Paladins fall from grace for being good.

[Rumparum]

Just wanted to share my experience on attempt of playing Paladin of Iomedae.

By selecting dialogue options that I believed to be most fitting to my character and Iomedae-s dogma I found myself no longer able to progress as a paladin.

That's kind of big issue cause vast majority of choices marked as Lawfull is actually either straight Lawfull Evil or very close to Lawfull Evil. There's almost no Lawfull Good or Lawfull Neutral choices. That means if you try to Roleplay a Paladin properly - sooner or later you'll be a fallen Paladin just cause choosing mostly "Good" dialogues will push you to Neutral Good alignment that is no longer compatible with Paladin class.

It's especially weirid when you look at Seelah who's character is written as often ignoring Lawfull part of her faith in favor of Good. This creates immersion breaking situation where we are forced to click "Lawfull" choices even if they feel Evil.

Taking Seelah advice in most cases makes it even more absurd cause you're literally stepping off Iomedae-s/Paladins path by listening to advice from a paladin.

I'm curious what are others experiences on the topic? Is it something that will be addressed in the future or maybe other players got around it some way?

[Drake]

Messaggio originale di Goilveig:

It is pretty dumb in how this game tries to shoehorn choices into either Lawful or Good. For example, allowing someone to burn a helpless person at the stake is not a lawful good choice, even if the person is suspected of a crime, and at the same time, a paladin shouldn't let a potential criminal go free, but you're forced to choose between them.

The lawful good choice is to detain the person until their guilt can be determined at a trial and a sentence passed down based on the law, but that isn't given as an option.

And some of what Owlcat claims is good is just... being an authoritarian jerk. It's not lawful to taunt Staunton or to say he should be put to death. He is a criminal, he was already tried and sentenced, and he's serving out that sentence. That is justice. It's not just or lawful to taunt him further or to suggest you should impose your own punishment upon him. Iomedae is a god of justice, not vigilantism.

Paladins also have a code of honor to uphold, and so many of the "lawful" choices would go strongly against that code of honor.

It's dumb that to keep a particular alignment, you need to do a tit-for-tat balance of lawful and good choices. A paladin is supposed to seek a lawful good choice for each situation, not alternate between some lawful choices and some good choices.

Also, rules as written for tabletop, paladins ARE supposed to prioritize good over law if they can't find a solution that accomplishes both, because a single evil act is immediate grounds to fall, where a single chaotic act is not.

Then is great that lawful dialog choices are neither evil nor chaotic, so this is no issue with a paladin, they are not breaking their oath since lawful choices are all lawful neutral.

Then we have that system becasue in kingmaker, people complained that we had double alignment chocies (like stuff with lawful good), so that when they took a dialog choice, the cursor moved in 2 directions and that was an issue to keep alignment, and a single alignment choice was prefered.

So which is it ? double alignment or single alignment ? make up your mind people.

Then you just have to pick lawful choices from time to time, that's not the end of the world. It's not going to break your roleplay (I would like to see the builds of some of the "roleplay" people, just to laugh a bit at those powergamers that are complaining about roleplay but refuse to pick weaker feats when they should for roleplay reasons).
Also you don't have to always pick a certain alignment dialog to be that alignment, that's a myth. A paladin can pick lawful neutral choices, as long they don't always pick lawful neutral choices, same with neutral good.

There is a lot of room to roleplay in the game as long as you get stuck on the alignment choices.

[Goilveig]

Messaggio originale di Drake:

Then is great that lawful dialog choices are neither evil nor chaotic, so this is no issue with a paladin, they are not breaking their oath since lawful choices are all lawful neutral.

Well, I'd argue that many of them, even if Owlcat considers them lawful neutral, are actually lawful evil. Allowing the summary execution of a captured individual who has not been proven guilty and sentenced at trial should be considered an evil act, and it's actually a direct violation of Iomedae's paladin code as well, which states that the paladin is responsible for the wellbeing of prisoners. And many of the other "lawful" choices, even if not outright evil, violate the paladin code to act with honor.

[MjKorz]

I tried playing a Paladin of Sarenrae months ago, emphasizing the mercy aspect of Sarenrae worship and did mostly good things with some lawful actions in situations where they did not go against doing good instead.

The goddess of mercy abandoned my paladin character the exact moment I reached Reliable Redoubt and helped the Sarenrae cleric pass in peace. Not going to lie, it was pure kino.

Then I deleted that save and never played a paladin ever again.

[Goilveig]

Messaggio originale di MjKorz:

I tried playing a Paladin of Sarenrae months ago, emphasizing the mercy aspect of Sarenrae worship and did mostly good things with some lawful actions in situations where they did not go against doing good instead.

The goddess of mercy abandoned my paladin character the exact moment I reached Reliable Redoubt and helped the Sarenrae cleric pass in peace. Not going to lie, it was pure kino.

Then I deleted that save and never played a paladin ever again.

Lol, that is sad and hilarious at the same time.

I'm definitely regretting the choice of paladin, too. You'd think of any adventure path to ever pick paladin, Wrath of the Righteous would be the one that would best play to the paladin's strengths - and in combat, it does, but the story options just railroad you way too much.

[Goilveig]

Messaggio originale di Drake:

Then we have that system becasue in kingmaker, people complained that we had double alignment chocies (like stuff with lawful good), so that when they took a dialog choice, the cursor moved in 2 directions and that was an issue to keep alignment, and a single alignment choice was prefered.

So which is it ? double alignment or single alignment ? make up your mind people.

Frankly, I'd say to scrap the entire system. Don't have alignments shift at all, and instead just have paladins fall if they do a single truly evil action (which you could still tag as [Evil]). It wouldn't shift your alignment but it would force atonement.

The problem with trying to keep the notion of shifting alignments in a video game RPG is there are vastly fewer options available to respond to any given situation compared to in a TTRPG.

[Mindeveler]

Messaggio originale di Drake:

Then we have that system becasue in kingmaker, people complained that we had double alignment chocies (like stuff with lawful good), so that when they took a dialog choice, the cursor moved in 2 directions and that was an issue to keep alignment, and a single alignment choice was prefered.

So which is it ? double alignment or single alignment ? make up your mind people.

Why should we make up our mind?

The alignment shift should depend on a particular dialogue option, it's silly to either only use double shifts or only single shifts.

Sometimes a choice is simply "good" or "chaotic", at other times it's "lawful good" or "chaotic good".

E.g. you caught a thief who stole something from a merchant to sell it and buy a cure for his sick wife:
- (lawful) I'm taking you to jail
- (lawful good) I'm taking you to jail but I'll pay for you wife's cure so she'll be fine
- (good) here is the money for the cure, now give back what you stole and I'll return it to the merchant
- (chaotic) ok, keep it, you clearly need it more than that merchant
- (neutral) I'm taking you to the merchant then the 2 of you can sort it out yourself
- (lawful evil) you do know that in times of war thievery is punishable by death? *unsheathes sword*
- (evil) I don't give a damn about your sick wife, I was promised a payment for returning what you stole and I'm gonna do it, so now hand it over or else
- (chaotic evil) the world doesn't need you, you sick filthy beggars, die!

And if the devs can't be bothered to properly implement all these nuances, then I agree with the previous comment that they should just scrap the whole system (because without all the proper options it only does disservice to roleplay and gameplay) or make it much less "sensitive", with only very evil (like butchering a whole village) or very good (like donating a lot of coins to the charity) actions having any sort of noticeable impact.

[Dragon Master]

I haven't read every page, but I would like to add my own perspective here.

1. Owlcat's decision to have only lawful and only good came as a response to people criticizing Kingmaker where most of the choices were a combination of some kind. Sure, you could make a lot of lawful good options, but sometimes the only lawful option was lawful neutral or lawful evil. Same could be said for the good, neutral or evil options on the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

2. I honestly don't mind how this system is implemented because it is fairly easy to maintain an alignment but some of the choices do seem to be written in such a way that a lot of people can't accept a choice as something a paladin would choose.

3. Ironically, in many ways, Hulrun is actually right about everything. He was right about a demon influencing the Desnian worshipers, he just had no way to verify that it was a succubus on the path of redemption who was also worshiping Desna. He talks about how the enemies are everywhere, and well, the enemies are everywhere. He even talks about how there were demons below the city and no one took him seriously, which is stated explicitly as we are finishing up the Maze in Chapter 1.

No one in the game takes him seriously because he's such a hard-lined zealot and he's incredibly easy to hate, but if the players actually listen to him, he's not wrong. Even a scribe appointed to us by the Queen is a traitor, and the demons had infiltrated every organization in the city. They even infiltrate our army when we're the commander.

[Conquista]

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

No one in the game takes him seriously because he's such a hard-lined zealot and he's incredibly easy to hate, but if the players actually listen to him, he's not wrong. Even a scribe appointed to us by the Queen is a traitor, and the demons had infiltrated every organization in the city. They even infiltrate our army when we're the commander.

i wish they implemented some kind of scene were it shows, that no ones takes him seriously beside demon and cultist

[Draken]

So which is it ? double alignment or single alignment ? make up your mind people.

Both are double alignment. In Wrath you just don't get shown the second one, but it's always there. Any choice does also move you towards neutral on the other axis.
A good or evil choice moves you towards neutral on chaos/law.
A chaotic or lawful choice moves you towards neutral on good/evil.

The problem in my mind is that Owlcat linked the alignments together into their alignment circle. It's working exactly the same in Kingmaker and Wrath. The only difference is that you only get chaotic neutral, lawful neutral, neutral good and neutral evil choices, and that the 'neutral' shift isn't displayed.

The solution to the problems is to either get rid of the alignment circle altogether to unlink the good/evil from chaotic/lawful, or give the player 10 different choices each time they get to choose, which would be a lot of work. (the 10 choices are all alignment combination together with one that doesn't cause an alignment shift)

[Dragon Master]

Messaggio originale di Conquista:

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

No one in the game takes him seriously because he's such a hard-lined zealot and he's incredibly easy to hate, but if the players actually listen to him, he's not wrong. Even a scribe appointed to us by the Queen is a traitor, and the demons had infiltrated every organization in the city. They even infiltrate our army when we're the commander.

i wish they implemented some kind of scene were it shows, that no ones takes him seriously beside demon and cultist

Irabeth outright tells you first meet her in the Defender's Heart after waking up that between you and her that the prelates opinion doesn't amount to much.

Ramien is seen criticizing him for standing guard over a hole in the ground where Deskari cleaved the city in two, where either corrupted mongrels came out and he killed them or nothing happened and he's being paranoid about Ramien telling him to leave.

There are scenes that show his zealousness getting in the way of common sense, and people do constantly talk about how the innocent often end up on the pyres, like Ember.

It's a sad reality where he has to be so paranoid to do his job and unfortunately his paranoia is perfectly justified.

[Conquista]

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Messaggio originale di Conquista:

i wish they implemented some kind of scene were it shows, that no ones takes him seriously beside demon and cultist

Irabeth outright tells you first meet her in the Defender's Heart after waking up that between you and her that the prelates opinion doesn't amount to much.

Ramien is seen criticizing him for standing guard over a hole in the ground where Deskari cleaved the city in two, where either corrupted mongrels came out and he killed them or nothing happened and he's being paranoid about Ramien telling him to leave.

There are scenes that show his zealousness getting in the way of common sense, and people do constantly talk about how the innocent often end up on the pyres, like Ember.

It's a sad reality where he has to be so paranoid to do his job and unfortunately his paranoia is perfectly justified.

ya i agree with all of this, i meant a scene that shows demon and cultist being the only one taking him serious because they know he is right

[Dragon Master]

Messaggio originale di Conquista:

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Irabeth outright tells you first meet her in the Defender's Heart after waking up that between you and her that the prelates opinion doesn't amount to much.

Ramien is seen criticizing him for standing guard over a hole in the ground where Deskari cleaved the city in two, where either corrupted mongrels came out and he killed them or nothing happened and he's being paranoid about Ramien telling him to leave.

There are scenes that show his zealousness getting in the way of common sense, and people do constantly talk about how the innocent often end up on the pyres, like Ember.

It's a sad reality where he has to be so paranoid to do his job and unfortunately his paranoia is perfectly justified.

ya i agree with all of this, i meant a scene that shows demon and cultist being the only one taking him serious because they know he is right

Oh. Yeah, that would have been fun.

[Goilveig]

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

I haven't read every page, but I would like to add my own perspective here.

1. Owlcat's decision to have only lawful and only good came as a response to people criticizing Kingmaker where most of the choices were a combination of some kind. Sure, you could make a lot of lawful good options, but sometimes the only lawful option was lawful neutral or lawful evil. Same could be said for the good, neutral or evil options on the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

2. I honestly don't mind how this system is implemented because it is fairly easy to maintain an alignment but some of the choices do seem to be written in such a way that a lot of people can't accept a choice as something a paladin would choose.

3. Ironically, in many ways, Hulrun is actually right about everything. He was right about a demon influencing the Desnian worshipers, he just had no way to verify that it was a succubus on the path of redemption who was also worshiping Desna. He talks about how the enemies are everywhere, and well, the enemies are everywhere. He even talks about how there were demons below the city and no one took him seriously, which is stated explicitly as we are finishing up the Maze in Chapter 1.

No one in the game takes him seriously because he's such a hard-lined zealot and he's incredibly easy to hate, but if the players actually listen to him, he's not wrong. Even a scribe appointed to us by the Queen is a traitor, and the demons had infiltrated every organization in the city. They even infiltrate our army when we're the commander.

I'm definitely finding it hard to find Lawful choices that aren't either evil (I know they aren't mechanically, but I'm talking morally) or violate the paladin code, which heavily emphasizes honor.

And it's not necessarily that Hulrun is wrong, but that Hulrun is looking for vigilante justice, not actual justice. There's no reason, for example, why the Desnans couldn't have been arrested and held until a trial could be convened. That would be completely lawful and completely in line with a paladin's codes of conduct and honor.

[Conquista]

Messaggio originale di Goilveig:

There's no reason, for example, why the Desnans couldn't have been arrested and held until a trial could be convened. That would be completely lawful and completely in line with a paladin's codes of conduct and honor.

hm... kenabres being overrun by demons... ya no reason at all

[Drake]

Messaggio originale di Goilveig:

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

I haven't read every page, but I would like to add my own perspective here.

1. Owlcat's decision to have only lawful and only good came as a response to people criticizing Kingmaker where most of the choices were a combination of some kind. Sure, you could make a lot of lawful good options, but sometimes the only lawful option was lawful neutral or lawful evil. Same could be said for the good, neutral or evil options on the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

2. I honestly don't mind how this system is implemented because it is fairly easy to maintain an alignment but some of the choices do seem to be written in such a way that a lot of people can't accept a choice as something a paladin would choose.

3. Ironically, in many ways, Hulrun is actually right about everything. He was right about a demon influencing the Desnian worshipers, he just had no way to verify that it was a succubus on the path of redemption who was also worshiping Desna. He talks about how the enemies are everywhere, and well, the enemies are everywhere. He even talks about how there were demons below the city and no one took him seriously, which is stated explicitly as we are finishing up the Maze in Chapter 1.

No one in the game takes him seriously because he's such a hard-lined zealot and he's incredibly easy to hate, but if the players actually listen to him, he's not wrong. Even a scribe appointed to us by the Queen is a traitor, and the demons had infiltrated every organization in the city. They even infiltrate our army when we're the commander.

I'm definitely finding it hard to find Lawful choices that aren't either evil (I know they aren't mechanically, but I'm talking morally) or violate the paladin code, which heavily emphasizes honor.

And it's not necessarily that Hulrun is wrong, but that Hulrun is looking for vigilante justice, not actual justice. There's no reason, for example, why the Desnans couldn't have been arrested and held until a trial could be convened. That would be completely lawful and completely in line with a paladin's codes of conduct and honor.

About the desnan, martial law, war time (this is an invasion), traitors -> execution on the spot. Hulrun is the prelat of kenabres, if he rules them as traitors with the proof he has (they broke into the wardstone and had knowledge of the invasion), he's the commanding officer, that's his right. He might be wrong, but it is still his judgment and he represents the law. He his not a vigilante, he is passing judgment, he has the authority to do it and he's doing it while exercing in his function, he's not killing people in the middle of the night hidden from the general population. He is doing it in the middle of the day, with witnesses (his guard), in an official manner (considering the circumtances).

Just to be clear, that stuff happened in WW2, 80 years ago. And it still happens in several parts of the world. In war times, you don't usually get a trial for stuff happening on the field. They don't have the resources to keep you alive if you're not an important figure, killin you on the stop is way more efficient.

And that, is not lawful evil, that's lawful neutral. Being wrong doesn't make you evil, it just makes you stupid and accountable.
The choice would be lawful evil if he knew for a fact that their were innocent but still ruled otherwise for other personal reasons. But as the dialog expicitly said, he is sure they were cultist spies and their were a threat for the city.

If you want further example of real field justice. I know a true story of a private in WW1. The guy was fighting for the allies, they launched an assault from a trench to secure a position. At very the beginning, a mortar just fired close to him and stunned him good. By the time he got up, his platoon had advanced and he got lost trying to get back to them. Another squad found him 2 days after sleeping in a house.
He was tried for desertion the same day by the closest officier. The field "trial" lasted 5 minutes. Not 10, not a hour, not a day. 5 minutes, the officer didn't believe him getting lost and just slept becasue he needed some rest after walking all day trying to find his unit (later witnesses actually proved he was really lost and really got hit by a mortar) and ordered he was shot on the spot for treason.

So no, the situation with hulrun is not far fetched, that actually happens.