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?
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.
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 @&%*.