Keldorn roleplaying problems

Remove all ads!

Let me start by saying that while I will be discussing Keldorn specifically, these comments apply to any paladin PC as well. Namely, that you cannot correctly roleplay a paladin of any type in SoA or ToB.

Firstly, why would a Lawful Good character even associate with a Bhaalspawn? You are the progeny of Bhaal, and chaos will be sown in your passage. How could a paladin assist in promoting chaos? Even if the purposes of the Bhaalspawn turned out to be good, a paladin would never get to know the character enough to determine this. A paladin would run the other way. And I completely don't understand how the PC could BE a paladin.

Secondly, there is no way you could do the MaeVar quest. Absolutely none at all. First subquest? Steal from a temple. If you are a paladin, stealing is wrong, and the fact that you are stealing from an evil temple doesn't make it right. Second quest? Kill a cowled wizard. If it is evil for Anomen to take revenge for a perceived evil against his father, is it not equally evil to kill a cowled wizard because he is perceived to be evil? While he may be "no innocent" as Keldorn contends, there is no evidence to support that he deserves death. Third subquest? Recover documents. This requires you to either steal, bribe or kill, none of which are the actions of a Lawful good person. Final subquest? Kill a traitor. While you can avoid killing the traitor, a paladin would never even consider killing someone in that scenario. He would never even go and see if there was a solution other than killing him. He could not accept the quest in the first place.

Other problems: If you talk to the Cowled Wizards, and accept their quest to find/kill Valygar, now you have a problem on your hands. You either have to find/kill him, which is an evil act, or renege on your promise which is a chaotic act.

A similar problem is confronted with Keldorn's wife. He has to either turn her in, or talk to William to resolve the situation. One act is evil, and the other is at least un-lawful if not chaotic. (On a side note, even though I'm sure a lot of people take the "good" path by talking to William, I think a paladin would actually turn his wife and William over to the garrison. The rule of law must prevail over all.)

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in order to get to Spellhold, you have to help out either the vampires or the Shadow Theives. There is no way, and I stress that there is fundamentally NO WAY that a paladin would do either. A paladin would certainly not help a group of undead, and would view the Shadow Theives as criminals not to be associated with either. A paladin would never even enter the shadow theif guild, or at least would leave as soon as they discovered it was the shadow theives. Instead he would report to the Order to see what was to be done.

I think it is sad that you are given an "out" on all of these quests in that you can complete them regardless of party composition. Even if they gave you an "out" on working for the Shadow Theives because it is a critical part of the story line, I completely disagree that you are given an out on the other quests.

Similar arguements can be made for Jaheira's alignment of True Neutral (probably should be Neutral Good, but she's a druid so they have no choice), but I think Keldorn is even worse off than her. Come to think of it, no Lawful Good character regardless of class should be able to do these quests!

[ May 27, 2003, 21:15: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Damn, this is a great arguement! And an angle I've never really thought of before, might I add. Though I agree with you on most points, I'll argue with you on a few - since I'm assuming you wanted an arguement to begin with.

The PC can be a lawful good paladin because the character's personal nature, upbringing and alignment were established long before the truth of your lineage is brought to light. One could argue that a chaotic evil PC was so because he was more deeply in touch with his evil taint, or it caused him to gain more pleasure from evil deeds than someone who's good will and faith were more prevailant from childhood. Furthermore, you could argue that the PC became a paladin because of his own personal conviction to conquer evil, within and without. The evil taint always seemed wrong, natural or not.

Totally agree on all points here. At best, the paladin would be compelled to immediately inform the authorities (in this case, the order of the Radiant Heart) of the location of such a hideout so they may be dealt with. At worst, the paladin would "fall" and lose his specail powers. You could go just far enough to gather intel to rat them out, or even enough to learn what you needed to find Imoen and solve the mystery, but any participation in the requested acts would be breaking your vows.

I disagree here. In the eyes of a paladin, the evil undead are far more threatening than neutral theives. Though not their first pick for allies, you do have a common enemy for the time being and neither of you (for the sake of story, anyway) can take them on alone. Even in a pinch, I think a paladin would align himself with the lesser of 2 evils for the eradication of a much greater evil. After all is said and done, that's another story. Either betray an ally, even a temporary one, by turning him in to the authorities, or break your original vows by siding with criminals. Quite a dilemma, but I think in the end, a true paladin would still aid the Shadow Thieves in the destruction of the vampires, and would later turn himself in and insist on being punished for cooperating with them. By putting the greater good before himself, knowing he would do so at his own peril, is the mark of a true paladin if you ask me.

And ditto on Jaheira.

 

Definitely ditto on Jaheira .

I still tend to think that alignment determines disposition towards action, but is no guarantee of what someone would do. Perhaps Keldorn will feel that it his duty to accompany a Bhaalspawn to counter the chaos your sow, or he may be serving as an informant so the Order can keep track of you. I agree that the MaeVar quests are a stretch. He could still go along under protest, I suppose. Regarding Keldorn's wife, I think that turning both of them in would be the Lawful Neutral path. The 'good' half of Lawful Good tempers the 'lawful' half with a sense of compassion and mercy. Death Rabbit makes a good point regarding the vampires and Shadow Thieves.

Also, if people can change alignment in the game, why can't someone who's Lawful Good swing more towards neutral or evil at times?

 

@ Death Rabbit

Good argument for a paladin PC. I stand by my other points for aiding the Shadow Thieves. Theives cannot be of lawful alignment. It is true that vampires, being chaotic evil are even "more evil", but that's sugar coating the argument. There's no such thing as moderating levels of good and bad. As a paladin, there is the code of honor, and being a theif entails doing things that a paladin would not. I agree that in such a situation a paladin would feel it is his duty to fight the vampires, but he would do so without the aid of the Shadow Theives. Someone who is as respected as Keldorn would have no problem recruiting aid from the Order, and would cleanse this evil without the help of Shadow Theives.

 

A Paladin will have little qualms in assisting Chaos if it works against Evil. Paladins fight against Evil, not Chaos.

The Mae'Var/Temple Quest can be seen as borderline, though.

Premise 1: Striking against true Evil (something the Church of Talos embodies) is a Good thing.

Premise 2: If you are dedicated to striking against Evil and upholding Good, and take an unswerving path to it, and the other factors that guide your life, you are Lawful.

Conclusion: It can be Lawful Good to do the Mae'Var quest, assuming that stealing a necklace is considered "striking against Evil". So I guess that's still unacceptable, but still... I guess you're right. Great argument. Makes ya think.

 

I haven't done Keldorn's quests, but someone with a very traditional, mediaeval mindset could believe that Keldorn's wife had been tempted by evil and had succumbed to that temptation. In such a situation, turning them both over to the authorities to be punished for their sins would be the Lawful Good thing to do. Remember this is the same Keldorn who will attack Viconia rather than have her in the same party. The image of Good has changed somewhat over the years - it is now a very forgiving, tolerant image, but used to be much more wrathful. I don't agree with that image, but it would be in keeping with the setting.

 

Hey!! The Shadow thief need not be evil. They may be neutral and maybe they may turn over a new leaf later? At least Keldorn had given them a chance to proof they can help fight unnatural being which can hardly be a good being.

 

@Skywind

I'm not saying that the Shadow Theives are inherently evil, and I certainly agree that the vampires are a "greater evil" so to speak. My argument is from the viewpoint of a paladin. A paladin would know the reputation of the Shadow Theives, and would have no dealings with such an organization. I'm not saying that a paladin would think all theives evil, or think vampires were not evil, simply that part of being a paladin is maintaining a favorable reputation, and dealing with the likes of Shadow Theives is not something they would do.

 

FR is not medieval Europe. It is important to make the distinction. Good takes the form of gentleness (Aerie), righteous wrath (Paladins), and beauty and grace (Ellesime). Women are much more equal with men (in comparison with 300 years ago).

In my opinion, the Shadow Thieves straddle the line between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil.

Most of the thieves, thief leaders (with the notable exception of Mae'Var) are methodical, fairly sane, stay loyal with their guild (given the poweres of vampires, that is really another exception). I really cannot see how they are chaotic.

I will say that they are evil, or at least most of them. Let me read their description from the manual:

Assassination is evil. It is killing another person for political gain (or similar).

The Shadow Thieves would be Evil, but since most of them are not assassins and many perform nonevil acts (such as pickpocketing or smuggling), it can be clasified as somewhere betweeen Neutral and Evil.

But the vampires are still evil-er. Mainly because they embody Evil , where the Shadow Thieves just perform Evil acts.

I believe that Keldorn, Anomen(LG or LN), and probably Minsc was disagree to associating with the Shadow Thieves. But since it is really the only option in the game (I don't know the the Order would have access to Spellhold, or be willing to go to a pirate town), it has to be done, I suppose.

[ May 28, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

@Oaz

The Shadow Theives are NOT lawful neutral or lawful evil. Theives cannot be Lawful anything.

 

Unless this was added in ToB (which I don't have), Thieves can be LN and LE. They can't be LG. Interestingly enough, Fighter/Thieves may not be Lawful.

Besides, I was analyzing it outisde of the game rules.

 

Aldeth, according to PnP rules, a thief can be any alignment BUT Lawful Good.

I think a lot of people focus too much on the Lawful aspect of Paladins. In the end, they are Good first and foremost. If their actions will ultimately forward the cause of good, they will be OK.

The deal with Keldorn's wife is a perfect example of Mercy overriding Justice (assuming he goes back to her and lets Sir William live.)

 

I stand corrected. Theives just can't be lawful good. I don't think I have ever played a straight theif, but I have played fighter-theives. I know fighters didn't have any restrictions to their alignment, so I assumed that since the fighter theives couldn't be any lawful alignment, that was due to the theif part of their character class. As far as I know this is the only case where a multi-classed character has more alignment restrictions than either of the two classes taken alone.

That being said, I always viewed paladins to be the pillars of justice and rightousness. I understand that first and foremost that they will do good, but always within the bounds of the law. To me the "lawful" and "good" natures of their alignment are of equal importance. To say that the "lawful" part is significantly less important that the "good" part means that they are actually neutral good, and not lawful good. Personally, I think that neutral good is a better alignment (in terms of doing good things for others) to play than lawful good, and as such I hardly ever play a lawful good character. You have more freedom to pursue the greater good as neutral good than lawful good.

 

I disagree (and keep in mind that we are discussing this in terms of FR; for another world, it could be different; for our world, it's very different).

For one thing, Paladins don't have the ability to protect themselves from evil (a la the spell), but no one can in the game. They can't detect chaos either (a la) the spell, but no one can in the game as well. However, I assume this is the case with "real" D&D

Keldorn (or almost any other Paladin) will tolerate, even accept or enjoy the company of a Chaotic Good character (and perhaps a Chaotic Neutral one). However, he draws the line at Lawful Evil - or any other Evil. I don't know is Keldorn is compatible with Edwin (Lawful Evil), but I would say that from a role-playing perspective, he certainly wouldn't be.

In the FR universe, the discordance between Good and Evil is much, much greater than the discordance between Law and Chaos. Good churches make war on the forces of Evil, but you will not see much of wars of Law vs. Chaos.

I believe for Paladins, Law is a means to an end - in this case, the vanquishing of Evil, and the spreading of Good. This does not make them Neutral Good. They value Goodness above Law, but they still share both aspects. Thus: Lawful Good.

 

This may settle it: http://www.planetbaldursgate.com/bg2/character/alignments/

Lawful Good:
Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, Lawful Good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working farmer, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of Lawful Good people.

Lawful Neutral:
Order and organization are of paramount importance. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are examples of Lawful Neutral behavior.

@ Aldeth tFI

I believe you may be confusing Lawful Neutral with Lawful Good. As this clearly states (from the manual) that Lawful Good characters "strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm." This suggests that a lawful good character strives for the greater good above all else. Though he does believe in law and order, it clearly rides a backseat to good. So, aligning with the Shadow Thieves to destroy a vampire horde, as a means to stop a crazed mage from destroying an entire race of people would certainly be a lawful good action. Simply aligning with the Shadow Thieves breaks no code, but the nature of that alignment would, should it be for something dishonorable.

To a Lawful Neutral character, "the benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions." To them, law and order prevail over all else. Your description of a Paladin who follows the rule of law and the standard of justice above the greater good suggests a lawful neutral alignment. You seem to view Keldorn as "An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost," where I see him as "a stern but forthright minister of justice."

This is my view on the subject. Thoughts?

 

Yes, but the counter argument is, that his killing Vicconia for no other reason than being a drow and having an evil alignment. There's no need to do that, because in the game, she strives for the greater good, if the pc wants it this way. Her intentions may be different, mainly following the PC, but still, she's good for the group, the groups is striving for the greater good. No need to kill her. Killing her is not lawful good.

Chevalier brought that recently in another thread up, the problem is, Bioware made some mistakes with Keldorn. They didn't make him lawful good, his sometimes more like Vhailor (lawful neutral, iirc, but I couldn't stand him, so I've taken him only once). And Vhailor kills everything for being chaotic or evil. But his explicit stressed as being a member of a (oops I forgot what kind of group it was, something with justice and nothing else but justice)

I tend to disagree. Wheras in the IDW and BG series, only good and evil are of any importance, I wouldn't apply that generally to the FR universe. In P:Torment, chaotic versus lawful plays an important role and in the other games, the bloodwar is mentioned and plays a minor role. And the bloodwar is chaotic evil versus lawful evil. Just because chaotic can't stand lawful. The same, but no war, is with Modrons and Gyths (sp ?).

 

If a character is strongly opposed to doing that act (aligning with thieves), then it is a Chaotic act. If a character is not very opposed to doing that, then it is a Good act. If a character is dedicated to the notion that his identity is with thieves, then it is a Lawful act.

[EDIT]: And in my opinion, the BG2 descriptions of the nine alignments are not particulary accurate.

For me, that's open argument, because I'm not really familiar with FR. However, I will still maintain that in most cases, the strain between Good and Evil overrides the strain between Law and Chaos. For example, in Planescape, a celestial legion of L/N/C people were sent to destroy the Devils and Demons. The fiends put a standstill on the Blood War, and proceeded to annihilate the celestial legion. Of course, then they went back to fighting.

 

You forget that the PC makes no "vows"

He does what he can for the good of the majority. Saving Amn is certainly the greater good. So working with Thieves was required. There. Argument disabled.

 

I personally think, that in most CPRG games, the difference between lawful, neutral and chaotic just gets neglected, because one polarity (Good vs. Evil) is enough. Chaotic vs. lawful would complicate things more, if also implemented.

The bloodwar is often descriped as necessary for the balance of the FR universe. As long chaotic evil and lawful evil fight eachother, as soon as they meet, they can't ally to fight versus good. The same would actully be for lawful good and chaotic good. Because they are good, they would never start a war versus eachother. But becaue the are chaotic or lawful, they could never work together. A paladin would demand order, a ranger would say, no order, no way.

Iirc, Kedlorn asks for allowance from his commander at the radiant heart to accompagny the pc. Keldorn beliefs in order to achieve things. The group of the pc has a goal, to get to Irenicus. To achive this goal, a group is necessary, therefore Keldorn has to accept the order of the group, which involves no mutiny, no group member attacks an other group member. When he kills Viconia, he leaves the group, a mutiny, to kill her. A chaotic decision, because it involves destroying the order of the group. Minsk should do that, but he does not.

Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful:

Chaotic good:

A ranger would be very annoyed by a Paladin, who wants things to be "organized".

http://www.geocities.com/vacred_dotal/chaogood.htm

But it would make the game and creating of a game very complicated, if rangers and paladins would walk in different directions, as soon as they meet. An alliance between them could only be short.

 

You are assuming that all rangers are chaotic good. This is not the case. They can be lawful, neutral or chaotic good.

In the FR universe, the drow are considered by many to be born evil -- our real worldly notions that a person is not defined by their race is not relevant to FR -- in many cases, some races in FR and D&D as a whole are simply born bad / evil. That's why Drizzt is such an anomaly in D&D.

I should mention that what we term to be "race" here in the real world is not a technically accurate definition -- since all races may succesfully produce viable offspring with each other, they are not separate races (in my understandning of the term). Now, in Fantasy, they shoot most of those rules out the window, and the races, with a few exceptions, cannot mingle blood and produce offspring (ie -- 1/2 dwarf/halfling, 1/2 dwarf/elf, etc.) These races are separate species, and probably different genus as well -- following the Linnaean system, I would argue that many of them are from different classes or families. (Yes, I know that the Linnaean system doesn't necessarily fit fantasy settings.)

I say this all in here to argue that Keldorn, a LG paladin, would probably be crossing the line to neutrality or evil for his actions against Viconia if he were in our world, but in FR, he's probably not.

Going to his other actions, well, I still think that for Keldorn, Good ovverrides Law where the two collide, and to rescue Imoen, he'll get a little dirty and then spend some time praying after the Good has been done.

In ToB, he mentions to the PC that he wants to do his best to keep the NPC on the straight and narrow. This idea of redemption and protection fits perfectly with a Paladin, and explains his presence in the party.