Paladin and Dorn RP discussion

[Grenix]

I was curious to other people's opinion about roleplaying a paladin and having or not having Dorn around in party. I think it can hardly be justified having Dorn around in bgee2, however briefly in bgee1 i think it might be possible. Since Dorn is a blackguard, only a character with high intelligence (16+ i believe) is actually able to guess he is one (this is a conversasional option when you first meet him) He is evil, surely a paladin can tell that much.

But does that mean he can't be redeemed? You can let a lot of characters go and show mercy during your travels. Or perhaps since you are lawfull, execution is in order for all that is evil?

Ofcourse i would like to do his quest line, it is a fun questline and Dorn is my favourite NPC.
Im not planning to keep him around, just long enough for the quest. Working with evil to fight evil can be wise, if no evil is being done during this process?

I know its all up to roleplay and mechanic wise it is pretty easy doable. Just wondering other people's thoughts on the matter and how they deal with this.

Same with stealing i guess. Should lawfull characters do this?

[Millstone85]

The redemption angle makes sense to me. After defeating Dorn's final enemy, there is even a dialogue option that goes something like "Now you can free yourself from this evil", though Dorn calls you a fool for it..

As you said, it doesn't work in BG2, because now you are killing good people.

[wendigo211]

By 2nd E rules, a Paladin should kill Dorn or at the very least not associate with him. Actually by the 2nd E rules a Paladin should fall (lose their Paladin status) just for having him in your party. Under 5th edition rules it doesn't matter, but early edition Paladins aren't allowed to work with or for evil characters. They can't even align with a lesser evil to fight off a greater evil without falling.

That said, there's no real roleplaying within a CRPG, so if you want to adventure with him, go ahead. You won't lose your Paladin status because the Paladin code was never implemented by Bioware.

[.//slayer]

Originally posted by wendigo211:

By 2nd E rules, a Paladin should kill Dorn or at the very least not associate with him. Actually by the 2nd E rules a Paladin should fall (lose their Paladin status) just for having him in your party. Under 5th edition rules it doesn't matter, but early edition Paladins aren't allowed to work with or for evil characters. They can't even align with a lesser evil to fight off a greater evil without falling.

That said, there's no real roleplaying within a CRPG, so if you want to adventure with him, go ahead. You won't lose your Paladin status because the Paladin code was never implemented by Bioware.

This reminded me of a story snippet from Shadows of Undrentide (an official NWN campaign) that depicted a paladin mindset in a D&D setting pretty well - a paladin friend of the protagonist, who studied and lived along with you under the same master, got into debates with the said master (a wise and respected man) about a kobold child's fate.

The master's argument was that a child of any race is innocent and can be shaped into a law-abiding, upstanding character. The paladin's perspective was that a kobold is an inherently evil creature and fostering hopes of redemption is a fool's errand.

Make what you will of that information, but it always seemed to me that paladins are less about redemption or persuasion and more about stamping out perceived evil no matter the circumstances.

[wendigo211]

The archetypal Paladin is Sir Galahad the Pure. The term Paladin refers to the Knights of Charlemagne, so if you look at the history of those knights even from romances like "Chanson De Roland" they aren't really nice people. They very much are the smite first and ask questions later type. The idea of the Paladin has mellowed from it's roots. But they are the militant arm of their church dedicated to destroying evil.

Part of playing the Paladin is that they are oath bound and if they break that oath, they lose their powers. It's really easy for a DM to put a Paladin player in a situation where they will fall. The case of siding with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one is a good example. I did that once in a PnP session. The Paladin decided to go along with it to accomplish the goal, but he did fall. The next couple of sessions were atonement sessions for the Paladin to regain their powers.

That said, while playing around with the Paladin's vows can be fun in a PnP session, there isn't really a good way of handling it in a CRPG. I've got to give BG/BG2 props for letting Paladins (and Rangers) fall, it's a shame there's only one chance for atonement in BG2.

[daveyd]

While paladins are technically always supposed to lawful good and follow the same strict code I always found the stereotypical paladin rather dull. Ajantis is the logical conclusion of how you would have to act towards evil NPCs (inevitably attacking them because you can't tolerate an evil person in your presence).

But if you want to roleplay as a paladin, then I think it'd be fun to think about which deity your pally follows; read about the good (or lawful neutral) deities of Faerun in a D&D Wiki and pick one. I'd think that Paladins should have a somewhat different approach to moral dilemmas based on whether they worship Tyr, Ilmater, Lathander, Helm, Sune, etc.

[Millstone85]

Originally posted by .//slayer:

The master's argument was that a child of any race is innocent and can be shaped into a law-abiding, upstanding character. The paladin's perspective was that a kobold is an inherently evil creature and fostering hopes of redemption is a fool's errand. Make what you will of that information

What I make of it is that such stories are ultimately a matter of worldbuilding.

One author or DM could decide that the child is indeed inherently evil, or otherwise fated to do harm. It might involve the irresistible call of Tiamat, the very real goddess of chromatic dragons and kobolds, whose realm is in the first circle of Hell.

Another author or DM could decide that kobolds, under their draconic/canine look, work entirely like humans. Or maybe Bahamut, god of metallic dragons and ruler of a portion of the 2nd heaven, has recently extended his guidance to them.

Of course, parallels with real-world racism make the second approach hugely popular these days. WotC has even recently made a big show of portraying drow and orcs in a sensitivity-reader-approved fashion.

[////]

if it's purely from rp perspective, the only way to have paladin and blackguard working together is if blackguard somehow tricked paladin. how that turns out to be is another part of the story.

Originally posted by wendigo211:

The archetypal Paladin is Sir Galahad the Pure. The term Paladin refers to the Knights of Charlemagne, so if you look at the history of those knights even from romances like "Chanson De Roland" they aren't really nice people. They very much are the smite first and ask questions later type. The idea of the Paladin has mellowed from it's roots. But they are the militant arm of their church dedicated to destroying evil.

Part of playing the Paladin is that they are oath bound and if they break that oath, they lose their powers. It's really easy for a DM to put a Paladin player in a situation where they will fall. The case of siding with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one is a good example. I did that once in a PnP session. The Paladin decided to go along with it to accomplish the goal, but he did fall. The next couple of sessions were atonement sessions for the Paladin to regain their powers.

That said, while playing around with the Paladin's vows can be fun in a PnP session, there isn't really a good way of handling it in a CRPG. I've got to give BG/BG2 props for letting Paladins (and Rangers) fall, it's a shame there's only one chance for atonement in BG2.

probably because of this many crpg's dropped paladins for crusaders.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by ////:

if it's purely from rp perspective, the only way to have paladin and blackguard working together is if blackguard somehow tricked paladin. how that turns out to be is another part of the story.

Originally posted by wendigo211:

The archetypal Paladin is Sir Galahad the Pure. The term Paladin refers to the Knights of Charlemagne, so if you look at the history of those knights even from romances like "Chanson De Roland" they aren't really nice people. They very much are the smite first and ask questions later type. The idea of the Paladin has mellowed from it's roots. But they are the militant arm of their church dedicated to destroying evil.

Part of playing the Paladin is that they are oath bound and if they break that oath, they lose their powers. It's really easy for a DM to put a Paladin player in a situation where they will fall. The case of siding with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one is a good example. I did that once in a PnP session. The Paladin decided to go along with it to accomplish the goal, but he did fall. The next couple of sessions were atonement sessions for the Paladin to regain their powers.

That said, while playing around with the Paladin's vows can be fun in a PnP session, there isn't really a good way of handling it in a CRPG. I've got to give BG/BG2 props for letting Paladins (and Rangers) fall, it's a shame there's only one chance for atonement in BG2.

probably because of this many crpg's dropped paladins for crusaders.

Haha, the rules has been twisted, novadays paladins and blackguards can become best friends and eventually marry.

[////]

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by ////:

if it's purely from rp perspective, the only way to have paladin and blackguard working together is if blackguard somehow tricked paladin. how that turns out to be is another part of the story.



probably because of this many crpg's dropped paladins for crusaders.

Haha, the rules has been twisted, novadays paladins and blackguards can become best friends and eventually marry.

well, from rp perspective that's also not impossible. at least technically. for example, new gods arise and threaten old ones (and entire course of events), or something like that.

but i'm not sure about "best friends".

[mike_hanna211]

"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."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.27


Simply adventuring with an evil NPC doesn't qualify as either a chaotic or evil act. If the goal of the party is lawful and good, the paladin would tolerate adventuring with the evil NPC. However, that doesn't mean they'll get along at all.

"A paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave
themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and
deed."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.28

[////]

Originally posted by mike_hanna211:

"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."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.27


Simply adventuring with an evil NPC doesn't qualify as either a chaotic or evil act. If the goal of the party is lawful and good, the paladin would tolerate adventuring with the evil NPC. However, that doesn't mean they'll get along at all.

"A paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave
themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and
deed."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.28

useful input. i think that the key word here is not "evil", but "blackguard".

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by ////:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Haha, the rules has been twisted, novadays paladins and blackguards can become best friends and eventually marry.

well, from rp perspective that's also not impossible. at least technically. for example, new gods arise and threaten old ones (and entire course of events), or something like that.

but i'm not sure about "best friends".

I think a paladin would be so disgusted of blackguard that marrying and best friends would be out of question.

[Bored and Tired Gamer]

You are right. That is the toughest side of playing a Paladin. Heck even any Lawfull good character. (Not much at BG series since Reputation has a big role; opposing a real life scenario where allmost anyone looks from short time rewards for himself which needs to be fed periodically)

Meanwhile playing evil is also not that easy, except Neutral evil and Chaotic evil characters. Evil casters or evil clerics and fallen paladins is much easier to run though. (Big question mark around buying reputation vs earning trust of good willed people. Npcs do not have that borderline for now)

Roleplaying true neutral may be hard aswell. Staying truly neutral is hard. (Which lets us use any item and join any team at games but roleplaywise it is not logical at all. PC and Npc character will allways push our character to choose sides and its is pretty hard to stay neutral when any pc or npc butchers innocent characters, just to stay neutral, in the name of creating balance)

The question is why does Evil characters have better custom classes with insane specialities and custom made powerfull spells. As an example stealing life force or summoning evil demons give insane powers to those who hold them. Meanwhile good characters wont be able to summon powerfull pure good beings at all; wont be able to heal without limited number of cleirc spells aswell. Potions are even more limited at original D&D/PnP.

This is a big question mark about fantasy fiction novels and story lines written for roleplaying games.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by mike_hanna211:

"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."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.27


Simply adventuring with an evil NPC doesn't qualify as either a chaotic or evil act. If the goal of the party is lawful and good, the paladin would tolerate adventuring with the evil NPC. However, that doesn't mean they'll get along at all.

"A paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave
themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and
deed."

- 2nd Edition Players Handbook pg.28

From where did you imagine that corrupt crap? Hahaha, we have a blackguard here. I had to check this out because it looked so wrong and I recalled that even lawful good players or chaotic good players other than paladins often times flat our refused to team with evil characters back in time in NWN HC persistent worlds, in which for whatever reasons 2nd edition rules were by far the most quoted rule books.

In my 2nd Edition player's handbooks in pages 28 and 27 there is not a word of those quotations. In page 24 under description of paladin character is written

"Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and
none other; they will associate only with characters and
creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of
adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single-
expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the
cause of lawful good is purposed."

So it is written that for a paladin even neutral characters are no-no.

As a paladin teaming with evil character in order to kill another evil character makes absolutely no sense. It is literally working for evil and working with evil. There is no such thing as "greater good".

Edit: 9/10 excellent corruption attempt by speaking lies to the stupids.

[.//slayer]

@Messucher, you could've simply double-checked your facts first, because you're quoting the 1st AD&D edition, while the two quotes by mike_hanna211 come from the 2nd edition. You can read the entire volume of the 2nd edition on many sites, for instance here:

https://textarchive.ru/c-1849268-pall.html

And yes, mike_hanna211 quoted them faithfully and word for word.

For comparison, this is the PDF text of the 1st edition (that you're quoting):

https://idiscepolidellamanticora.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/tsr2010-players-handbook.pdf

And your quote can be found on p. 24.

Obviously, since BG is based on the 2nd edition, mike_hanna211's quote applies.