Baldurs Gate Enhanced Edition

Excuse? Goodness no! (*cringes*, well, that unintended pun was rather terrible), none is needed. I'd say murdering something would be fun as long as it's challenging, and the enemy is a worthy one. Though come to think of it, this might just be an aesthetical issue, and the fact that xvarts do not exactly fit into a narrative interplay of eroticism and violence that is my usual headcanon for Baldur's Gate . Whatever makes sense for the character, I guess. Come to think of it, the enemy does not always have to be worthy - my half-orc CE Bhaalspawn gleefuly slaughtered noblewomen because she was jealous of their conventional beauty, so yeah. Definitely an aesthetical issue, or just an attempt to make a character psychologically authentic as an individual. Either way, I'd leave the blue bastards to some lawful stupid paladin.

Or to bloodthirsty unpredictable lunatics like myself

Then again, you are the warrior type, while I am the cloak and dagger Assassin-type. We are two different shades of evil, my sexy demon -- you prefer a duel with a worthy opponent, I am shadow and darkness, playing mind games and waiting for the right moment to strike with maximum efficiency.  

Nobles I would slaughter purely because of their snooty and haughty attitudes. Everyone is equal in front of Death, fuckers.

Quote :

On the other hand - should a paladin truly leave them alone? What if they attack travellers, like they attacked the Bhaalspawn? What if their community thrives, grows in strength and number, and ultimately becomes a threat to other races? Is it LG to take that chance?

They do attack travellers (and cows) but there is a HUGE difference between protecting people who can't defend themselves and going on a killing spree to exterminate entire communities (that includes young ones, families, not just fighters).

A LG character and a sensible Paladin would draw the line at self defence and not get into mass murder/ethnic cleansing territory.

I know they are supposed to be evil but a really good character would probably want to communicate with them and try to create some ways to make them good instead of killing them (just like a really good Bhaalspawn will try and make Viconia see the errors of her ways).

Let's take another example, ankhegs are a big problem but they also have their uses and are part of the ecosystem. Even if they're not sentient beings rangers wouldn't plan on killing them all and considering the consequences that wouldn't be the right thing to do for a ranger, a druid or a pally.

Suppressing a threat doesn't mean you have to rely on extermination.

Zarak wrote:

Nobles I would slaughter purely because of their snooty and haughty attitudes. Everyone is equal in front of Death, fuckers.

A dark lord on a murderous rampage of the great and the good? Now, that seems a splendid idea for a night out! Would you mind if I tagged along? And looted most of the jewelry? Though come to think of it, wouldn't your character want to become Grand Duke once Sarevok has been dealt with? There is still a vacancy after Entar Silvershield's death, after all (poor man would have perished sooner or later, the way I see it, and it would be a mercy - ye Gods, to have such a daughter...!), and possibly Belt or Liia's...

Carabas wrote:

They do attack travellers (and cows)

Alas, poor Arabella. I knew her, Horatio.

Carabas wrote:

A LG character and a sensible Paladin would draw the line at self defence and not get into mass murder/ethnic cleansing territory.

Ah, I see. I did wonder about those members of the community who were not fighters, and just assumed they all grabbed whatever pointy thing in hand and charged at the trespasser. I assume it's not exactly as if one could really tell with Xvarts, though . This new perspective on sensible paladins was interesting, though. It's not as if my characters could ever get along with even the sane types, but it's good to be reminded from time to time that lobotomy was not part of the Radiant Heart ceremony.

Quote :

A dark lord on a murderous rampage of the great and the good? Now, that seems a splendid idea for a night out! Would you mind if I tagged along? And looted most of the jewelry? Though come to think of it, wouldn't your character want to become Grand Duke once Sarevok has been dealt with? There is still a vacancy after Entar Silvershield's death, after all (poor man would have perished sooner or later, the way I see it, and it would be a mercy - ye Gods, to have such a daughter...!), and possibly Belt or Liia's...

Not at all, I'd welcome and enjoy the company and I can think of no better partner than you for a genocide crusade, my sexy demon! As for the wealth I am sure we can come to an... arrangement

Hmm, my character is probably too much of an unpredictible lunatic to be a duke. My first orders of  buisness would be to round up the Flaming Fist, root up all dissidents and have them carry out a Stalinesque wide-scale purge just for shit and giggles Although I'd be lying to say the idea of ruling like an iron-fisted tyrant doesn't appeal to me...

Carabas wrote:

A LG character and a sensible Paladin would draw the line at self defence and not get into mass murder/ethnic cleansing territory.

Paladins have always been protrayed as tight ass zealots. In some ways, I always thought that the Radiant Heart paladins in BGII were more LN than LG. Compassion is the epicenter of goodness. If you're not compassionate, you can't be good. If you're a pompous arrogant jerk, you can't be good.

And just because someone becomes a paladin doesn't mean they leave their brain and reasoning capacity at their initiation party. I was playing a paladin in a pen and paper D&D game once (the only time I ever played a paladin. I felt dirty after, had to take a shower). And we were level 6 ish and went to a castle to battle a villain. Only to find out that the said villain was a pretty f**king powerful guy. As we were wainting in the lobby and sensing him getting nearer, I suggested we got the f**k out of there and figure out a better plan than bumrushing the guy (which would kill us). As we had captured the villain's sister, we had access to valuable intel. Well, the other players and I got into a big argument because they said I was breaking character because running away was unpaladin like. I was arguing that retreating to form a better plan to attack a villain because having no intel and battle plan is stupid wasn't the same at all as running away because you're afraid. The DM agreed with me, but it ended up breaking the game and we never played again...

Bottom line, D & D paladins (and the Jedi order) as they are portrayed are a bunch of idiots.

For the record I would have sided with you. Being suicidal has nothing to do with goodness. If you can't win there is no shame in retreating in order to fight another day. In that situation the paladin would definitely be the last one to leave the villain's den but he wouldn't sacrifice himself unless it actually did serve his cause.

Quote :

Compassion is the epicenter of goodness. If you're not compassionate, you can't be good. If you're a pompous arrogant jerk, you can't be good.

Definitely.

I've never played a paladin in pen and paper because I have a hard time not being roguish and devious as a player (as a game master I can get away with it but maintaining a lawful stance for entire game sessions as a player is simply too taxing).

The core of being a D&D paladin (or a jedi for that matter) is being humble and going out of your way to help people (not necessarily through violence).

Interestingly enough Pillars of Eternity features orders of paladins that are not necessarily good and it works. Quite frankly when I think of paladins in BG2 I have to agree with you Tri they are Lawful Neutral, not Good (Keldorn is not that Good either).

Carabas wrote:

In that situation the paladin would definitely be the last one to leave the villain's den

Heh, that's funny. The DM, when agreeing with me, said that exact phrase.

This discussion reminds me of Steven Ericksson's Malazan books. If the first half or 2/3 of the series, you think the end game is a battle of the typical order (good) vs chaos (evil), whereas near the end you realize it's rather compassion vs intrasigence. A supposedly good person that has a black and white view on good/evil that leaves no place to context and evolution is as dangerous as the evil itself. I think it was a rather interesting view and a particular organisation that went down in flames in the book made me think of D & D Paladins.

The Jedi in Star Wars are particularly interesting. In a hugely black in white world (if you're not a light side jedi, you're a dark side jedi), it's interesting how the intrasigence of the Jedi Council creates all those dark side jedi. I mean, Darth Vader himself was created by the Jedi. In KOTOR, how can the Jedi sleep at night knowing that their inaction doomed entire worlds in the Mandalorian attack. I understand they were waiting for the real threat to materialize, but try to explain that to all the people that lost family members in those attacks...

Correct me if I'm mistaken but in Kotor the idea was that the war was wrong and would lead them astray. It stems from the idea that despite being great warriors they are reluctant to engage into actual combat. Probably because conflict and violence lead to revenge and hatred and ultimately the dark side.  

Quote :

Heh, that's funny. The DM, when agreeing with me, said that exact phrase.

Must be a thing DMs say then.

Your mention of black and white reminds me of the end of the Revenge of the Sith when Obi Wan says "only a Sith deals in absolutes" because that's a very important statement. As important in fact as the point that Anakin doesn't see himself as being evil. In his view the Jedi are weak and they have failed. He is fooling himself but his evil is unaware and absolutely not self conscious, at that point it is a corrupted view of the Jedi code. He has fallen because he had to take action. He had to have his revenge and he had to defend the person who supposedly could save the one he didn't want to lose.

The Jedi way is ascetic. Action may be warranted at times but it can take you down the wrong path all too easily.

Interestingly enough in a D&D setting both action and inaction could make a Paladin fall but more often than not we choose to focus on actual actions simply because there is a conscious decision at stake.

I'm not saying passivity is the answer mind you. The point is that the higher ups in the Jedi Council are probably too busy trying to see what consequences their actions could have that they end up not being able to act and when they do they can but realize it may be too late or they end up facing more difficult choices. Simply because being hasty would mean taking chances and consequently the very possibility of failure. According to that perspective it's hard to see them in a truly positive light no matter how good and humble they may seem to be.

EDIT: I've edited some typos, I've been rambling about Jedi knights in a thread about BG at 2AM on a Friday night.