Alignment question (odd)

I find it oddly interesting that among most of you LG = modern Christian values. Whether or not one choses to equate those two, the Paladin is a paragon of virtue and theiving from the dead is still theiving. What's interesting about paragons of virtue, they don't tend to live very long...their impractical values constrain them to non functional adventurers. To really roleplay out a paladin, I highly doubt one could ever attain 4th level.

 

That's right. For a "lawfull good" caracter, and especially a palladin, a locked door or chest must be inviolable, and thieving is also an enemy. To do action like this he must be chaotic good, IIRC. Anyway, for a true Role Playing, lawfull good alignment is almost imposible to sustain.

 

I would disagree. I think y'all are interpreting alignment way too strictly. Not everyone who's true neutral is identical, right? Some might be druid-types actively trying to maintain balance; others might just be apathetic; others might be completely opportunistic; others might try to keep their personal life balanced but not care about what other folks do.

Similarly, not all lawful good people have to be complete weenies who refuse to do anything practical. Some lawful good people might, I suppose, think looking behind a locked door in a slaver's complex was unethical. Others might think it was justified because the owners of the locked door were evil and breaking the law. Still others might not even think unlocking a door WAS unethical--after all, it doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't illegal. "Right to privacy" is not necessarily believed in by every lawful-good person in the world! Maybe some believe it, but I'm sure others believe that you should look and if you find incriminating stuff, bring them to justice.

A lot of this is cultural, some is personal. Not every lawful-good person has to have an identical set of morals, after all--they just all have to have the general idea that laws should be honored or else (if they're bad laws) changed through legal means, and the general desire to help people. There's a lot of room for variation in there...

Even paladins don't all worship the same god. (-:

 

***I would disagree. I think y'all are interpreting alignment way too strictly.***

Well tjekanefir I would agree with you but in the case of Paladins I do not. Becoming a Paladin is not easy. From all the fantasy novels I read Paladins abide with VERY strict rules and principles, I would agree with you that a LG fighter or a druid might have different characteristics but Paladins have their Code of Honor and they are binding for all who enter their order. They act on the rules and regulations they are taught. So different personalities do not play an important factor when speaking of Paladins, I guess.

 

Actually, the (few) times I play as a paladin, I always put myself in his shoes and think "would a defender of goodness and righteousness do that" and a lot of the time i would say: No.

I can only recall a few times i slipped (and one of them, lead to a paladinlike-conversation, but thats IWD, not BG2).

 

There's a whole world out there, Jander. Not every paladin in the universe is exactly like the ones in some D&D novel you read somewhere.

Even just within the world of Greyhawk, there are multiple orders of paladins and paladins in the same order don't all worship the same god. Sure, they all want to uphold law, goodness, and chivalry, but you know those things aren't interpreted the same by every culture in the world. Medieval paladins thought slavery and slaughtering infidels was A-OK, just for a brief reality check here. (-:

I've got no problem with any way in which you want to interpret your own paladin, but I do think it's rather shallow to assume that every "good" or even "lawful good" ethos that could possibly exist must be exactly like the one you already have in mind. It's hardly so.

 

First of all there is no such thing as a Medieval Paladin and Paladin does not mean the same thing with a Knight. Yes there were Knights, but historically speaking, they are not the Lawful Good knights that we came to know with the AD&D setting or the stories such as King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. I'm doing M.A. in History and in my first year I asked my Medieval History instructor if there was a concept called "Paladin" he said he never heard it, then I defined what it was (I showed him the PH Book), he laughed. In reality the Knights were not all the time good nor lawful, it was a privilige only the noble families could afford.

Second, since our topic is Baldur's Gate and since it is located in the Forgotten Realms and SINCE we are having the alignment discussion only in this game, I don't give a damn about other worlds such as Greyhawk or other cultures I am only referring to BG2 and so should you.

 

Hehe, both Jander and tjek actually have valid points. Equating LG to modern christian morality is the premise Jander feels is right for paladins. tjek thinks morality is subject to individual interpretation and sounds a bit chaotic to me, but his point shouldn't be lost and that is different sets of laws are espoused by different dieties...what is unlawful for one divine being of goodness, might not be so for another divine being of goodness. BG2 is not d&d and only has so many contingencies provided for by the reputation system....obviously a live, adjudicated game would be far more consistent in this.

 

Actually, there are two historical 'models' for the Paladin class: the Templars (the vanguard of the holy crusades from the 11th through the 14th centuries), and the Knights of Charlemagne (re: Holy Roman Empire). Although, yes, there was no actual figure referred to as a Paladin. But I agree that you shouldn't worry about restricting LG characters to a single ethos. LG characters should be righteous and virtuous as it pertains to their own ethics. For example, I don't think a Paladin would have a problem plundering and clearing out an 'unsanctified' tomb -- but the tomb of an obviously (or reportedly) good hero or legendary figure, they certainly wouldn't go for that. And, to go back to the Templars for a moment, in today's society they probably wouldn't be considered very virtuous by many people, but as a rule, Templars were highly religious, and extremely devout individuals, in terms of Christian worship. But not so much when they were facing the muslim 'infidels' and the saracens. Personally, I never play Paladins -- too goody-goody for me, and not much fun. I prefer beer-swillling, wenching thiefs myself (but don't tell my wife)

 

Greyhawk *IS* the Forgotten Realms, guy. I guess I'm showing my age here, having been old enough to have actually gamed in in pen and paper. (-:

Real-life paladins were the champions of medieval princes. The word is Middle Latin. It continued to be used colloquially to apply to crusaders. You might have more luck with your teacher if you showed him some texts from the real Middle Ages, not the Players' Handbook. History teachers tend to stop listening round about then. (-:

 

Ok, I concede... no more discussion no more arguments..but first I will make myself clear. I thought it to be wrong for a Paladin to go looting tombs and I still do. Second, the Instructor I mentioned is a Scottish Catholic Priest and a Proffessor who also gives Modern and Medieval Latin courses (I really think he would have known if there was a thing called Paladin or not). Third, I hate Paladins ), I don't even know why I got into this discussion at the first place...so thank you for the interesting discussion but I've had enough on a class I don't even like...

 

Refer him to the Oxford English Dictionary. *wink* Paladin: French, from Italian paladino, from Middle Latin palatinus, palatine. It was used with some frequency to refer to Charlemagne's court, and was sometimes applied to warriors in the crusades, though in all fairness that may have been because it rhymed well enough with 'Saracen'. (-:

I'm not a big fan of paladins either, but I think they do get underrated because people assume they come out of a cookie cutter. I've been gaming a long time, and I've heard a lot of these sweeping generalities--"no paladin would ever open a locked door," "all dwarves have cranky temperaments," "no one of evil alignment would ever help another person." I remember waaaay back to Basic D&D when all chaptic people had to be evil and all elves had to be fighter-mages. Heck, I remember people seriously insisting that no elves could be evil unless they were drow! Joneleth's lovin' that all the way to the bank. (-:

It's pretty trivial, and I'll agree to disagree if you want, but I think that kind of stereotypy is as misguided in gaming and fiction as it is in real life, and one can pretty easily lead to the other, as I've unfortunately also seen. People are individuals, and game rules like classes, kits, and alignment are meant to help describe and focus that, not decree from above that all members of some given race or class are identical.

</stands down from soapbox> (-:

 

I agree with Tjekanefir about it being a guidline on the way they should act its not a strict line between close alignments but a gray line with some room to move back and forth and ROLLPLAY yes if you rundown childern with your warhorse for fun i think an alignment change is in order

Dwarf Killer
The Baby Killing Paladin

 

Well, damn! This here postin' board for a real fun time-sponge game like BG2:SoA has suddenly become an engaging philosophical debate on good vs. evil, morality, and if Viconia falls in the forest, does anybody hear her moan?

Heh heh heh - and the wife sez this game will rot my brain...if she only knew!

 

Part of the beauty of role-playing, is that it's 'your' character. If your Paladin doesn't rob tombs, suits me fine. As a DM for the P&P game, I was usually pretty restrictive on Paladins -- personal bias I guess.

For clarification: Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are actually different worlds created for the P&P game years back. Greyhawk was published first, and the Realms followed in the late 80's. I played with Ed (creator of the realms) for several years when I was younger, before and after they were released as a TSR product.

 

Really? That's interesting! Did he base them heavily on Greyhawk, then? Because I never played 'Forgotten Realms' per se, but whole swaths of the Forgotten Realms as rendered in the BG games is wholesale from the old Greyhawk campaigns.