +1, surely?
I agree...if you are going to be involved with this quest at all, giving the mantle to Lord Logan Coprith is by far the most conscionable action to take.
Besides, as I've been saying before, paladins aren't permitted to do certain things that may not be necessarily evil (such as lying), and they can fall for commiting chaotic acts (which as far as I know, the Virtue mod doesn't penalize anyone for). I recall SimDingo has said that you generally only get a virtue penalty if there is a victim as a result of your actions. For example, paladins shouldn't journey with NPCs whom they know to be evil--that's roleplaying the role of the paladin. However, since no one is being directly harmed by the PC having Korgan/Viconia/Edwin as a travelling companion, there isn't going to be a virtue penalty because it's not within the scope of this mod.
If SimDingo wants to make the Virtue mod cause paladins fall for doing things they shouldn't, that's fine, but I'm not sure that's within the scope of his mod. The reputation system gives a lot of leeway to paladins and rangers, but part of the reason the Virtue mod was created was because it's flawed to begin with. And I'll be the first to agree with anyone that BG2 is not a very paladin oriented campaign to begin with--the game forces you to work for either thieves or vampires (both sides actively torture people unjustly, and a paladin has to help them!), and the "paragon" of paladins in the game--Keldorn--is willing to let clerics of a CE goddess burn Viconia for nothing other than her race, he doesn't leave the party when you let evil characters in, he does a number of things at a paladin would fall for while Anomen's knighthood is based on a single choice...and so on.
-
Giving the Mantle of Waukeen to Lord Coprith: -1
Err what? This should be +1, surely?
Killing Garren Windspear: -1
I'd say this should be -2 at least.
Giving the Mantle to Coprith means breaking your word to whichever noble gave you the key. But considering that you already got a -1 for agreeing to work for an Evil person, I don't think this quest deserves a -2 to Virtue. Placing the Mantle in the hands of a neutral arbiter leaves the town in pretty much the same sitation it was before, I don't see how you've really eased the Alibakkar/Luraxxol tension any. That honor goes to Coprith, not you.
You get -1 for agreeing to obtain the deed for Firkraag, and another -1 for killing Windspear. I doubt killing him should be considered as bad as killing Drizzt.
I know that you can only claim that 'every swan is white' until you see the first black swan.
I'm truly sorry, but unless you can provide any concrete examples of why the Cowls should be treated any better than Slavers, I'm simply going to toss your speculation in their defense into the dustbin. Or at least rebut them with things like Captain Golin's comment that "There's been even more screaming than usual from there lately."
A paladin would have defended Dyn at least when they met and never accepted Edwin in the group in the first place.
Dyn? Dynaheir? How does Edwin's quest in BG1 reflect on Virtue in BG2?
A direct assault on Renal's before Spellhold is impossible IIRC.
Um, I'm not sure about this, but I believe it's possible to clear out one of the lesser Thief guilds in Chapters 2-3, but not both. If you step into Renal's and start swinging, he will obviously not give you his quest and you'll never be able to get inside Mae'Var's guild. And if you try it after you've accepted his quest, betraying him means Arkanis Gath. But I haven't tried this in quite a while, and there have been many mods and bugfixes since then, as Sim's post shows.
Why should my virtue fall to zero by simply having Viconia in my party, having her unhappy all the way until I *spoiler* her and doing every good thing along the way?
If you're taking them along to 'redeem' them (which is pretty much the only reason a Paladin would willingly associate with Evil anyway), you must assume that your influence on them, towards Good, is probably balanced by their influence on you, towards Evil. Especially if they're as stong-willed as Korgan and Viconia.
Maybe a paladin wouldn't do it, I don't know, but taking Edwin along with you to help fry some vampires isn't doing a great deal of harm to anyone.
Which is why I didn't include him on the list: I mentioned slow Virtue drops for Viconia and Korgan, but not Edwin, because he is clearly the least Evil of the three. Korgan's obviously a bloodthirsty S.O.B., and doesn't care who knows it. Viconia is a lying, poisonous slut, and takes pride in it. But Edwin simply comes off as being power-crazy.
Similarly, only Keldorn and Mazzy confer slow Virtue gains, since only they possess the strength of character to truly make the party aim higher. People like Minsc simply can't influence the party like that, glorious hamster justice notwithstanding.
And I'll be the first to agree with anyone that BG2 is not a very paladin oriented campaign to begin with--the game forces you to work for either thieves or vampires (both sides actively torture people unjustly, and a paladin has to help them!), and the "paragon" of paladins in the game--Keldorn--is willing to let clerics of a CE goddess burn Viconia for nothing other than her race, he doesn't leave the party when you let evil characters in, he does a number of things at a paladin would fall for while Anomen's knighthood is based on a single choice...and so on.
Hear, hear.
-
Lord Alibakkar is coded in as neutral, by the way. :)
-
Lord Alibakkar is coded in as neutral, by the way. :)
My Shadowkeeper lists TRFUED05.cre as being Chaotic Evil. And yes, I have Oversight installed, but I'm not sure which version.
I've just edited my Virtue list, dropping the penalty for working for Firkraag from -2 to -1, and dropping any Virtue modifier at all for handing the Mantle to Lord Coprith.
-
Giving the Mantle to Coprith means breaking your word to whichever noble gave you the key. But considering that you already got a -1 for agreeing to work for an Evil person, I don't think this quest deserves a -2 to Virtue. Placing the Mantle in the hands of a neutral arbiter leaves the town in pretty much the same sitation it was before, I don't see how you've really eased the Alibakkar/Luraxxol tension any. That honor goes to Coprith, not you.
Changing your mind isn't an evil act, especially if you've come to realize keeping your word would have diire consequnces.
As for getting a -1 hit for agreeing to work for one of the two nobles... they're not actually evil, or at least they're not supposed to be! :) I'm aware that Lady Lurraxol is coded as such, and Lord Alibakkar is changed to evil by Oversight (he's true neutral in the original game), but these two characters are taken from the Lands of Intrigue sourcebook, and in that Lord Alibakkar is N, and Lady Lurraxol is CN.
But even if they were evil, how does the player character knows this? Not everyone casts detect evil over every single character they speak to, and before you agree to work for them they don't reveal any evil habits or intentions.
BTW Logan Coprith is a LG paladin (though only one of his two .cre's is coded as such), providing even more evidence that his way is the virtuous way. He hardly needs to gain more prestige for himself, since he's already High Merchant, and his family is the most prosperous in Trademeet (though of course you don't actually meet any of them in-game).
You get -1 for agreeing to obtain the deed for Firkraag, and another -1 for killing Windspear. I doubt killing him should be considered as bad as killing Drizzt.
Killing a righteous paladin, a champion of light and goodness shouldn't be considered as bad as killing a rogue Drow who just happens to be rather (in)famous? I beg to differ.
-
Which is why I didn't include him on the list: I mentioned slow Virtue drops for Viconia and Korgan, but not Edwin, because he is clearly the least Evil of the three. Korgan's obviously a bloodthirsty S.O.B., and doesn't care who knows it. Viconia is a lying, poisonous slut, and takes pride in it. But Edwin simply comes off as being power-crazy.
Similarly, only Keldorn and Mazzy confer slow Virtue gains, since only they possess the strength of character to truly make the party aim higher. People like Minsc simply can't influence the party like that, glorious hamster justice notwithstanding.
The same logic applies to Korgan and Viconia as to Edwin. They're evil, and perhaps a bad influence, but unless they're actually committing evil acts, there's no reason for Virtue to fall. Similarly, taking Keldorn along with you doesn't make up for murdering tons of innocents earlier on.
-
I have to agree with Nightmare about Drizzt--is killing Drizzt more wrong because he is a more famous do-gooder than Windspear? And like I said, Drizzt isn't a Realms-wide celebrity (in the end there really are no "Realms-wide celebrities"), he hangs out mostly in the North. But the real reason is because I have to admit that Drizzt has done a lot of the things I've complaining about in this very forum. Someone mentioned before that Drizzt pre-emptively strikes at a bunch of giants without actual evidence of them doing anything evil...this is true. I believe it's in The Thousand Orcs where he tracks and kills a bunch of giants just so they don't have the chance to harm either his group or other travellers. Now, those may be good intentions, but that's the same logic Galvary uses to try to imprison (if not outright kill) your PC: "You may do something evil, so I'm going to end your life now so you never get the chance."
Another example that's even better--at the beginning of Legacy (I don't remember all the little details but here is the gist), Bruenor, who has just re-taken Mithral Hall, gets word of some tunnels that have a large portion of Mirthal in them. These tunnels, as I recall, aren't necessarily his to begin with (ie. not his by right), but they are currently controlled by a bunch of goblins. Bruenor is all for slaughtering the goblins (or driving them out) and seizing their Mithral, and most of his friends agree. Of them, only Cattie-Brie actually speaks up and asks if it's right to slaughter the goblins and take their treasure; I recall this gives Drizzt pause, but in the end they all decide that it's OK, and they do exactly that. In the end, the goblins are killed and their treasure is taken, by a group of individuals who are almost entirely good-aligned. They decided it's OK because goblins are evil little wretches whereas the dwarves of Mithral Hall are members of the "goodly" races, and because they know the true value of Mithral! ::) How are those actions better than those of your typical brigand?
Finally, in The Lone Drow, for about half the book, Drizzt gives into grief over his belief that his friends are dead, and essentially goes on a bloodthirsty killing spree towards every orc and giant he can find.
-
And before you say "ah, but the latest Drizzt trilogy was written long after BG2 came out", it's actually set several years earlier ;). Bioware couldn't have known about the events of those novels, but we do :).
-
Since it apparently deserves a Virtue penalty to lie, betray, cheat, steal, or knowingly work for an Evil person (not that I'm arguing any of that), here is a partial list:
I'm going through your list spotting potential revisions for the next version. If possible, could you post bulk amendments/additions in a new post, so I don't have to keep going back looking for edits? Thanks.
However, bear in mind that, as I mention above, it's evil ACTIONS that I'm really interested in. For example, while working for Xzar may generally be a fairly questionable thing to do, unless there's any specific action involved that's distinctly evil (which there isn't, that I can think), I'm unlikely to implement a Virtue hit.
-
I've just confirmed that, as I suggested earlier, in vanilla BG2 you CAN kill Mae'Var without even speaking to Edwin.
My party just did the following:
* Paid off Gaelan Bayle
* Entered Renal's Guildhall
* Got the quest to investigate & whack Mae'Var
* Gave the documents to Gorch
* Got the quest to rob the Temple of Talos
* Killed Mae'Var
* Went back upstairs
* Immediately got gibbed by Arkanis Gath.
Now, might we have survived if we had taken the other exit from the basement and never entered Mae'Var's guildhall again? Perhaps. Might our actions not have been fatal if we had done this without siding with the Shadow Thieves first? Perhaps. But it does seem to rule out the possibility of killing Mae'Var without doing any of his unsavory sidequests, at least in 98% of the cases.
Granted, this wasn't vanilla BG2. But I doubt any of my mods would make Arkanis Gath more likely to appear.
-
I went upstairs into the guildhall when I tested. However, yes, it might depend on whether you side with Aran first. Strange if that's the case, though.
-
A -very- interesting thread. I have to say that in most cases I'm actually most sympathetic to SixOfSpade's view - in fact, I'll surpass him and argue that killing Gethras shouldn't incur a virtue hit -at all-. I'll explain in several phases (this is going to be a long one):
1) Some here seem to feel that the "Lawful", for a paladin, requires strict adherence to civil laws. I entirely disagree. While it is true that "lawful" does generally require that one sees a general benefit to organized, civilized society, a paladin would most certainly have an overriding principle according to their oath, that being, the laws of his deity (through his or her Church). Otherwise, in your guy's view, a paladin whose nation's government was infiltrated and taken over by a Nazi like dictatorship, which among other things started to shut down Churches (including the Paladin's own), would then still have to start carrying out this dictatorship's orders and enforcing it's laws (such as rounding up a segment of the population based on nationality/religion for genocide, including the Paladin's own) or else fall from paladinhood. That's ridiculous. Paladins would most certainly be expected to help topple an evil, albeit "lawful" government. The highest law to a paladin is not civil law - it's ethical and religious law, and it just happens that -most- civil laws and civilized societies tend to reflect the tenets of religious laws (at least in good societies), so civil law is generally respected as a useful construct, but by no means should that law be considered sacrosanct if they conflict with the paladin's deity's notions of good and/or "the rules".
In particular, I don't think that a paladin would be in even the most minimal way required to support or tolerate the obviously evil Cowled Wizards because they are supported by the civil government - in fact, I'd think that a Paladin of Mystra (Goddess of Magic) would feel especially duty bound to mow down the Cowled Wizards for what would almost certainly be against Mystra's "law" - attempting to usurp Mystra's blessings only to themselves. I think for most paladins the "law" would be "justice" (Helm) or "honor" (Torm). The cleric stronghold quests are a good indicator of how "law" (Hellm) and "good" (Lathander) approach things differently. The paladin has to walk a tightrope juggling the demands of justice, honor, and mercy - and of course when confronted with conflicting demands the paladin must make rational decisions about the "greater good", rather than abdicating all thought and acting only when there's a pure-white option available, as some here seem to suggest.
2) Another notion being bandied about is: it's morally reprehensible to kill evil creatures unless you've caught them in the act - as in, they all deserve their day in court. Maybe in our world that's a good notion, but that's for one reason only - we lack something called a "Detect Evil" spell, and therefore we can't know if someone is empirically evil or good. And suffice it to say - if you don't believe in an empirical good and evil, you shouldn't even be interested in this mod. I stipulate that YES, in fact, no paladin should -ever- fall, under any circumstances, for killing a creature if his divinely inspired ability to "detect evil" does in fact register someone as evil. That doesn't mean that a paladin MUST kill every single evil person he meets (for example, if letting them live does, in fact, serve the "greater good" in some fashion), but no paladin's God should look at a Paladin and say "You swore an oath to root out and destroy evil, and then you dared to kill someone that I myself reported to you as significantly evil without hard evidence?!?! How DARE you NOT doubt MY judgment?!? Alright, you, out of the pool!"
I mean, think about it - the entire PURPOSE of the Virtue mod requires the presupposition that good and evil are both universally applicable and quantifiable, and it's entire purpose is in fact to do that quantifying. Universally applicable in the sense that an act is considered intrinsically good or evil regardless of the viewpoint, culture, alignment, class or religion of the main character - no moral relativism here, sorry. The only facts that matter in determining good/evil are the intent of the character given the knowledge of the circumstances available to him at the time he makes his decision, and the general social mores of Western Civilization, NOT "my parents didn't pay enough attention to me so don't blame me, blame society" or "hey, in some cultures, slavery/cannibalism/whatever is perfectly acceptable and we shouldn't be so arrogant as to judge by our standards, who's to say who's right?!". Well, from the character's perspective, the God that gave the Paladin the ability to detect evil is. In reality, it's the folks writing the Oversight and Virtue mod setting the standards, and when it boils down to it, playing God and precisely judging the various decisions the player makes in game, applying what are generally the social and ethical mores of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, which despite being agnostic I still personally subscribe to and am not ashamed of, nor am I suggesting anyone should be. The point is, from the character's perspective, the result of "Detect Evil" is the verdict of his God, even if it's really the authors of Oversight and Virtue making the decisions (with our combined input).
The mod also works under the presumption that good and evil are quantifiable, and that it's literally not possible for someone to be both "innocent" and "evil". You're basically born neutral - one can only become "evil" due to acts of evil intent, and only then does your alignment change to detectable evil (or at least, I assume the mod works that way - I haven't tried the mod yet precisely because I thought it's rules for paladins were too strict, same as Six). They -had- to have done a lot of evil things that left a detectable "stain on their soul".
In the real world, we can't throw someone in jail unless we catch them in the act, but in the context of the AD&D world, if someone detects as "evil", that's better than a court of law. A judge and jury could screw up, but the paladin's deity certainly isn't going to. If a "detect evil" isn't supposed to be good enough for the paladin, if he also needs (as Six put it) forms filled out in triplicate and a judge and jury to declare the individual guilty and deserving of the application of righteous justice, why does he even have the power to detect that stain?
So yes, it would seem to me that unless the Virtue mod is going to effectively stand in ethical doubt of it's very purpose and/or the evaluations of the Oversight mod that it explicitly depends on (either of which would seem to me quite silly), then if the paladin's deity's power detects so many stains on a person's soul that it overrides the good he's done and dubs them "evil", that should be more than good enough for the paladin to make his judgment - certainly better than any flawed legal structure created by a human civil government could be.
Actually, if you think about it, in a world such as Faerun, there shouldn't really be any such thing as courts of law in a good society. Do a "detect evil" - did he glow? Throw him in jail. What did he do to deserve it? We don't know, but then, we don't really need to, do we? The criminal's soul shows that this person regularly acts with malicious destructive intent, and we do all acknowledge that -intent-, not outcome, is the real issue, otherwise we wouldn't rightly be saying that metagaming knowledge shouldn't be considered in our quantification. Thus, being a person of regular and intentionally malevolent intent, the person is clearly a threat to both the common good and society in general (there's "lawful" again, if you still insist on thinking about "law" as civil society). The stain is detectable, and the only valid defense should frankly be that his "aura" was somehow magically tampered with - otherwise, we KNOW you're guilty, we KNOW you're predisposed towards evil intent -and- acting on it, and thus we know you're a very real threat to society and the common good. But requiring a court of law to decide someone's guilt when a detect evil is available is actually to hold "reputation" as a deeper construct than "virtue", and that seems a silly assumption to make in this mod.
3) In the argument that a paladin should fall for killing Gethras, it was explicitly argued that a paladin (paraphrased) "cannot commit an evil act even if he believes it to be for the greater good", supported primarily by a shallow interpretation of a cliche about the "road to hell is paved with good intentions". So what if the "good intention" is to ignore the "greater good" for the sake of personal virtue? Why is that good intention exempted from the possibility of leading to hell? Is it simply not possible that being so sanctimonius that one permits a tremendous evil to flourish when it could have been prevented by something like a calculated deception is the real "road to hell"?
The hard fact that performing the Mae'var quest requires "deception, theft and murder", it is argued, is why a Paladin's God would kick him out of the pool for doing it. Well, here's the funny thing. One day, my character actually walked into the very heart of Paladinhood in Athlatka, the Order of the Radiant Heart, and was asked to A) infiltrate an organization using deception. Upon doing so, and B) successfully lying to Reynalt, someone who is certainly a good man (especially in light of the Quest Pack), you must then agree to C) steal something from that very same Radiant Order. Note that the only successful way to complete this quest and rid Athlatka of the Anarg's evil is to agree to "steal" the Chalice for Anarg - before knowing whether or not the Order will in fact give it to you - and in fact in the conversation with the Order it's clearly a close call, they almost don't. And when you return to Anarg with the cup in unmodded BG2, he catches you, Reynalt (a good man) realizes you've betrayed him, and you have to kill him, which under the circumstances (you certainly provoked him to attack you) could be argued as murder. Well, at least Anarg's evil had been ended, and his future victims saved.
When Anarg asked my paladin to get the cup, I said to myself, "Okay, I'll agree to this for now, and I'll go back and ask the Order for the Cup. If they don't give it to me, well, I'm -not- going to actually steal it, that would be unjust, so I guess I won't get to meet Anarg and I'll just have to tell the Order that without the Cup I can't complete their mission of ending Anarg's evil". Similarly, when Mae'var ordered me to work for Edwin, and Edwin assigned me to kill Gethras, my paladin's first thought was "Okay, I'll agree to this for now, and I'll find this Gethras guy and see if he detects as evil. If he isn't, well, I'm not going to actually kill him, that would be unjust, so I guess I'll just have to go back to Renal and tell him I can't complete his quest of ending Mae'var's evil.
But according to some, apparently, the greater purpose of killing Anarg, which involves killing a good man (even if unintentionally), is ultimately all moral (I've certainly never seen anyone suggest that completing it should get a virtue hit), but the greater purpose of bringing down Mae'var is not sufficient to render killing Gethras, an evil man, a moral act. Apparently, it's not the good or evil of the person you're killing that makes the killing just, it's who you're doing it for and why - whose cause you're advancing.
But hey, if the good/evil of a killiing is determined not by the criminality or guilt of the person being killed, but rather who asked you to kill him, doesn't that effectively put "the greater purpose" as the priority in determining if an act is good and evil? If so, how can one then say that the "greater good" is irrelevant? It's basically just leaving the determination of whether or not an act is good and evil to the questgiver - which I think is silly. It's the paladin's intent that should count. The good or evil of the act should have two bearings - one, is there an injustice in the act in and of itself? IMO, since Gethras is deity-certified as evil, no. And then there's the greater purpose. The greater purpose a paladin would have in this quest is not to advance Edwin, but to get evidence on Mae'var so that Mae'var can be disposed of without risking alienating the entire Shadow Thief guild, which at best could cut off access to Imoen and at worst could bring certain STDEATH.
So. Does killing Gethras violate "justice"? No, he's evil, my deity says he is. Does killing Gethras violate "honor"? Again, not in any way I can see, unless my "honor" is dependent on only good people making me aware of evil people's existence. Does it violate the Ultima 7 precepts for a paladin - "truth" or "courage"? Nope. But I'm supposed to risk losing Imoen or leaving Mae'var to continue terrorizing the docks or risking commiting suicide by taking him out, all because I can't consider ending those evils to justify killing a guy who my own God assures me is an evil scumbag?
The notion in the argument that "the paladin cannot commit a questionable act even for the greater good" makes it seem to me that a paladin isn't allowed to think. He can consider no context to his actions, he has to ignore the report of his own deity-given power to detect evil, and he is not permitted to commit a lesser evil like deception or killing a deity-certified-evil Cowled Wizard even if inaction would enable a much greater evil to flourish.
If that's what a paladin's forced to do, I won't be calling any paladins to help save my town anytime soon. I don't want to be saved by someone who's literally incapable of eliminating the greatest of evils unless it's replaced with 100% pure goodness. If my hero is going to act on the notion that acting to replace a great evil with a much lesser evil is an evil act itself, and beyond the pale at that... well, I can't think of a faster way to pave "the road to hell" than to insist on being pure as driven snow in the microscopic sense and wilfully ignorant of the greater consequences of one's actions and inaction.
That's the secular argument. Here's my theological one (note that I myself am agnostic):
The Roman Catholic Church itself, the religion that spurred our very foundation for our concepts of Paladinhood, says that in a moral quandary, a Catholic's moral obligation is to act in the way that they evaluate "does least harm", and the Catholic -does- have to consider the harm that will occur in the instance of inaction. Yes, in the Catholic faith, one is not only allowed but obligated to act in accordance with what they believe is "the greater good" and "least harm" as they perceive it and as informed by the tenets of the Catholic faith. Yes, each individual -is- entrusted and charged with the duty to evaluate the moral quandaries they encounter and seek to do the greatest good/least harm, they are NOT expected to be automatons that are required to follow a strict legalistic code that is supposed to apply in absolutely all situations and regardless of mitigating circumstances. A "Catholic Paladin" would likely be -more- entrusted and duty-bound to make such decisions for the greater good wisely and correctly, not -less-. I'd give examples of how this RCC obligation to work towards "least harm" applies in practice, but the ones coming to mind are politically rather charged (namely, surrounding whether one can vote if they have to choose between two pro-abortion candidates) so I'll just leave it out unless someone wants to specifically argue that they think the Catholic Church would in fact NOT permit a Catholic Paladin to encourage a lesser evil if it would successfully prevent a greater evil from taking place. And if they're willing to cede the point, then I ask why their perception of a Paladin is not willing to accomodate an application that would be consistent with the notions of good and evil that gave us the concept of Paladins in the first place.
Qwinn
-
This is a well-thought out argument. Nice work. :)
(Now for the however.) However, although Maevar is clearly an evil thief - he tortures people, etc - isn't the reason Reynald sends you to get rid of him purely personal? i.e that Mae'var is a threat to him. For a paladin to assist a thief in a struggle for personal power would break the paladin's code -hence the virtue drop seems logical.
You are asked to eliminate Gethras because he stands in Edwin's way - again purely personal reasons - not those of the greater good. Again, the virtue drop is deserved.
The Fallen Paladins are pretending to serve justice and right when they are only serving themselves - eliminating them causes no conflict.
Virtue makes you really role-play a paladin - instead of just picking up all the experience points you can on every quest. It reminds me of BG1, in that you got more experience points on some quests when you did evil stuff, than when you chose the good option.
-
@ It reminds me of BG1, in that you got more experience points on some quests when you did evil stuff, than when you chose the good option.:
*sniff* I miss that option. Never happens in BG2 really. :(
-
"However, although Maevar is clearly an evil thief - he tortures people, etc - isn't the reason Reynald sends you to get rid of him purely personal? i.e that Mae'var is a threat to him. For a paladin to assist a thief in a struggle for personal power would break the paladin's code -hence the virtue drop seems logical. "
I totally, totally disagree. Just because Renal's motive for sending you to get rid of Mae'var is personal doesn't mean that has to be YOUR motive. My motive when I did it was because virtually every commoner on the street was terrorized by Mae'var (and NOT by Renal, incidentally), and he needed to be gotten rid of. The most logical way to infiltrate Mae'var's guild and get rid of him without cutting me off from Imoen and/or bringing STDEATH down on my head was to do it with Renal's assistance. Lastly, Renal may be a thief, but he -isn't evil- by an alignment check, so he -must- do enough good to compensate for his evil. It should indeed fit within a Paladin's code to ensure that the local thieves are controlled by a non-evil thief, if the only alternative at the moment is that an evil thug like Mae'var gets to continue to terrorize the entire district.
Similarly, in the course of working to get rid of Mae'var, Edwin sends you to kill Gethras. HE wants me to do it for personal gain, sure, but given how often evil is at each other's throats it'd be silly to assume that his target isn't just as evil as he is and deserve wiping out as well. My paladin would go and check Gethras out, and if Gethras is evil as confirmed by my own deity, then my paladin would have no compunction about killing him, not because Edwin wanted me to, but because he's an evil rat bastard and deserves it and it also forwards the greater good of bringing down Mae'var.
By your logic, if evil Cowled Wizards (who are simply evil, and IMO obviously so) had approached my character and said "Irenicus has taken over Spellhold, we're going to ship you to Spellhold to get rid of him for us", the player would have to say no because that would "assist an evil wizard in a struggle for personal power". Similarly, once Aran asked the paladin to clear out Bohdi's tomb, the Paladin would have to say no, because it would "assist a thief in a struggle for personal power".
And yes, that's how the logic works out. Kish even confirms it with the following:
Killing the kuo-toa for Ardulace: Bad. If you have a right to kill anything because you want one of its parts, Irenicus certainly has a right to kill the child of an evil god because he wants a soul, and you have no business going after him at all. Poisoning the kuo-toa tadpoles: Beyond the pale, again. They're completely innocent.
Killing the beholders for Ardulace: Bad. Killing more beholders than you have to to defend yourself while leaving their city if you stumble into it: Bad. Going out of your way to kill intelligent creatures when you don't have to is wrong.
Killing the illithid for Ardulace: Bad. Killing them to escape their city and/or rescue the slaves, if you get to their city some other way: Not bad.
But here's the thing - what if the player had just done the drow city quests before wandering into the beholder/kuo toa/illithid caves? Apparently, simply becoming aware that it would benefit Ardulace makes freeing the illithid slaves/killing beholders evil.
The moral logic seems to be that an evil person and a good person CANNOT, by definition, ever want the same thing. I think that's just bizarre. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Stalin wanted Hitler dead. Does that make FDR evil for also wanting Hitler dead? Should FDR have stopped attacking Hitler upon finding out that Stalin wanted him dead too? Did it make the fight against Hitler less virtuous?
Evil people are always backstabbing each other - it's evil's primary weakness. If you're going to refrain from interfering with anyone evil upon becoming aware that it may help another evil person, well, then, you're going to be completely paralyzed because virtually every evil person is going to have another evil person competing with them.
Qwinn
-
Yes, the good/evil drops do seem to be highly subjective. However, to be frank, there's really no way for a mod of this sort to be otherwise. You'll always have people that say, "Well, this is evil but you don't think it is" or "This is good, but I lose virtue! WTF?"
-
Very well done Qwuinn, that was one uber-posten.
-
Evil stain detected by a righteous god as a true reason for conviction - that's so true. But since evil can be redeemed, then jails oughta become comfortable asylums treating the convicts. But this leads to an extremist, utopic and boring world. Could be LG-ish but not at all for NG (who want convenience to everyone) or CG (nice but not goody-goody). What I mean is that players who use paladins should accept this fate. If you don't like it, choose another class, they are so many.
Of course, this 'world' is not easy to rule. A paladinic king needs to keep a powerful army in order to maintain this law. Just think of rebels of any alignment - especially CG - who'll run rampant. Not to mention the likes of Harpers - a more or less TN/NG community - who'll object. Their purpose is upholding the humanity balance - which can only be between anarchy and boredom. The fact that Jaheira (harper) frowns on high reputation/virtue is likely caused by boredom. Besides that she has a particularly sarcastic attitude towards 'sissy' LG chars. I love when she does it ;D. She pauses her romance when she notices you as 'goody-two-shoes'.
So don't trust paladins in everything they wish and NEVER let one take the throne. They're only good as superheroes not rulers.
Cowled Wizards as an obviously evil organization - if their rules are harsh it doesn't mean every member is evil. They are humans (or maybe humanoids) not extraplanar, and their alignment varies, good members taking duties less harsh. Also, at least without Oversight, Rayic Gethras is not evil, he's unaligned. Not to doubt he's still evil...that is, let's hope not to restart this disturbing dilemma.
(sorry for my English...)
-
Qwinn, my comments are intended to be game-specific. :)
Perhaps the consideration of each act is not whether it is good or evil, but whether it is lawful. Under that umbrella the virtue drops are consistent.
-
It's true that paladins don't merely follow civil law, but I still don't agree that killing Gethras is justifiable for a paladin. I've been over my reasons for believing this already.
Paladins are supposed to believe in mercy as well as justice--it is supposed to be their hope that a bad guy can perhaps be turned around to the side of good via the paladin's example. Many have argued that killing Gethras is fine because he is evil and belongs to an evil group, but as stated before many times, there is no proof in the game that Gethras has done anything especially evil or harmful (and he isn't evil in the unmodded game), and comparing the CWs to "nazis" is problematic (be careful there). Just because Edwin is evil doesn't mean anyone who he wants to kill is most likely evil (remember Dynaheir? Are the leaders of Rashemen evil because the mostly evil leaders of Thay would love to have Rashemen wiped off the map?).
I believe that with a paladin, the ends don't justify the means. That's the point of playing one. I don't like Gethras or Mae'var personally, and I don't think killing them is such a bad thing...it's the means of destroying them that I have a problem with, mostly. I've killed both these characters before (though not as a paladin), but as I said in another thread--just because I played certain characters that way doesn't mean I feel they acted "virtuously", or that a virtue penalty for such actions as they took would be unjustified.
An evil act "for the sake of good" is still an evil act. And nobody ever said that the paladin class was supposed to be an easy class to play with a lot of room for flexibility. You don't have to ignore Detect Evil, but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly. I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.
-
But here's the thing - what if the player had just done the drow city quests before wandering into the beholder/kuo toa/illithid caves? Apparently, simply becoming aware that it would benefit Ardulace makes freeing the illithid slaves/killing beholders evil.
And I would be the first to agree that doing the drow quests in the deceptive manner that the game encourages you to is also unpaladinlike, and perhaps even evil.
PS: I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me, as well. Insulting me isn't going to change my mind, not by a long shot.
PPS: I don't necessarily consider the paladins in the game to be good examples of paladin-like behavior, either.
-
You don't have to ignore Detect Evil, but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly. I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.
Just what I've been saying, you don't have to kill evil but to redeem it - as by closing an 'evil' person in an asylum, not one like Spellhold, where skilled priests are to reeducate him/her, not by amnesy, but by lessons of wisdom. As soon as the individual shows no sign of bad manners, s/he's free.
Of course I'm not quite fond of this... There's also need for skilled priests and administration or else guards will start arresting people for every single act of insubordination...
-
Paladins are supposed to believe in mercy as well as justice--it is supposed to be their hope that a bad guy can perhaps be turned around to the side of good via the paladin's example.
And the problem I see is that your vision of a paladin, as far as I can tell, is 100% mercy and 0% justice. I don't see a Paladin as a roving social worker the way you do. This is a world in which frontier justice can and must rule if good is to even survive the continuous onslaught of evil. I believe a paladin's role can be and is for many players to seek out and destroy evil -before- it claims any more victims. Can that paladin also attempt to redeem evil rather than destroy it? Sure, if he feels there's significant hope that the evil creature in question -can- be redeemed, but is it an actual evil act to not attempt to redeem every single last creature he comes across? No.
Many have argued that killing Gethras is fine because he is evil and belongs to an evil group, but as stated before many times, there is no proof in the game that Gethras has done anything especially evil or harmful
Yes, there is. He registers as evil (within Oversight, anyway, and as Simding0 has clearly stated, Virtue relies on Oversight). The entire concept of the Virtue mod, as I said, is that alignment isn't just something you pick like your character's name - it's a result of the actions you've taken. Now, explain to me how, in the context of the Virtue mod, someone can actually register as evil without having done especially evil things? Maybe the problem is that since you want to give everyone a virtue hit for practically breathing, it's no wonder you feel that something that registers as evil doesn't deserve death.
(and he isn't evil in the unmodded game)
I actually wasn't aware of this. I guess I presumed in my first game taking him out that he was evil based on the fact that he has demonic familiars. My good and neutral mages can't summon demonic familiars, can yours? If Oversight had retained him as neutral, I would have definetly asked how that decision was justified based on all the in-game evidence. At any rate, based on his attitude, his membership in the Cowled Wizards, and his demonic familiars, I definetly think that Oversight makes the right call in changing him to evil. Hey, I also think they make the right call in changing Vithal to good, his attitude and honor in keeping his word do demonstrate him to be, and paladins should incur a heavy virtue hit for killing him - and it's a heck of a lot more profitable for the character to kill Vithal than to kill Gethras. The point is, Virtue relies on Oversight's decisions on the alignment of NPC's, and if Gethras does in fact detect as evil, then there should not be a virtue hit in killing him, regardless of who asked you to do it, and especially if it's being done in order to advance the larger goal of freeing the citizens of the Docks from Mae'var's tyranny. If you believe that Gethras should NOT be listed as evil, for whatever reason, then fine, argue with his alignment. But once it's established that he -does- detect as evil, then he's fair game for a paladin.
Just because Edwin is evil doesn't mean anyone who he wants to kill is most likely evil (remember Dynaheir? Are the leaders of Rashemen evil because the mostly evil leaders of Thay would love to have Rashemen wiped off the map?).
Straw man. No one has ever said that the paladin would be justified in just -assuming- that someone Edwin wants dead is evil. But neither must they assume they're an innocent victim - which DOES seem to be YOUR argument, since you keep insisting it's wrong to kill him even if he detects as evil. I say the paladin would absolutely be required to make sure that Gethras is evil before killing him. But if he does, and he can see the guy -is- evil, then by all means, whack away!
I believe that with a paladin, the ends don't justify the means. That's the point of playing one.
The end that my paladin seeks is to kill an evil person (Mae'var). The means my paladin employs in order to kill that evil person is to kill another evil person (Gethras). Why is killing evil people okay as an end but not as a means?
I don't like Gethras or Mae'var personally, and I don't think killing them is such a bad thing...it's the means of destroying them that I have a problem with, mostly.
The means? The means is my sword. The fact that someone evil pointed another evil person out to me is not my "means". It's just a source of information. What -should- matter is the intent behind it. You assume that a paladin's motivation for killing Gethras must be the motivation of the person who gave him that quest. That's like saying the only possible motivation for a paladin killing beholders MUST be that he actually really wants Ardaluce to summon a demon lord to go rampaging through the surface world killing Elhan and the rest of his elves. I would be saying that sarcasticallly, except that this really does seem to be how you feel. I find this really bizarre.
An evil act "for the sake of good" is still an evil act.
Agreed. I disagree with your insistence that killing a provably evil person is an evil act.
And nobody ever said that the paladin class was supposed to be an easy class to play with a lot of room for flexibility.
Agreed. Most people can get away with killing Vithal. A paladin can't. Those are some pretty tasty 9th level spell scrolls the paladin has to give up. I agree with the Virtue mod's calls in -most- places, but not on this one. (actually, if anything, I believe the virtue hit for killing Vithal should be increased. I'm actually in favor of the idea that a paladin should fall if his virtue falls below 18... and I think killing Vithal should incur at least a -3 virtue hit. That's definetly a single act worthy of causing a paladin to fall). If Gethras were not evil and there weren't as much in-game evidence that he is, then I would be in agreement with you that the paladin can't kill him. But there's plenty of evidence that he is, Oversight agrees, and therefore paladins can kill him guilt-free. I agree that paladins don't have the flexibility other classes have. But I don't see your vision of a paladin as simply "not flexible". I see it as railroading into a single, solitary vision of what the class is supposed to be. Not just not flexible, but overwhelmingly rigid. A vision that denies paladins even the flexibility to kill evil people - and even extending that to illithids and beholders (!!!) - is a bit over the top. Okay, it's WAY over the top.
You don't have to ignore Detect Evil
But I can't act based on it? According to you if I actually act on it I no longer deserve to be a paladin. My definition of "having to ignore" something is that I can't act based on it. Just telling me that I'm allowed to notice it but I must then dismiss it as insufficient reason to kill him doesn't mean much.
but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly.
Straw man. I actually said myself that a Paladin is NOT required to slaughter every evil person he meets (when the greater good suggests that they should not be killed, for whatever reason). But not being -required- to kill them (what I'm saying) and saying it's actually evil if he does (what you're saying) are two entirely different things.
I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.
I've read a million sources that have said that a paladin's primary role is to root out and destroy evil. What I have rarely seen is a paladin's role described as marauding social worker attempting to redeem every evil person he sees, and only being permitted to destroy evil as a defensive measure. That would actually be far more appropriate a role for a cleric than a paladin.
And I would be the first to agree that doing the drow quests in the deceptive manner that the game encourages you to is also unpaladinlike, and perhaps even evil
You mean in the way a silver dragon encourages you to. So is the silver dragon evil for asking some adventurers to infiltrate the drow in order to get back her eggs? Is the "good" alternative to ignore the Silver Dragon, let her eggs be used to summon a Demon Lord that wipes out the elven armies, or just let the eggs be destroyed? Is infiltrating the Fallen Paladins evil? Were Frodo and Sam evil for dressing up as orcs in Mordor?
I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me, as well. Insulting me isn't going to change my mind, not by a long shot.
I fail to see where I have insulted you even once anywhere in this thread. I have criticized your ideas. Learn to tell the difference.
I don't necessarily consider the paladins in the game to be good examples of paladin-like behavior, either.
Clearly, since as far as I can tell your vision of paladin-like behavior is to set up a "Evil? Just say no!" encounter group in the Underdark.
Qwinn
-
Evil people are always backstabbing each other - it's evil's primary weakness.
and good's primary weakness? come on, i know you can get this one... ;)
-
and good's primary weakness? come on, i know you can get this one...
Heh... I've been avoiding any Spaceball quotes for a while now, but needless to say I do NOT concur with Dark Helmet's position that "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb". There do seem to be an awful lot of advocates of that idea, though :-\
Qwinn
-
actually, my contention is that good has the burden of actively setting an example.
-
Qwinn, it's not a matter of seeing paladins "my way" or "your way". It's a matter of them behaving the way they are supposed to according to the actual D&D sources about paladins. You can think whatever you want, but the class is the way it is. If you think it's too restrictive, play a different class.
Being a paladin isn't just about being good, it's also about being lawful and acting according to a code of chivalry. There are some things that paladins aren't supposed to do that aren't necessarily "evil", but they are unbecoming for a paladin. For example, they aren't allowed to insult people or act rudely, even though having bad manners isn't necessarily "evil". Bringing Frodo into this is irrevelant, because he isn't a paladin. Bringing any non-paladin character into the discussion (which I presume is about how paladins are supposed to act) is irrelevant.
And for the record, no, I don't much care for the heavyhanded way the player is forced to act in Chp 5, whether the questgiver is a silver dragon or not (again, being a LG silver dragon still doesn't make you a paladin). Do I have to mention yet again what paladins have to do in the Yuan-ti temple in IWD2???
Any mage of any alignment can end up summoning evil creatures. Those mephits in Gethras's home may not be his familiars (remember, you can only have one familiar ::) ). A good aligned mage casting a summon spell may end up summoning evil creatures (ogres, goblins, ogrillons, kobolds), yet I've never read about anyone questioning this aspect of the game, or suggesting that the caster is somehow evil just because these critters pop up instead of pixies, grigs, nymphs, etc.
Anyway, it seems to me that you haven't read my arguments in my previous posts that carefully. do I really have to repeat every point I made before? Not only are you gleefully misinterpreting many of the points I made, you continue to have a snarky attitude while insisting that you aren't insulting me. ::) I don't need it. You don't know me and there is no need for such rudeness.
-
If you like summoning evil (or better said, mischievous) creatures, it may simply mean you're a) making 'social' experiments with them or b) just trying to 'have fun' with trickier monsters than the placid puppy. :P Not that you're making a pact with Evil...or something ridiculous like that. :)
And don't believe a paladin would waste his/her money on beggars! Giving money for free is not the right thing to do. That will only make them beg for more... The right thing is to give one, say, 1 copper for food, then counseling him/her where to work for money. Just consider paladins as fantasy superheroes. ;)
-
I'll explain in several phases (this is going to be a long one):
*high-fives Qwinn* Woohoo! New best friend!
Rather than go through the insanity of trying to quote everyone, I'll just make some general points.
"Detecting as Evil means there should be no Virtue hit:" True for the most part. Yes, showing up as Evil means that you have done enough Evil things in the past to no longer be considered Neutral, and/or you have plans (or at least tendencies) do to such things in the future. Now, Rayic Gethras turns red in response to a Detect Evil. He is a member of the Cowled Wizards (a throroughly Evil organization), keeps classically Evil-aligned pets (and no Good-aligned ones, the Imps and Mephits do not seem to be the product of random chance), and is currently investigating (i.e., looking for "reasons" to abduct and imprison without parole) a Mage who is currently not bothering anybody. Now, Joluv also turns red in response to Detect Evil. He is a merchant. Difference being: Rayic Gethras shows signs of commiting crimes against "good society" in the future,[/u] and thus killing him means doing the world a favor. Joluv, however, shows no discernible malice, and therefore his Evil deeds appear to exist solely in the past, therefore whacking him doesn't really do any Good. Note: I am not arguing that punishing crimes is a fallacy. A rapist, for example, absolutely must be strongly discouraged from ever attempting the same again. But this does not appear to be the case with Joluv: From what we see in the game, it seems that his great crime was stealing all these historical and religious artifacts from the area of Icewind Dale, and taking them south to sell for his own personal gain. Now that he has made his fortune (Nobleman avatar & all that), he has no incentive to commit further Evil.
Until/unless Virtue deals with the Law/Chaos axis, I think we should keep things confined to the Good/Evil arena. Trying to fudge the boundaries has already caused confusion: "Why is there a Virtue hit for being caught stealing from any store EXCEPT the ones in the Underdark?" As long as Virtue handles only the difference between Good and Evil, it's kind of silly to nail someone for being Chaotic. Under the rules of this mod, that Chaotic Evil guy sitting in the shadows there is none other than Robin Hood, the victim of too many Virtue hits. Sure, killing Saladrex might not be the Paladin thing to do, but that doesn't mean that my Chaotic Good Cleric/Thief should get penalized for not acting like a Paladin.
I'm not arguing for a separate set of Virtue flags for every class and kit in the game, but it seems that some Paladin-specific flags might be worth considering. Introducing a Law/Chaos variable ("Citizenship?") is even more worthy of consideration, though.
Achieving Good through questionable means: I think it was Baunhoffer who said, "It is better for a good man to tell a lie, than for a bad man to tell the truth." In the context of the Virtue mod, that translates to, "If a Paladin accepts Edwin's assignment to kill Rayic Gethras, the DM is obligated to assume he is doing it for Lawful Good reasons." So, unless there's at least an in-game suggestion that killing Gethras would indeed advance the cause of Evil, it would not in the slightest way show that the PC is killing him with Evil intent.
Now, killing Gethras can indeed be called a Chaotic action (although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it Lawful or Chaotic to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"), but that of course means delving into the confusion of talking about Law/Chaos in a mod that's currently limited to Good/Evil.
About Paladins being limited to an absolutely rigid, puritanical standard of conduct: All right, so the D&D books say that a Paladin will Fall if he wears the same underwear two days in a row, or fails to dispose of trash in the specified container. But I prefer to operate on the assumption that BioWare intended the class to be sort of fun to play. That is, after all, why they included it in a game. Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class. There's no reason that a person whose most remarkable character feature is the hatred of Undead should suffer permanent, crippling penalties for, say, killing Nevazaiah.
Is a Paladin is forced to exercise pacifism and restraint as long as there's even the slightest chance of redeeming someone? That strikes me as a darned inefficient way to clease the world of Evil, if you ask me.
"Aha! Now I have you at last, you abhorrently cruel Lord Foulfang, master of Evil! Take THAT! And THAT! And THAT!!!"
"OW! Aieee! Okay, okay, you win, Sanctimonia! Obviously, the white flame of your righteous wrath burns hotter than my branding irons."
"Well, I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason. Any last words before I dispatch your soul to the Nether Realms?
"You know, perhaps I have been wrong all this time. I thought becoming an iron dictator was the only way to bring my people together, but maybe you have shown me a better way."
"Really? Hm. Well, maybe I won't kill you after all. Say, I get extra credit for every Evil soul I redeem, would you mind signing and dating my list? I've got it somewhere in my backpack here."
"Sure, take your time." (draws his boot dagger) "heh, heh, heh...."
As far as in-game redeeming goes, here's my example. Entering the first cave of the Windspear Hills, you are confronted with a group of Hobgoblins. If you get the Shaman to Near Death without killing him, he pleads for mercy (overhead text), turns blue-circled, and runs outside. Without exception, I kill him every time, even if it means going back outside to do it. Further on, you meet Derg and Flaylan, two Orcs who are sitting in a room by themselves, and who also plead for mercy if you talk to them. If I'm playing a LG or NG character (Paladin or not), I always let them go, because they never attacked me. Now, I don't care if that example follows the ruler-straight Paladin guidelines or not, because in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
About Vithal: He always struck me as Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good. His motives are unaligned (the acquisition of treasure / knowledge), and just because he's polite (and was attacked by Drow) doesn't mean he's Good. I agree that killing him is Evil, though, but he's definitely not worth a whopping -3 to Virtue. And then there's the problem of ALL of the items being pickpocketable, etc.
What the Vithal encounter really needs is a conversation revamp: Instead of being stuck with an absolutely worthless Rod (ever hear of anyone ever using it? I sure haven't), with the only way of getting something worthwhile being through pressuring and/or killing a nice, non-Evil guy, I'd much prefer a conversation tree that enables the PC to choose his/her share of the loot.
-
BTW, mephits are mostly neutral in pnp. They simply represent one of the 4 elements (if you were wondering, Dust and Ice are from air, Ooze is from water and Steam is from fire).
A good short answer:
Only lower virtue for killing those people you (the player) feel emotionally guilty for (provided you actually roleplay)! But of course, lower your wrath/hate to Player Character's level.
-
Are there any plans to further Virtue to the point of flat out morals? Citizenship, generosity, temper, all that good stuff...?
-
{this was the problem with 'humanity' in vampire pnp}
the real answer is for virtue to add a personality questionnaire for charname
but we'd still have to argue about what answers to each question are available to, say, paladins.
any comprehensive leary-wheel therapists out there?
-
Until/unless Virtue deals with the Law/Chaos axis, I think we should keep things confined to the Good/Evil arena.
or somebody else could do the fine-tuning and simDing0 could stick with the innovation. if he's as busy as he claims to be :-* ...
all i mean by that is that i'm content waiting for the law/chaos axis (and more paladin fine-tuning) and it doesn't spoil my entire [paladin's] game to pass on a few missions.
I'm not arguing for a separate set of Virtue flags for every class and kit in the game, but it seems that some Paladin-specific flags might be worth considering.
hear, hear.
also a good notion for druids, perhaps even rangers (both more likely to have more kit-oriented variations than the paladin).
Introducing a Law/Chaos variable ("Citizenship?") is even more worthy of consideration, though.
i agree that, since the first >17 bites have been taken, there is plenty of room for expansion.
(although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it Lawful or Chaotic to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"
i think it was some tv actor who said "law doesn't always mean justice". so {being, of course, programmed to submit to the punditry of tv actors/characters} my guess would be that it's Good. NG, if you will. those who carry it out could easily be of all three branches of good - might even be a paladin and a druid along for the ride!
About Paladins being limited to an absolutely rigid, puritanical standard of conduct: All right, so the D&D books say that a Paladin will Fall if he wears the same underwear two days in a row, or fails to dispose of trash in the specified container. But I prefer to operate on the assumption that BioWare intended the class to be sort of fun to play. That is, after all, why they included it in a game.
yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm. my favorite. :-\
Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class. .
indicating (as i see it) that you like having the powers of a paladin [kit]. because any charname with any stats in any class can roleplay a 'hatred' undead or dragons or evill spellcasters. it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it?
and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
so why again the big deal?
however, i have an issue of Dragon you might appreciate if you haven't already. #106 iirc? seven more paladin-types (the CE anti-paladin article was several years earlier) covering the rest of the alignment grid. interesting (if occasionally munchkin) work.
There's no reason that a person whose most remarkable character feature is the hatred of Undead should suffer permanent, crippling penalties for, say, killing Nevazaiah
agreed. except for the part about hatred being non-paladinny.
and then maybe 'virtue' should be renamed some sort of universal-field-manifesto-bite.
Is a Paladin is forced to exercise pacifism and restraint as long as there's even the slightest chance of redeeming someone? That strikes me as a darned inefficient way to clease the world of Evil, if you ask me.
obviously not, or the contention would be over 99% of the killing in the game.
. . . in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
where are the riders in that book of yours? applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
obviously your provisions are sensible in a cave system full of evil humanoids and worse (added to which you are either explicitly hired to remove monsters, helping the beleaguered rightful lord and/or undergoing the monty haul culmination of the order's assignments. (and of course if you're on your way to sign up with fierkraag, there's not really anything to talk about ::))
one useful reference for paladin-code (my own copy of which i'd be happy to use myself if a skeletal (or skin-level, perhaps?) assignment were to be flung at me) would be the pendragon rpg from chaosium - most comprehensive mechanical treatment of chivalry i've encountered, at least.
EDIT: excision of excess verbiage as pointed out by SoS, and amendment to magazine reference after a refresher.
-
also a good notion for [a separate set of Virtue flags for] druids, perhaps even rangers (both more likely to have more kit-oriented variations than the paladin).
And perhaps for certain other classes as well--should Thieves be penalized for NOT behaving like a Thief, such as refusing to scheme a ransom for Lady Elgea? If so, what form would this penalty take? And then there's the issue of a Cleric not acting in accordance with the morals of his/her deity, multiplied threefold via the Cleric Remix, etc.
In short, an epic task, but still worthy of the effort.
(although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it a Lawful or Chaotic action to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"
i think it was some tv actor who said "law doesn't always mean justice". so {being, of course, programmed to submit to the punditry of tv actors/characters} my guess would be that it's Good. NG, if you will. those who carry it out could easily be of all three branches of good - might even be a paladin and a druid along for the ride!
See? I still haven't gotten an answer! :P
yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm. my favorite. :-\
What sarcasm? My point was that when the gamer has to stop and consider the possibility that some modder may have decided that killing this particular Cowled Wizard is a crime that deserves Falling, that's not going to be a fun game. Roleplaying is good, but to be constantly forced to second-guess every single move (or suffer irreperable consequences) would slow the game down to a tedium even greater than Chateau Irenicus.
Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class.
indicating (as i see it) that you like having the powers of a paladin [kit]. because any charname with any stats in any class can roleplay a 'hatred' undead or dragons or evill spellcasters. it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it? and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
so why again the big deal?
I'm confused by your crossed trains of thought in your "the and it follows (as I see it)" clause. Clarify, please.
Of course the Paladin kits are not Virtue-dependent. But, given that Virtue is such a cool mod, it's a danged shame that you can't Roleplay a Cavalier who kills a Chomatic Dragon that has always been of Evil alignment (before you installed Oversight, that is). And what's wrong with liking the powers of the Paladin kits? (I've always been in favor of "sharing" the Warrior kits, such as a Fighter Cavalier or a Ranger Wizard Slayer [can you say Valygar?], but that's a separate mod.)
. . . in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
where are the riders in that book of yours? applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
No, and neither is knowingly staging a raid on a stronghold of slavery. Hey, the Slaver Ship has a couple of beds in it, let's slap on a Virtue hit for killing someone in their home.
-
yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm. my favorite. :-\
What sarcasm? My point was that when the gamer has to stop and consider the possibility that some modder may have decided that killing this particular Cowled Wizard is a crime that deserves Falling, that's not going to be a fun game. Roleplaying is good, but to be constantly forced to second-guess every single move (or suffer irreperable consequences) would slow the game down to a tedium even greater than Chateau Irenicus.
*thunk* aah. in that light, i am slightly more sympathetic. :P
. . . it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it? and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
I'm confused by your crossed trains of thought in your "the and it follows (as I see it)" clause. Clarify, please.
thanks for spotting that, just a replacement that never saw its original form out the door. :-[ here's the intended result, which i will now go back and correct:
and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
No, and neither is knowingly staging a raid on a stronghold of slavery. Hey, the Slaver Ship has a couple of beds in it, let's slap on a Virtue hit for killing someone in their home.
oh, was gethras doing all of the things that make the c.w. a 'thoroughly and obviously evil organization' right in his home? nobody told me (edwin just told me he was a cowlie and the avatar matched).
(and don't worry about reiterating the damning presence of mephits, i've definitely seen that several times. :))
on the other hand, respecting a 'home' that contains trolls and imprisoned abductees (and around/into/from which people in chains have been reported) is surely not high on any paladin's priorities. {even our paladins. 8)}
-
BTW, mephits are mostly neutral in pnp. They simply represent one of the 4 elements (if you were wondering, Dust and Ice are from air, Ooze is from water and Steam is from fire).
Almost right... These four types are actually from the paraelemental planes and represent two elements each.
Dust: Air, Earth
Ice: Air,Water
Ooze: Earth, Water
Steam: Fire, Water
Additionally, Magma is (I think) Earth and Fire. I don't recall what the Air and Fire combination is offhand. :)
-
Smoke I think
-
I seem to remember reverandthatbastard mentioning something about paladins being able to commit certain non-paladin like actions (somewhat dubious morals type actions) provided that they atoned for their actions later. Allowing virtue drops of several points would be a good idea, as it would allow for the paladin to atone for their actions (gain a few virtue points) without going below the limit that causes them to fall.
I do kinda like the idea of atonement, but I'm not sure how it'd be implemented ingame.
How about haivng him sacrifice an ability point somewhere in order to regain his virue, plus maybe also having to pay out a bunch of gold. Or have some special quest that has to be fulfilled, like a ritual that is repeated each time it happens. In IWDII, there were those trials you had to pass if you wanted to get through the monastery peacefully, something like that. Make it tough that there's a chance of failure without killing the character, but he has the option of trying it again if he does.
-
somehow i slipped by this more than once: http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php?topic=17744.0
-
on the other hand, respecting a 'home' that contains trolls and imprisoned abductees (and around/into/from which people in chains have been reported) is surely not high on any paladin's priorities. {even our paladins. 8)}
But you don't know any of that beforehand, you just have Hendak's word for it to go after them, much like...
...Bodhi (for Aran)
...Fallen Paladins (for Sir Ryan)
...Illithid (for Ardulace)
...Ardulace (for Adalon)
...Firkraag (for Garren)
...Gethras (for Edwin)
...Mae'Var (for Renal)
...Priests of Talos (for Priests of Lathander)
...Shade Lord (for Mazzy/Anath - does it matter who you hear it from first?)
...Lanfear (for Coran)
...Isaea (for Nalia)
...Llynis (for Wellyn)
...etc. (for etc.)
If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt. You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
The person who points out an evil-doer shouldn't matter to a Paladin, only whether or not you can confirm that your "target" is truly Evil (via Detect Evil, conveniently enough, not simply by what's in their lair, although that can be an indication that you're on the right track).
- Imrahil
-
Further on, you meet Derg and Flaylan, two Orcs who are sitting in a room by themselves, and who also plead for mercy if you talk to them. If I'm playing a LG or NG character (Paladin or not), I always let them go, because they never attacked me. Now, I don't care if that example follows the ruler-straight Paladin guidelines or not, because in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
Not a big issue, but I thought it was interesting that I tend to kill them *only* if I'm playing a NG/LG (especially Paladin) character. Derg says he ate children & kicked old people (although he was "just following orders") & Flaylan says they "hunt the feed" (which isn't real specific, and they are both CN, admittedly), so despite their protestations, I tend to condemn them based on their admitted past deeds, not let them go based on their fear of me & my party.
- Imrahil
-
But you don't know any of that beforehand, you just have Hendak's word for it to go after them, much like...
okay, now this is all bearing in mind that paladins are (and always were) my primary concern; it doesn't bother me in the slightest that any non-paladin who is on the threshold of turning neutral can be pushed over that line by any of the acts on which i've commented or suggested adjustments.
(in other words, if the context isn't paladins - who cares? :P)
as far as the slavers - you have to *search* for them anyway, following *leads*, and 1) if you're coming from the sewers, you haven't encountered any locks (or even doors) before the captain yells at you and makes plain his unrepentant culpability; 2) if you're coming at the front door of the ship, and have any patience, the guard will attack you, which, apart from being idiotic of him, ought to throw the 'residence' under even further suspicion. or, you know, you kill him and then just let it sit there without investigating. seems pretty silly though.
(and as far as trusting Hendak: i can think of far more stupid and less-honorable moves than believing a man, not registering as evil, who has just bested hand-to-hand the man who had him enslaved for sport and profit...)
...Bodhi (for Aran)
whom a paladin has no real reason to trust other than good faith (in short supply, of course)... but one would also have had to manage never encountering one of the night-time bodhi-minion-vs.-shadow-thieves scenarios, or having encountered one, conclude "well, clearly these Shadow Thieves are a greater threat than vampires"... ???
...Illithid (for Ardulace)
no reason whatsoever to trust, but aren't illithid worth investigating if you're resigned to spending time in the underdark?
...Firkraag (for Garren)
you can't be serious. the two methods by which the windspear hills can even be on your map, of which i'm aware, are either being sent by the order (pretty straightforward from the get-go), or being hired by firkraag! and um, where else on the map could possibly be his abode even if you refuse to deal with garren? and otherwise, firkraag sends you a letter effectively requesting your presence.
...Gethras (for Edwin)
no reason to trust him, plus by the point of meeting edwin, charname's already in dubious waters (as brought up repeatedly earlier)
...Mae'Var (for Renal)
no reason to trust anyway, but he's not asking you to break in, he's asking you to pretend to be Mae'Var's subordinate - which some paladins, allegedly, can rationalize their way around...
...Fallen Paladins (for Sir Ryan)
...Ardulace (for Adalon)
...Priests of Talos (for Priests of Lathander)
...Shade Lord (for Mazzy/Anath - does it matter who you hear it from first?)
why would a paladin not initially trust the word of a ranking superior in the order, a silver dragon, the priest of a good deity, or a halfling(primarily LG society) virtual-paladin?
and if you're a multi-strongholding paladin, you're not any more forced to follow through with attacking {actively evil and able to defend themselves} Talassans, than you are forced to launch yourself suicidally at Firkraag before you're ready.
and if you even took the time to speak to Anath, you're not the kind of player i'd be arguing with in this context anyway. :P
...Lanfear (for Coran)
let's see, in a lawless region and no time given to apply much of anything other than the benefit of the doubt? what's the issue here?
...Isaea (for Nalia)
actually, by the time she's telling you anything of consequence, you've seen him act like a prick. plus, all you ever do is investigate his shady dealings; the closest you come to doing anything evil is pointlessly attacking Barg or merely threatening Isaea. you couldn't be driven to searching his house when the other evidence is insufficient? breaking and entering with intent to search - sounds absurdly easily atoned for to me, provided you find incriminating evidence. yes, Paladins Can Take Chances with non-evil code violations. i have not witnessed anyone suggesting otherwise. metagaming remains Not The Issue.
...Llynis (for Wellyn)
the ghost of a halfling child, yeah, better be really skeptical of that story (and by the time you can find llynis, where are you? oh, a secret prostitution-slavery scam, right... yeah, that'd really be dishonorable to start cleaning house there)</sarcasm>
virtue already matters little enough (in a strictly mechanical sense) to non-paladins (or rangers, i'm supposing). is anyone somehow arguing that it should matter even less?
i also never disagreed that filling in the blanks becomes necessary (if we're bothering to roleplay at all, which we seem to be). it's unfortunate that the designers basically didn't cater to semantic pedant-players like myself who sometimes want to roleplay a concern for knowing the truth as opposed to believing it. ::) (or presuming it, accepting the stories of perfect strangers, etc.) but here we are.
If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt.
yep, that could be a problem all right. *if* any of the plot-critical points you brought up (i'm counting... 3 out of 14?) were somehow impossible for a paladin to resolve (by the standards you seem to think i'm applying, or that you're lumping in while quoting only me). that not being the case...
You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
if you're a particularly callous/fanatic brand of Lawful Neutral, i suppose - but i don't bother with that kind of extreme because the main plot's linearity is far harder to swallow from roleplaying that perspective than it is from [even my] paladins'.
you seem to make an assumption based on some of the counter-argument hyperbole in which words were put in people's 'mouths': namely, that i (or anyone else) claimed that inflexibly, "paladins cannot break anyone's laws anywhere under any circumstances". saying it's a code violation doesn't mean it can't be done or must be avoided, it just means that they should be required to atone for it if they are not forced into it. (or unless the good achieved by breaking a questionable law far outweighs the 'chaoticness' or other disgrace of the deed. which was also already brought up, though i didn't think it needed this many words to be clarified. is it clarified yet? ::))
assumptions like that (which i am inferring, quite willingly), or the potential for them, are the reason it annoyed me when SoS or Qwinn (or was it just Qwinn, uh-oh, they're blurring together in my mushy mind) threw around seemingly-harmless overstatements about filling out forms in triplicate before acting, blahblahblah.
regardless of limited dialogue options describing why charname wants to pursue irenicus, it's pretty obvious to a charname with a concern for justice (i.e. any paladin and many others) (if not additional members of the party) that irenicus shoud be, well, brought to justice, personal feelings or no.
and progressively just as obvious that the only 'law' around that could even be expected to do so has already failed AND whose methods and motives are very much in question. the basics of which can be discovered quickly enough by visiting and inquiring at the government building (not too out of character for a decently roleplayed paladin, i'm thinking?), not to mention the forced chapter-transition knowledge - which i think is a nice touch, but if subjected to strict scrutiny, either has to be rationalized as dream/vision or ignored as 'outofgame'. or we can just accept it. or mod the cutscenes out (doesn't get my vote).
Derg says he ate children & kicked old people (although he was "just following orders") & Flaylan says they "hunt the feed" (which isn't real specific, and they are both CN, admittedly), so despite their protestations, I tend to condemn them based on their admitted past deeds, not let them go based on their fear of me & my party.
yeah, letting them go leaves a bad taste in my mouth unless i'm playing some N conscientious-objector type. i would have at least put in one or two more dismissal options along the lines of "remember this mercy, yada yada yada..." or some other attempt to impress upon them the importance of their continued existence through Real Benevolence.
-
I think that going through each one & basically saying "OK" or "not OK" is kind of missing the point. They're all based on what you were told by someone else, not (other than I guess running into actual vampires at night) based on anything CHARNAME knows firsthand. A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.
For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC). Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle). Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira). Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear). Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).
You only know who to trust in hindsight, which is why the general approach for a Paladin should (IMO) be
- hear about "evil-doer"
- investigate for yourself
- apply Detect Evil as necessary
- if your "target" registers as Evil, feel justified in killing them
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
- Imrahil
-
A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.
care to make a count of this alleged 'lot'? rereading my post, i see a lot of 'whether you have reason to trust the source when given the mission' -type-stuff, and very little else...? when is it ever as straightforward as
{instigator} that thing's a baddie!
*charname immediately kills that thing*
i mean, i'd like to believe that any first-time player will quickly realize that this game, with the slight exception of the skinner murder investigation, isn't in any kind of "detective mystery" format. but...?
... meh, i address this later. please read on.
an extraordinary (some might even say insane) skeptic could turn down all but three of the quests you saw fit to call attention to. again, nobody has argued against independent investigation - it's pretty unavoidable throughout the game.
thanks for skipping all of the other points, btw. :P in particular:You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
i directly questioned this line of argument, and you have nothing to say? you can admit to not having read it, i know i ramble. ::)
- hear about "evil-doer"
or whatever...
- investigate for yourself
taken as read in the vast majority of instances. the only ones where i've noticed anyone take issue with acceptance of a mission, or dialogue options available/>how< the mission is accepted, involve renal (criminal, be wary), mae'var (evil, be more than wary), edwin (ditto) and ardulace (ditto).
- apply Detect Evil as necessary
always a paladin's prerogative. no-brainer. (i only took issue with the gethras case because it is a) instigated by edwin and b) involves clearly breaking a very ordinary and straightforward (and assumed) law. weakened, yes, by the game-fact that you can wander into just about anyone's house in the city and not be accosted by guards or residents, but still valid reason for a paladin to take a small hit. this was countered with the 'slavers having beds' argument, i countered with 'down-the-line' justification which jibes just fine with your 'investigate for yourself', and you were countering *that* argument. i countered yours, and basically applied the same answer in the context of your other examples.
so, sorry if i overstepped my bounds by taking on any points other than "all you ever have to go on is hearsay anyway" (which is an oversimplification, *bzz*pet peeve :P)
or "If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt." followed in the >same< >paragraph< by the one overwhelming case in which you have far more than hearsay! ???
- if your "target" registers as Evil, feel justified in killing them
1) these quests aren't all about killing. oh, but that wasn't really your point, was it? excuse me.
2) non-evil entities are capable (and sometimes even guilty) of acts that a paladin may/will want to call attention to or resolve with justice. sometimes they even confess!
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals? mighty, mighty obvious. but again, isn't it entirely suitable for a paladin to take the word of their superior officer? or a traditional paragon of goodness such as a silver dragon? or saying "i'll think about it" and doing their damnedest to penetrate the skullduggery of any potential doppelgangers? (and when you're done with that, you can hurry up and Take The Quest...)
so if you bothered making a list to drive home the point that 'people tell you things, and you can't know at that moment if these things are true', then sure, i miss the point (of doing that) entirely - completely befuddled as to how it was necessary.
anyway, lists are made to be picked at! :P
and isn't it annoyingly odd that {look out, hindsight attack!} in the rare circumstance in which you are deceived, e.g. the opening of the windspear scenario, the game oh-so-helpfully prevents you from overcoming the deception until too late? nice of them to at least give you options with VonGoethe et al. in Amkethran - maybe that was ToB designers making up for some of the SoA railroading? :)
For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC). Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle). Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira). Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear). Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).
look, another list! :pirate
so you investigate, right? right. and when you've done everything besides either acquiesce to the apparent-ogre or de-populate the room: what, if the apparent-ogre actually turns out to be an actual ogre, you're opening yourself up to an instant-death just because you hand 'it' what appears to be a sword? be brave, paladin, be brave.
and i really don't see the relevance of harping on that stage of the shade lord quest. and just to help clarify, please observe how the imminent reference creates no 'in-game knowledge' conflict. the circumstance you point out (talking to mazzy) can only occur as a result of already investigating the disappearances/wolves, and the only time a paladin would balk at (as in, object to resolving) any of the encounters in the corrupted temple (which has already been entered) up to and including the shade lord and its minions/altar, is with the imprisoned shadow (which some other party member could resolve, yes?). go ahead and play through it skeptically - detect evil every time shadows show up. and either don't finish the quest (sorry, mazzy) or reach the altar and do your best to give the shade lord the benefit of the doubt. if you're still alive after that, get on with it.
wellyn could be a lich? sure, and that suspicion can be played out. cast all the detections and dispels you want on him. then investigate, absolutely. if you *gasp* go where he tells you, you find (or had already found) cruel and illegal activity, and if you question llynis enough, he might even save you the trouble of that detect-evil-clincher.
the fallen paladins could have the moral high ground? i just don't see how these hypotheses would preclude (by any standards previously declared, as opposed to falsely attributed or being inferred as attributed, to someone else) getting on with the mission as delineated by the designers, which is largely all we have to go on. and almost invariably, if you turn down the mission because you're paranoid or distrusting, the game does not grind to a halt. there's plenty to do.
sure, ardulace (or more likely, lolth) could have arranged an Image Switch between the illithid and the svirfneblin. et cetera.
nobody ever said that hearsay wasn't enough for anybody to pursue a quest. don't you think that was blown out of proportion? (well, by now, yes. ::)) and to dismiss any of this on the basis of 'hindsight' is missing the point; all i'm pointing out in that context are the things that one can easily (or even inevitably) discover if one bothers to investigate, as per your laundrylist. the only places i recall anyone ever raising the question of paladins taking hits for accepting (or rather, completing, or killing on the way to completing) missions were when instigated by evil or criminal elements. it might be a strain to trust adalon enough to go through with the whole drow disguise and jobs for the matron, but it can be done, and i don't see anyone arguing that the good of saving the eggs (which you essentially believe is your goal *before* accepting the disguise) doesn't {shouldn't} turn out to outweigh the vanquishing of organized evil in the meantime.
and surely even the thieves' quests can be done - but my paladins won't accept them unless/until they are addressed sufficiently on that score by Virtue (or any other decently+ crafted mod). hooray for me the martyr who misses out on that mother lode of xp and is forever trailing their bold and shady brethren. :-*
oh wait - what if renal's a paladin? or edwin's a solar under deep cover? :P ;D
-
A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.
care to make a count of this alleged 'lot'? rereading my post, i see...
I may have phrased that poorly. What I meant to say was that you won't know whether or not you did a good deed until you have hindsight to assist you. While you're talking to the person in question, you have nothing but their take on the issue, & I tried to show instances where the person turns out to be right (Llynis) & where the person turns out to be wrong (Madulf).
Simply put, once more, all I'm saying is that you can't (IMO) say an act is virtuous or unvirtuous based upon who gave you the information or what their motives were. Going after Gethras based on Edwin pointing the way is, to me, no different than going after Perth based on Golin pointing the way.
Now, just so you won't claim I'm ignoring anything, I'll attempt to go through your other points, although I'm now so thoroughly confused as to what you're trying to say that we may actually be in agreement.
an extraordinary (some might even say insane) skeptic could turn down all but three of the quests you saw fit to call attention to. again, nobody has argued against independent investigation - it's pretty unavoidable throughout the game.
A Paladin should be required to do independent investigation, I agree. *If* you can only accept quests from confirmed do-gooders, then yes, I think 90% of quests are going to be off limits. And I think that is a logical extension of your contention that you can't justify going after Gethras without losing Virtue simply because it was Edwin who pointed him out.
thanks for skipping all of the other points, btw. :P in particular:You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
i directly questioned this line of argument, and you have nothing to say? you can admit to not having read it, i know i ramble. ::)
I read it & dismissed it as largely irrelevant. You said you were confining your points to Paladins, then assumed I was talking about someone LN. I believe that if a Paladin can't go after Gethras or Illithids, then he can't justify rescuing Imoen once he finds out she did break the law (especially if you're in the "Cowled Wizards aren't an Evil organization" camp). As far as you know, Irenicus is also lawfully imprisoned & no longer a threat, so you can't go after him either. Hence, no game. You then went on about your assumptions about the assumptions I was making.
- investigate for yourself
taken as read in the vast majority of instances. the only ones...
*snip*
...in the >same< >paragraph< by the one overwhelming case in which you have far more than hearsay! ???
All of this is where you've completely lost me & I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You seem to assume that you're right & you somehow "countered" my points. But if I disagree with your basic premise (which, near as I can tell from all that is "Paladins must metagame"), your counters based on that premise aren't going to mean much to me.
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals? mighty, mighty obvious.
I see hyperbole is only off limits for other people.
but again, isn't it entirely suitable for a paladin to take the word of their superior officer? or a traditional paragon of goodness such as a silver dragon? or saying "i'll think about it" and doing their damnedest to penetrate the skullduggery of any potential doppelgangers? (and when you're done with that, you can hurry up and Take The Quest...)
Yes, it is. It's also suitable to take information given to you from a questionable source & investigate that, too. If it turns out to be accurate, a Paladin should be able to act upon it without regards to where the information came from.
so if you bothered making a list to drive home the point that 'people tell you things, and you can't know at that moment if these things are true', then sure, i miss the point (of doing that) entirely - completely befuddled as to how it was necessary.
To illustrate why I see nothing wrong with taking out Gethras (or Mae'Var or the Illithids). If I simply say "I see nothing wrong with taking out Gethras" without any reasoning, we may as well just make a poll & leave it at that.
anyway, lists are made to be picked at! :P
and isn't it annoyingly odd that {look out, hindsight attack!} in the rare circumstance in which you are deceived, e.g. the opening of the windspear scenario, the game oh-so-helpfully prevents you from overcoming the deception until too late?
Not necessarily every time - see the conclusion of the Tanner quest in Trademeet or one of the Paladin stronghold quests (sometimes the girl's uncle is Evil, sometimes not) or Madulf or Aerie or Solaufein or...
For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC). Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle). Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira). Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear). Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).
look, another list! :pirate
so you investigate, right? right. *instances of investigating & acting upon your findings which all support my point (thank you) snipped*
So why is that when you investigate Edwin's claim & discover Gethras is Evil you suddenly can't act on it without taking a hit? We are in agreement with all the other instances where investigation lets you know whether you're right or not - why this one exception?
oh wait - what if renal's a paladin? or edwin's a solar under deep cover? :P ;D
Or... or... what if Lord Jierdan is really a Red Dragon? nah... couldn't be...
- Imrahil
-
Smoke I think
That's the one. :)
-
ugh. :-X ::) too much, i confess.
and be warned, i'm still going to go off on individual quest tangents, and those rants don't necessarily have anything to do with any extant argument. but ultimately, my overarching 'point' is (and always will be) less about whether a mod "goes too far" in any respect, and more about how few choices we are given in our gameplay, and that there must always be more, more more. 8)
i still don't know why you suggest i ever advocated or required metagaming. you did explain to some extent, but i really don't make that connection. perhaps i have subliminal blockage. at the very least, it becomes less distinct to my mind when those who have played this game so much, and know the content so thoroughly, "pretend" that they are starting with a clean slate and don't know what's going to happen. obviously that's one of the things which roleplaying is all about. and in some respects, this entire discussion is about hindsight. or metagaming. i know you understand this, but somehow you still don't seem to think that i do. i thought that my 'what if you actively distrust your source' hypotheticals were actually skewed away from "but they turn out to be right" rhetoric (which i hope was something i never said or implied to support a point).
yes, there are a few cases where being skeptical actually informs one's choices, when one is actually being deceived, or otherwise makes a difference plot-wise. and i think it's a fault of the game [mostly because i'm an open-ended-rpg snob/purist/etc.] that there is not far more room for active, consistent doubt and questioning. then again, i am often deluded about how much time i have on my hands IRL. ;D
What I meant to say was that you won't know whether or not you did a good deed until you have hindsight to assist you.
but the only *deeds* i really have an issue with are the ones assigned by evil/underworld 'employers'.
i never passed judgement on the simple isolated case of a paladin killing gethras-known-to-be-evil. i passed judgement on the method (intruding on a private residence, compounded by the unfortunate/ridiculous lack of any source of information on gethras other than edwin) and (more importantly) the fact that the paladin already has to have Worked For Known or Avowed Criminals More Than Once for the deed to even be a topic for discussion in the first place.
to boil it down (yeah, right :-X), i don't think that a paladin should complain about taking a hit for a shady-however-justified (and justified after you have investigated in the only manner allowed/addressed by the game, which is also unfortunate) killing when they're already embroiled in the criminal underworld, however justified *that* is.
and if the real justification is only in hindsight, the paladin already has to somehow be comfortable with the arrangement of pretending to be employed by an evil criminal while actually being employed by the not-evil-but-trustworthy-how? Bloodscalp... or perhaps the paladin has also rationalized that they are only pretending to work for renal - and {multiple} layers of disloyalty/deception should definitely cause hits - reversible hits, but hits nonetheless.
(i also don't think that killing gethras should cause a permanent Fall unless it's compounding previous code violations that haven't been resolved. but i gave that input weeks ago, and probably in another thread, and i guess i should have restated it earlier.)
justification in hindsight - huzzah, you finally got to eliminate the despicable mae'var and all that - does not, imo, mean that a paladin should not suffer a small virtue hit at least for the whole episode, because as i see it, they were forced to follow through by the Game (or by wanting to see this set of jobs through, and having no alternatives because of game design), not by the criminal 'employers' themselves. (esp. as enforced by the infuriating arkanis gath deus ex munchkin)
i guess i see the virtue hit occurring at the slaying of gethras as being incidental. perhaps it should happen only when you either agree to work for renal, or report to mae'var and witness him performing torture and let it happen For A Good Cause (and how do you know it's going to end up being that good a cause? but you know, you ultimately 'have to' let him torture the guy to proceed with your mission)... does that make more sense? do you think hindsight references are entirely irrelevant to the questionable nature of the proceedings?
(and yes, all of my paladins bristle when visiting STHQ if they stumble on the torture room, and really have no recourse until they come back from the Underdark...)
Simply put, once more, all I'm saying is that you can't (IMO) say an act is virtuous or unvirtuous based upon who gave you the information or what their motives were.
gotcha. agreed. but i can say that working with thieves is unvirtuous overall (the best in-game excuse a paladin can have is doing a favor for yoshimo), not so much about the individual tasks they give you, but, um, it's not really setting much of an example a la the Radiant Heart, unless perhaps renal lets you bring mae'var's head to them - i wouldn't mind seeing that conclusion :D.
Going after Gethras based on Edwin pointing the way is, to me, no different than going after Perth based on Golin pointing the way.
good point. i forgot all about perth. (and i've never scrutinized golin! :-[) it also seemed to me that everything in brynnlaw was designed/created as quickly as possible, with the festhall quest the only activity with an interesting and decently-fleshed-out variety of tactics/outcomes.
we may actually be in agreement.
more or less. :-\ maybe this should've been PM from the getgo.
*If* you can only accept quests from confirmed do-gooders, then yes, I think 90% of quests are going to be off limits. And I think that is a logical extension of your contention that you can't justify going after Gethras without losing Virtue simply because it was Edwin who pointed him out.
yup, pretty much my miscommunication. more to it, as mentioned above. 'confirmed do-gooders' would be overstating my point, though. trust is one of the hallmarks of chivalry. (you've never met adalon or mazzy, you didn't grow up with ryan trawl, nobody told you glorious tales of the exploits of the folks in question - although the svirfneblin leader {name escapes} has nice enough things to say about adalon, i suppose...)
You said you were confining your points to Paladins, then assumed I was talking about someone LN.
{clarifying: the following is in the context of the CWs-holding-Imoen 'argument', and of course charname being a paladin}
no, i just thought that that particular logical extension you were tacking onto my argument would only apply to someone who doesn't ultimately place the greater Good above Law... since paladins can {ideally/canonically but obviously not in vanilla bg} atone for chaotic acts and not for evil ones, i think that bias is pretty straightforward.
I believe that if a Paladin can't go after Gethras or Illithids,
i never said a paladin can't do these things - i mostly took issue (and far far moreso with gethras than with raiding illithid/beholders) with how they are railroaded into carrying out the missions, or at least severely limited in how they communicate their *acceptance* of the missions. (unless for example the beholders were stumbled upon during exploration and so on and so on, but Technically that isn't a decision one makes if one bars 'metagaming' from one's mind, it'd just have to be pure coincidence/disorientation/fanatical exploration/what-have-you). and that, given the willing installation of a mod far more relevant to paladins than the other classes (imo), somebody taking exception to suffering a single virtue hit for one of a string of Criminal Undertakings, well, just seemed a touch inappropriate.
and i don't see the harm - foresighted even - in accepting a mission from ardulace, the upshot of which is clearly detrimental to an enemy of Good (and you can always detect evil on the elder orb or elder brain, and all of their intervening minions, if you're in doubt along the way), when you're actually working for adalon's benefit {and the bigger picture which that entails} in the first place.
if the disguise-as-drow/working-for-drow aspect grates on a paladin's convictions (no reason for it not to), adalon's plight can surely make it worthwhile. plus you can always intend to bring the drow to justice once you have the eggs - the eggs which are presumably the main reason you've entered ust natha to begin with. perhaps, then, that whole episode deserves a small virtue hit, since ust natha is almost certainly more of a threat than are the STs - BUT, unless you just let the demon get summoned and run rampant, it kind of seems like the good of saving the eggs outweighs: the destruction of some (or a lot of) evil "on behalf" of other evil (and said other evil ultimately suffering their own setbacks anyway...).
, then he can't justify rescuing Imoen once he finds out she did break the law (especially if you' re in the "Cowled Wizards aren't an Evil organization" camp). As far as you know, Irenicus is also lawfully imprisoned & no longer a threat, so you can't go after him either. Hence, no game.
why should even an inquisitor (anti-evil-magic, not strictly anti-magic) take at face value such an absolute law against magic use? with a very small and simple amount of investigation it's clear that they are too powerful and secretive to be given the benefit of the doubt. and even if we dismiss the cutscenes as temptations-to-metagame, the standard speculation regarding imoen's fate is "you'll probably never see her again." this is unacceptable, correct? and no representative of the CWs ever satisfies your curiosity (and the two who hint that they might/could are already obviously manipulating you). and no appellate court. and bylanna admits that in effect, "nobody watches the watchmen." and they give no indication that they support justice or follow any creed that a paladin can identify with. so after inquiring all over the city (and at jermien's house if you wish), and presumably still caring about your childhood friend, what's the excuse for writing her off?
no longer a threat? that's a laugh by any stretch. what would ever give anyone that idea?
just because i'm not in The Camp of "the CWs are an evil organization" (i take issue with the fact that that's an oversimplification, not the issue that the organization has evil members and quite clearly {after minimal scrutiny of their operations} doesn't actively promote the greater good) does not in any way demand or entail that my paladin has to support or accept their enforcement. period. really don't believe i ever even 'implied' otherwise.
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals? mighty, mighty obvious.
I see hyperbole is only off limits for other people.
1) why should the nature of an information source ever be irrelevant, if you believe in investigating for yourself? and why would the unreliability of "many" be the invalidating circumstance?
2) i wasn't attributing those words to you. the only hyperbole to which i have objected was inflating other people's arguments to absurdity (e.g. nobody ever said paladins have to apply for permission in triplicate in order to act, but that was used as an excuse to argue "but then you'll never be able to do anything!" when the original complaint was about getting away with one shady job).
how about i utterly retract my oh-so-out-of-line spiel? better than i'm ever going to get from qwinn or 6, i'm sure.
- see the conclusion of the Tanner quest in Trademeet
or one of the Paladin stronghold quests (sometimes the girl's uncle is Evil, sometimes not)
or Madulf or Aerie or Solaufein.
sure, i was thinking too narrowly. by 'deceived' i meant 'actively deceived by your employer'. the people who blame madulf's band for the disappearances are hysterical, not sinister; nobody says "there's an ogre in the tent, go kill it"; but true, it's not technically 'too late' (in a life/death sense) when rejiek/darsidian's ruse becomes apparent (which btw is sloppily done, don't you think?). and of course i was forgetting that you can end up in windspear via the Order rather than via 'firkraag' in the CC. (and what's this about solaufein? you mean when phaere wants you to kill him? i don't recall her being deceptive; isn't she too sure of her authority for that? she's just being nasty and testing your commitment to her whim, isn't she? okay, other than not admitting to their past relationship the way s. does...)
and i certainly didn't count the randomly evil uncle paladin quest, being the only part of the entire campaign actively designed to make 'detect evil' properly useful... (as the gethras incident should also be.) and in that you're warned to use it ahead of time, it further cheapens all of the other potential uses that Ideally would AT LEAST inform one's dialogue options.
Lord Jierdan Firkraag - Evil
"I have a job for you, if you wish it."
*confront Firkraag*
. . .
"10000? That seems an awfully large sum!" etc.
i don't know what's worse - discrimination against paladins or discrimination against meaningful use of detective tactics.
So why is that when you investigate Edwin's claim & discover Gethras is Evil you suddenly can't act on it without taking a hit? We are in agreement with all the other instances where investigation lets you know whether you're right or not - why this one exception?
all right, i'll agree the hit is ill-timed, as recently speculated. and should probably only be for paladins working with thieves (and edwin). (railroading reminder - gethras is only ever home after you are following edwin's instruction, right? that deserves to be altered too. i'm assuming that wasn't a part of the Oversight changes.)
but more to the point (yours and mine! sweet unity ;)), the confirmation-via-detect-evil should be, if it is feasible, required to prevent a virtue hit for murder (even in addition to a hypothetical hit for Being a Pawn of Criminals)...
-
fun fact.
The Cowled Wizards are a independent organization in Amn, the only reason they are allowed to enforce thier laws is because Amn can't do anything to stop an army of wizards.