I promise you all that this will be my last annoying Fighter/Cleric question.
The odd question is this; If I want my Fighter/Cleric to be Lawful Good, is it a bad idea to bring these?:
Korgan
Edwin
Jan
Minsc
And someone more, perhaps Valygar or Keldorn?

I´m just asking if you believe that a man of goodness and faith would be willing to plunder Korgans grave or do Edwins quest and so on? Reply if you wish.
thx.
----------------
( Man, I can NEVER EVER decide on anything... :mad: )

Well if you were playing a tabletop AD&D game and if I was the DM I wouldn't allow you to go graverobbing without a just cause. But, in the case of BG: SoA you can do that, I was a Paladin and I went graverobbing even without a necessary quest. Doing work for the shadow thieves, working for Maevar, stealing weathermistresses holy symbol, I think, do not go well with a Paladin but you can still do it without having to worry about an alignment shift. The only thing you should keep in mind is that, do not have Keldorn and Viconia at the same party, they end up fighting and Keldorn killing Viconia.

I'd say you'd rather choose chaotic good alignment when you want to have Edwin & Korgan in your group. Both will leave your party iirc when your rep reaches 18 (due to their evil alignment).
Beeing lawful good you might have some problems with a red wizard of Tay in your party while you still yould argument that looting the grave just means cleaning a tomb from evil undead - a honourable deed for a good aligned priest.
Keldorn would be a good addition to your party. Since you are a fighter-clerich yourself Anomen is obsolete. Valygar sucks. How about Mazzy? She's great. And with Imoen you'll have the full mage you might like to have.

In my games that fight always ends with dead Keldorn :p

Besides, that DM thing is idiotic, why paladin won't take evil ones in party - he can always show them the right way and try to change them into at least neutral alignment.
And if they don't listen, he can always add them to his list of punished evil ones.

You are right Extremist. I apologize for giving fals advice to you Zaragoth.

Honourable Sir Belisarius chose the only valid way by trying to convert viconia to the good path. Priests are always keen to convert people into believers. So follow Sir Bel's path and allow Edwin and Korgan to join your party - if they mock about rep-17 : Kill them for their alignment ! :D

Ragusa...LMAO! :D ;)

Isn´t LN pretty much the same as LG?
LG want´s to follow the laws and so do LN.
Or am I wrong? :rolleyes:

Zaragoth: LG are interested in following the law, but for the interests of good. LN will follow the law because it's the law, regardless of good or evil. So an LG would not follow a law that is obviously evil, or incorrect -- an LN would.

I think that if you want to have an interesting game, go fer it.
If you happen to be interested in keeping your PC good then don't take them unless you feel you have the divine power to change thier views on life (seeing how you are the child of Bhaal, I hope you do).

Yes a VERY interesting game. Just watch out for Minsc and Edwin.

What happens between Minsc and Edwin? I have not played with those two together before :p

***looting the grave just means cleaning a tomb from evil undead - a honourable deed for a good aligned priest.*** (taken from Ragusa's post)
Yes cleaning undead is good but as a LG priest you should not open up every coffer and loot it's treasures...
And extremist what's idiotic about the DM thing?

Hmmm... thinking this one through... If your character is lawful good, then definitely she would not loot tombs. But people in your party have their own personalities and when you are playing by yourself you need to role-play them too. So if your hero is a lawful good paladin, and she is destroying undead as they rise from their graves, my guess would be that any chaotic neutral characters in the party would be snatching up the loot every time her back was turned. Sure, the paladin has sternly told them not to, but chaotic troops ignore rules anyway, when they can get away with it.

... hee hee hee... I have finally come up with a role-playing justification to pocket Daystar!

Odd. But it sounds fun I think I'll give it a go.

I wanted to inform you people that I´m going for the Lawful Neutral alignment consider the people I´m gonna use in my party.
thx for all the answers! :D They are appriciated.

Bah, who would ever want to play a lawful character, unless it was a Paladin? Being lawful is just asking for trouble because you always have to justify your actions. I prefer neutral because it allows you to be much more flexible without being foolishly chaotic or having to adhere to "rules". I hate those "rules" :D

Actually, I think it's the "lawfulness" that would make a paladin reject the idea of taking something from a grave, not the "goodness." I think a good person would much rather take something from a tomb than from a living person who might be hurt by missing the item. The corpse won't care, and if it does care it's because it's an evil lich that should be slain anyway. And if the item in question is something like Daystar, it's just going to be used for good deeds anyway, right?

I think a lawful-neutral person would balk at taking stuff off a lich's tomb more than a neutral-good person.

About the "cleansing a tomb of evil undead". How do you know that they're there when you're not - like the tree in the woods scenario. It could be that the dead people are only reanimated because some ham fisted fool comes stomping around their graves and disturbing their rest. So you could be disturbing the eternal rest of the dead, to kill them again. Not something many paladins want on their conscience.

Paladin: "Hey let's go and check this tomb too, there might be evil undead."
(Actually he means: hey there might be new treasures let's check it out")
Squire: "But sir we have already desecrated 30 tombs, can't we go and rest"
Paladin: "We can't rest until all undead are cleansed"
(Actually he means: Well we still have 1000g more to collect for the Shield we saw in Ribalds place)
Squire: "Yes sir"
After a while....
Undead: "Look mister shiny armor we are trying to rest here, will you leave us alone"
Paladin: "BEGONE EVIL CREATURE!!!"
(Actually he means: Begone so I may loot any more treasure upon you)
Undead: "Yeah right" (grumbles)
After this tomb is purged of evil
Paladin: "Wow a nice sword, let's take it."
(Actually he means: well, he means exactly that)
Squire: "Ah but sir won't this be looting"
Paladin: "Of course not, this will be used in further execution of evil."
(Actually he means: I might sell it to Ribald heh heh)

LOL
oh, how many times have I had characters do that kind of thing.
Evil guy " let's free the children!"
henchman " what a waste of time, you sickening do gooder."
Evil guy " We're presenting a good front, that we can continue our evil deeds unmolested"
(I really want to level up, and need the XP)

Jander Sunstar, :D . I've had the exact same situation in Icewind Dale in those dwarven tombs. My paladin didn't protest to us equipping ourselves with fine dwarven burial garments & weapons provided for the dead dwarfs either. Indeed, it was imperative that we loot the whole tomb of any artifacts that might help our cause, which was to destroy the evil lich once and for all.

I guess you *could* find a way to justify that course of action, but a true paladin would never let it happen. But people who play paladins the other (read, more unconvenient) way are very, very rare.

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.