Is it bad or what?

Remove all ads!

Hi Rasalgethi: Yes I did, but I was so annoyed from beeing totally helpless when running out of spells, that I immediately preferred to play a dual-classed kensai-mage: Grandmastery with staffs + beeing specialized in two-handed style. Though not beeing cleptomnaiac, he at least knows "knock", that in my eyes helps much.
This guy rocks, I still think about developing the rest of his slots for two-handed swords...
Maybe the next time I play a multiclassed mage-thief, ho knows or a cleptomaniac half-orc barbarian or perhaps again a fighter-thief (multiclassed).

 

To Sorl: The inquisition was good?
The slaughter of thousands of innocents for no reason other than some asshole's intolerance was good? Thank you, you've just reminded me why I hate Paladins.
And those 'saints' would be envying landmine victims if I could get my hands on them.

 

Shura - I think (or hope rather) that Sorl was being sarcastic. The kind of blind obedience to anyone shown in the inquisition is a little ridiculous in this day and age. You have to hope people are less susceptible to that sort of thing.

From the gaming standpoint though, as I always feel that I have to put in my two cents whenever paladin topics come up...I think being good, and blindly following the faith is not necessarily the same thing.

In BG2 that is demonstrated in one of the paladin quests...Spoiler coming:

In the second or 3rd stronghold quest, the paladin is sent to settle a land dispute in the Umar Hills. You are instructed to support the local baron against a peasant uprising. The Radiant Heart wants to gain the baron's favor and so the populace of Athkatla that the Heart wishes to be involved in politics.

After going to the Hills, the paladin finds that the peasants have a legitimate grievance and the baron is actually trying to force the farmers off of their own land. It leaves the paladin with a choice: 1) still support the baron, because that's what the Radiant heart wants, or 2) support the farmer's because they are in the right.

I chose 2. When I went back to the Heart, they were originally disappointed, but after telling them the whole story, they felt that my actions were right, under the circumstances...and that although the loss of support was a blow...Standing up for those in need was more important.

So...When you say you hate paladins, I could understand it if you meant someone that fit the mold of the holy inquisitor...But I've always tried to play them as doing what is right (whatever that happens to be at the time), and by trying to uphold the cause of my deity in the process. That and to be chivalrous in combat.

"Strength and Honor...Glory in combat!"

~Bel

 

** Some Spoilers **

The Paladin landowner quest was one of those "grey area" types. When I played that quest, I sided with the Landowner, because a) The Radiant Heart had specifically said to do so, and b)The Baron had a claim to the land, however bully-ish his tactics were.

So basically, the peasants whined, but went along, and when I got back to the Radiant Heart, I was scolded for doing as I was told, but ultimately was still considered to have succeeded.

Paladins walk a very difficult path, trying to balance their faith in the law with morality. The two often conflict, and a Paladin is sworn to uphold them both. Poor fellahs.

 

Then those sods should quit being paladins, give the finger to the Radiant Heart boss and say:' Piss off, I'm not trading my intelligence and common sense for some dumbass abilities. '
Paladins the champions of good? Nah, those are the rangers. Paladins deserve to get their turn at burning at the stake.
And more to Sorl: Even if the person during the inquisition was a witch or warlock or non-christian, burning him or her is an EVIL,I say, EVIL act. No apologies to all angered christians here. Your faith committed a grevious sin and there is no defence against that. I'm not condemming any of you though. Torquemeda, the one in charge of all the witch-hunting is an ideal Paladin.

 

Shura, Sorl was being sarcastic. Lay off, loosen up, whatever you need to do. His comment was off-the-cuff and was taken by everyone except you as a bit of sarcasm about the situation and how it relates to the kind of hypocrisy that the Paladins show in the game; you bringing people's faith or whatever will lead to nothing good. Trust me, I've been to plenty of message boards, and unless the people there go with the purpose in mind to discuss such things, it ends in a mess. Let it drop.

 

Yeah, sorry people. It may be no excuse but my new job which requires me to babysit 24 precocious brats is really getting to me. After refraining from chanting MURDER DEATH KILL during my work hours in front of the kids, I just needed a good rant. Sorry again.

 

Shura: the inquisition post was indeed meant to be sarcastic. I thought that was clear without smileys.
I meant to indicate that people with the exact same high and rigid morale standards of palladins (Rasalgethi: I still hold they were modeled after knights (especially the ones organized in orders like the Rose Cross Order or the German Order, who had a very close assocciation with church hardliners)) were willing to commit quite horrible attrocities.

Ragusa: a cleptomaniac Chivalier would be called a robber knight, was something quite realistic but probably would be somewhat too unsubtle in his ways for your taste.