Keldorn roleplaying problems

Remove all ads!

Guys, remember that like in real life, nobody is 100% consistent all the time. Alignment is a disposition towards behavior, not some hard and fast rule that's never broken. People will still have their biases, ignorance, and stereotypes that add complexity to their behavior. They also clearly have varying levels of 'tolerance,' and even characters of the same alignment may not get along. A paladin become fallen when his reputation drops below 10, IIRC. Nothing happens going from 20 to 18, for example, even though he did something 'bad.' Even paladins will screw up now and then, but only if they demonstrate a lifestyle of evil or chaos will they become fallen.

If Keldorn helps the Shadow Thieves because he sees the greater good advanced (or the lesser of two evils), then he's not gonna lose any sleep at night over it. Likewise his stereotypes of the drow set him on a collision course with Viconia. If you (as PC) commit some evil act, will he immediately turn and fight you? It depends. Like Lord Keldin Depaara said, Keldorn is watching out for you. He draws the line sometimes, but he's not gonna be your mommy.

 

Boy, this has gone a lot deeper than I thought. People are really harping on the Shadow Theives, even though I said that I could understand why that's in the game. I have yet to find someone to give me a good counter-arguement on how a paladin could complete the MaeVar quest, and that was the beef of my original argument. Anyone?

 

Well, let's see. Mae'var tels you to get the necklace from the Talossian temple. Talos is evil, and it doesn't particularly upset the order of things to transfer a symbolic item from one evil person to another. The you have to kill the Cowled wizard. Those wizards are probably evil, and having an excuse to take out an evil Magic User would be right up Keldorn's alley. No problem there. The documents? Those are stolen property. He'd be glad to get them back, even if it is for Edwin. Embarl? Like the deal with the deep gnomes in the Underdark, he agrees to the job in order to make sure it DOESN'T get done.

My 2 cents. Though I agree that it would make a lot more sense if he complained a little more, or chose that time to go see his family ("I understand you need to do this, but I simply cannot handle dealing with such evil folks. When you're done, I'll be waiting for you at my house")

 

If the paladin in question is pushing around the ranger, then it is not very paladin-y.

Law - Order

Good - reverence of life, not harming others unless necessary, etc.

So it may be a lawful act, but it is not a good one. A paladin (assuming the ranger is Good; in 3E, rangers can be of any alignment) would probably try to show the ranger a more righteous way (i.e. becoming lawful, becoming more good).

Ah, but the PC can be evil. And he can also be lawful, meaning that he might not necessarily agree to working with the Thieves. Of course, the game really only gives ya two options, but I supopose we're debating the theoretics of this.

[EDIT:] In my opinion, the BGII descriptions of alignment are simply screwed up. Why do madmen and lunatics simply pushed into Chaotic Neutral. What does the monk meditating in his temple have to do with the legal crap outside his community? Why is Chaotic Evil described as Chaotic Stupid? Ah, so many questions.

[ May 30, 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Ok, that would explain why killing unprovoked (sp ?) not ends with being kicked out of the radiant heart. And even let her burn at a stake, if he's already in the group when you first meet Viconia. But that race issue reminds me about Mazzy, they don't let her be Paladin, because she's a Halfling, those evil rules. Still, Aerie and Mazzy are more "good" then Kelorn is, in my opinion.

Hm, I was thinking about Minsk as prototype Ranger, with hamster as animal compagnion, but I stand corrected, not all Rangers are chaotic good.

 

Not that I'll contribute much to this debate as it's pretty much closed but I have to just echo Drumheller.

The entire time I'm reading this discussion I'm thinking "you guys seem to all be talking in extreme terms only." That is a huge problem with many of the conclusions here.

Paladins try to live by example. They do not, and cannot, truly expect EVERYONE to consistantly live by their ideals, even them. That is a big point. They know they can make a tough choice once in a while and they know that they should atone for it.

However, the Shadow Thieves, to my messed up thinking seem quite lawful! *ominous chord here*

Yes, think about it. They have a ridged hierarchy (sp?), they severely punish decenters and deserters, for the most part they are very loyal to the group(whereas most chaotic bands tend to flitter in and out of membership of their respective groups), and they seem to have basically honored every deal (whether a bargain, an assassination, or a fencing) to most people's knowledge.

Point number one.

and Point number two.

Vampires are undead. Not just any undead but intelligent and extremely powerful undead. The only thing more "evil" than undead are demons and devils. They have no humanity and no end to their need for pure cruelty. In my mind, and in the minds of many, nearly any alliance is worth the temporary benefits of destroying an entire cabal of Vampires.

I think the same could be said if the enemy were a fiendish group on a rampage. It is a sign of intelligence when groups that are nearly diametrically opposed to each other can find enough common ground (as distastful as that may be at the time) to fight of this most terrible of foes.

Our own world has a multitude of examples of such temporary alliances. The Allies of WW2 with Stalin against Hitler comes quickly to mind. And a real world helping of Saddam vs. the Iranians who had taken American hostages and such is another off the top of my head.

Both "alliances" lasted only as long as the immediate threat persisted and then sunk into an enemy relationship as soon as it was pushed back and no longer a perceived threat.

And on that note, remember even the Order of the Radiant Heart and Drizzt and his friends do not balk at working with the assassins of the Shadow Guild when they help you erradicate Bhodi. I even had a paladin healing that assassin during the battle!

but of course, I'm an idiot.

 

MaeVar quest is a side quest, there is no reason to do it at all if you are not compelled to do so. Role play how you see fit in this regard. I agree that completion of the MaeVar quest requires actions that are considered evil by most people. Keldorn would not consent to do them...ever. Any PC paladin that does do them isn't roleplaying very accurately either.

Note that if you go on a "holy rampage" and begin slaughtering the shadow thieves, you will break the game.

Keldorn's mutiny is a bad bit of the game. Pathetic really.

I've been somewhat puzzled by the juxtaposition of the law/chaos alignment axis over the good/evil axis. The law/chaos question is almost a totally human invention. We require laws to codify behavior because humans are not innately good. So we need laws to curtail and punish those whose actions are evil or detrimental to society as a whole.

So the law/chaos axis isn't a philosophical axis like good/evil. Perhaps in your FRP environment, some races are innately good and as a result, do not need a system of laws.

On a larger scale, don't confuse a FRP environment where the limits are established by the imagination of each person with modern western religous values where the limits are established by dogma or tenet.

 

Apologies for resurrecting an old and dead topic.

First of all, most people's understanding of the nine PnP alignment's is at least somewhat misguided, and in some cases, seriously deficient. Ditto for the BG2 explanations, for that matter. In PnP, alignment mainly served as a GUIDELINE -- in other words, there are more than nine rigidly-defined philosophies in the game world!

Even then, though, there could be problems with defining the alignments, but in my case, I played PnP with the same general pool of people through high school and college, and since we all also happened to belong to the same church body, we found it fairly easy to decide how to define and differentiate between good, evil and neutrality in the game worlds.

However, a computer game with lousy AI makes for a bad DM, so the definitions of alignments have to be a little stricter. Also, since the AI DM has to limit your choices more than a human DM, your options have to be limited. Still, a number of good points were made above that demonstrate that part of the problem is POOR PLOTTING on the part of the programmers. In fact, IMHO, sometimes I get the feeling that they just love to force you into phony moral dilemmas throughout the game.

Lawful is not the same as legalistic or anal retentive or slave-to-the-system. Chaotic is not the same as lunatic, manic, or contrarian non-conformist. Good is not the same as self-righteous or holier-than-thou or fanatical or zealous or intolerant. Evil is not the same as criminal or homicidal. Etc.

Me, I try -- and sometimes I have to try VERY HARD -- to just ignore the ethical inconsistencies, and just try to enjoy the game as best I can.

 

"Secondly, there is no way you could do the MaeVar quest. 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."

I had these same issues when I did this quest. I decided that it is an evil temple (not a good one like Lothander or Helm or Ilmater) and that justified it. It justified it because it was a means of making them weaker (assuming the amulet has magic powers). Talos is the enemy of good (because he is evil).


"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."

I did a detect evil before I killed that wizard. And the wizard was indeed evil. From a roleplaying standpoint, I thought it was cool because he was an -evil wizard in a position of authority for the "greater good"-. Yet evil folk being in entrusted positions to bring about greater good usually have alterior motives and take sinful advantage of their position, it felt alright to get him. In conversation, Anomen (LG and accepted into the Order) even said something that surprised me. He said something to the effect that "he doubts if there are any good cowled wizards", and expressed some excitement in our plan to kill him.

From a roleplaying standpoint again, I assumed there was no tangible proof to prove that Saerk was the culprit behind Anomen's sister's murder.
If anyone has done the Paladin stronghold quests, it'd be clear that the Order of the Radiant Heart will kill in the name of justice, if there is proof of evil-doing. Like the dude who was oppressing the farmers. The Order had a contract to side with him, but he turned out to be an evil oppressor.

If the Paladins were Lawful Neutral, they would have to honor the contract regardless of the oppressor's evil. But because the Paladins are LG, they can break the contract (because the Paladins were duped into thinking he was a victim instead of what he really is), and use their good sense (seems most CG in this instant, which I believe a real Paladin should be, instead of LG) to kill the punk.

"Third subquest? Recover documents. This requires you to either steal, bribe or kill, none of which are the actions of a Lawful good person."

From a roleplaying sense, I didn't have a problem with this at all. You either give me the document, or we'll take it from you. It's not as if the holder had good intentions with it, whereas me and my party do.

Roleplaying: I actually started this quest after I did the major ones! I honestly did not want anything to do with the Shadow Thieves. (I was also naive about the game, as I didn't read spoilers and it was my first time in the game. I just bought the game in August)

What prompted me to start the quest was one day when I was coming back to W-Promenade, and I saw a theif begging for help, and then 3 vampires coming to kill him. The next morning, I started the Maevar quest, because there is no way I will side with vampires, and I want an extra reason to destroy them.


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."


I enjoyed my fight with Maevar. He was not just a traitor, he was a local terrorist, a torturer, prisoner keeper, and someone who enjoyed sparking fear in the locals. He had to go sooner or later, but he was definately gonna be dispensed by my blade.

"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."

I was smart! I did what my mamma taught me! Never ever do something for someone who wants you to say yes before giving you the details of what is required. I didn't fall for his ploy. Tolagerias is a mastermind murderer, and he got his from me in the Planar Sphere with his intended victim by my side (ahh...sweet SoA memories!)

Had I fallen into his trap, I would have sided with NG Valygar and killed Tolagrias instead.

I'm not really into the LG aspect of a Paladin, as the stronghold quest of the oppressor vs. the farmers illustrates why I believe Paladin's ought to be any Good alignment. At least the option of either LG or CG.

I guess LG is just representative of the doing good things for the good of society (and I guess society needs laws, so LG).

The reasons why Paladins facinated me while I was growing up, was the fact of a Warrior fighting in the name of God, as opposed to a warrior just fighting. I didn't pay attention to the LG aspect, just the general Good aspect, because God is good.

And I totally disagree with Keldorn as an NPC for my party. I refuse to take him into my party for more than 2(game)hours, as I send him to make peace with his wife, retire from adventuring, and make up for all that lost time with his wife and kids for the rest of his life. I don't see the virtue in a "Paladin", who strives to be a "Good" example, yet is such a poor example as a husband and father.

Which is why its so cool you can romance Aarie, Jaheira and Viccy. They are all great NPC's, suited for any type of adventure, so thus, there will be no conflict in staying home vs. adventuring, as your mate is with you 24-7!

 

Has anybody read 'Deathworld 2' by Harry Harrison? In this book, Jason DinAlt's nemesis is a member of a religious organization who is quite unable to distinguish between what is correct according to his principles and what is actually right. Paladins do not have to be played like this. They are thinking, rational people who are distinguished by vows to protect the innocent and promote justice. If a promise is made under false pretences (such as to Tolgerias) they are not even honour bound to keep it, let alone legally bound.

As a paladin, imagine yourself as an agent of justice and goodness. An agent who is unable sometimes to dissemble would not be very useful as they would be unable to see beyond the trivial wrongness of one action (say, telling a lie) to the greater overall good (eliminating an evil crime boss, for example).

Despite all this, the Mae'var quest should probably be off limits to paladins, not to mention priests of Lathander and Helm and, probably, rangers as well. However, there are some considerations:

• Yoshimo gives you an out. If you work with Renal Bloodscalp you help out one of your companions.
• It is fairly obvious that following the quest will lead to the elimination of an evil crime boss. This alone might be reason enough to pursue it to its conclusion.
• I can't see too much of a problem in robbing the temple of Talos. Its presence in the city is an abomination which is tolerated for unfathomable political reasons.

People, don't sweat too much about taking Keldorn from wife and family. Total time in the game is around 70 days. After this Keldorn returns to his family anyway, until called one last time many years hence. You only take up eight or nine weeks of his life. Eliminating a vampire nest, the threat of Irenicus and the abominable machinations of Melissan are much better uses of his time.

Working with the Shadow Thieves? No problem at all. They're the only organization who will help you find Imoen without seeking your ultimate downfall. They're straight and honourable in their dealings with you. They are a far lesser evil than Bodhi and her vampire nest. You might argue that the designers should have given you an alternative route to Spellhold. They didn't so you'll just have to get your pure hands a little bit dirty. Ultimately, no-one will condemn you for it.

When trying to make roleplaying decisions for a paladin, just keep this is in mind: a paladin doesn't have to be a prig.

 

@ Buck - I see I suckered you into resurrecting an old topic

The whole problem I have with the Lawful alignment can be summed up very simply, and it is best illustrated by using the Paladin as an example.

Paladins are sworn to protecting the ideals of righteousness and justice. The problem with doing this is that they in fact end up taking the law into their own hands. This isn't lawful; it actually borders on vigilantism and anarchism. So to me, they seem to be more NG rather than LG. If they were LG, they would turn wrong-doers over to the proper authorities rather than killing them. Of course, it doesn’t help that the game doesn’t allow you to turn wrong-doers over to the proper authorities (and if it did, it would probably make for a pretty boring, or at least different, game), but IMO the point is still valid.

One of the other problems with being lawful is that, IMO, it precludes you from opening locked doors and chests. These have presumably been locked by someone else for a reason, and to open them (either by picking the lock or bashing them open) amounts to an illegal activity. It may be done with good intentions (much like police searching a home without a valid search warrant where they truly believe that some criminal activity has taken place), but it’s still illegal. Again, at best NG, not LG.

[ November 08, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

A Lawful alignment is not always a legal alignment. A Lawful character (especially a Lwaful Good one) will strictly adhere to a moral code, principles, personal regime, or some such, or be focused and dedicated to a particular cause or motive. This may be either methodical or determined unswervering zeal, or simply mindful dedication. This may be on a matter of law, it may be the crusade against evil, it may be ethics, it may be personal training, it may be a diabolical plan for world domination and the total humiliation and destruction of your enemies, it may be the fanatical structure of an Obsessive Compulsive personality- But it could be ANY of these things, that's the point. For Example; Monks must be Lawful -due to their strict and focused dedication to their path- but this would have little to do with matters of Law, which most monks would observe as childish games whether they decide to follow them or not (depending on their own motives and principles, and on their other axis of alignment).

So if we can come up with the other definitions of Lawful, without being swaped by the legal, we can gain better understanding. A Paladin is lawfully devoted to his cause (Edit: Usually being Justice, this often coincides with upholding the law, as someone who has broken a law they know, knowing the consequences, must be willing to pay the price for their actions), not the Law. His own Honour is the only reason he would feel obligated to follow the law, and would gladly over-throw a corrupt government, assuming his own conditions were met. These conditions may be steep however, and he would rarely challenge his own leaders, or break away from an obligation, if he thought justice could still be served. He would pay the price for breaking such conduct willingly, even if he would do the same thing over again, as it is accepting the consequences of his agreement, despite his opinion on it, that make him Lawful.

Edit: This is sounding a lot like Chatoic Good, and often these both overlap. A Chaotic Good character devotes themselves more to their understanding of good than any strict focus, and will often change their perceptions or actions accordingly- and will challenge any code that interferes with this, such as an obligation to a particular order- with little thought to prior events or future situations, save those they feel are important when upholding the greater good- but are equally as passionate as their Lawful counterparts, sometimes even more so. A pure Chaotic Good character would do exactly as their principles told them in every case, no matter what the cost, as it is the right thing to do, and an obligation is meaningless if it no longer works twards their cause. To me their is little perceptible difference between the two in their pure forms. It is when the Good axis slips to neutrality that they begin to seperate, either following pure whim, or focusing on a pre-selected doctrine (like a particular set of laws, whether right or wrong) to the exclusion of all else.

[ November 09, 2003, 03:48: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

I think people just generally confuse Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral.

With the help of the BG2:SoA book, I simply define them as these:

Lawful Neutral: desire is to only uphold the law of the city. Like an Amnish Guard. This is the law, and they must and will follow it.

Lawful Good: desire is to only uphold the law of his/her (good) God---regardless of the law of the city, so long as it brings about the greater good for the populace.

The desire for the populace is what would make them Lawful Good. As "Laws" are designed for the "good" of the general populace. Whereas NG or CG would just be for the PC/NPC's own personal convictions, LG is for their own convictions, as well as for society's.

 

Aye, and I trust Keldorn and his wisdom enough to know that the Bhaalspawn will be playing an immense role in the coming time.
Let's say Keldorn saw the NPC as a good person, then realizes he/she is a Bhaalspawn, and after having judged him realizes (with the prophecy of Alaundo and all) that since the Bhaalspawn WILL one way or another affect the fate of the Sword Coast and the people, he might as well strive to help the PC Bhaalspawn since he/she is also striving for the greater good. A better choice than just go around killing all Bhaalspawn knowing the prophecy will come true anyway and leaving the fate of the Coast to the Winds, hoping the winner Bhaalspawn is good rather than evil.
The end is predestined, remember.
Anways, a person who would go and kill all Bhaalspawn would either be a LG with very low wisdom, or an LN.
The logic on Keldorn helping a neutral or evil character is beyond me, though.

 

One of the most interesting threads I've read in almost 2 and a half years of coming on here. There is an oversight that nobody seems to makes here however:

The Order of the Radient Heart are not above 'turning the other cheek' for the sake of their ultimate advancement. Let me elucidate - when the Order sends the PC on the Paladin Stronghold quest the first mission is to liase with a quite baltently obnoxious, at least neutral or even neutral evil, landowner. You come back and report that he's been a bit of a tyrant and Sir Gyric sighs and tells you that sometimes they have to overlook certain things for political influence. This suggests that a Paladin is not above doing morally questionable acts for ultimately 'good' means. Quite frankly I found that the Order were quite a ruthless, unforgiving organisation but there we go.

There are funny moments when you take Keldorn along with you however. Such as when he tells a thief that in normal circumstances he'd arrest him. The developers certainly seem aware of the role-playing difficulties.

Another thing to consider is Anomen: his alignment starts out Lawful Neutral and becomes Lawful Good - this suggests that there can't be much in it. He becomes no less arrogant after knighthood than he was before - if anything he becomes WORSE. This is an indication of the fact that 9 alignments are general catch-all terms which require less rigidity than has been hitherto suggested. If Anomen's alignment changes for not killing his sister's murderer - and the PC's does for killing that genie in Hell (for the Black Razor) - then does that mean that alingment is dependant upon one's actions rather than one's nature? Is Anomen's mercy the only thing that makes him Lawful Good in the end? What makes Edwin Lawful Evil? Is it just is nature or the fact that he's killed Minsc's witch? There is alot of moral ambiguity here - the Order are not above dealing with tyrants but they remain good, Gorian is not above hiding certain things (lying) to the PC but he reamins Lawful Good (I imagine or is he a harper?), Anomen always has the wrong answer in most situations where he buts in but he remains LG - so I think it's alot more malleable than the orignal poster gives it credit for.

Paladins are not above following questionable means for admirable ends - it is the outcome rather than the method of acquisition that becomes important. Though, as I have pointed out, this is not consistent because sometimes indivudial acts are seen as evil even their goals seem justified.

 

"The end is predestined, remember."

Only as predestined as the programmers made it!

And even that hase proven somewhat malleable by various mod-makers!

 

As far as I could see there was no problem with Keldorn doing any of these quests. Look at the Drow City problem. Keldorn must do the bidding of 'Drow'. He does so because he understands the only way to damn well survive the situation is to play their little game. His intentions must be looked at rather than his actions in most of these cases.

Findling Valygar is 'not' an unlawful act, its not an evil act either. In fact it is 'very' lawful and possibly good (he is afterall a murderer [according to the party at the time]).

Working with the thieves is although distasteful a matter of honor. Keldorn is being assisted by the thieves' guild who although are possibly the last person a paladin would want to associate with, he must for the 'greater good'. Another way to justifiy it is to view it as Keldorn using the thieves for his own gain, an evil act, however if an evil act is done to an evil organisation doesn't that make it a good act? (Think double negatives) If it does not make it a good act how can The Order justifiy killing anything evil? Most of the time The Order knows its adversary and seeks its destruction, thus when they kill it they murder it (killing with intent and with a plan to do so), murder is an evil act, thus whenever a paladin murders an evil creature, be it a necromancer or a child-slaughtering ogre he will 'fall'.

The Order will fight evil and continue to fight evil for as long as they are able. Often The Order will fight the most obvious evil or the greatest evil, in this case it happens to be a cabal of vampires located in the graveyard district.

Can't fight an enemy in certain ways? Lying and stealing are illegal acts and thus are chaotic. Well, if The Order was not able to fight in such ways I doubt they would last long in any major conflict. Would The Order not try to steal battle-plans or relay false information to the enemy because it was unlawful? If that was the case The Order wouldn't last a day if they became so predictable. These fanatical beliefs would be the cause of their fall, an enemy would be able to manipulate them till they exiled all their members.

 

One could even argue that 'not' finding him or not bringing him in to the Cowled Wizards to face punishment is a chaotic act.

 

@ Neeraj

When I said "traitor" I wasn't referring to Mae'var - killing him is certainly appropriate. I'm referring to the traitor Mae'Var asks you to kill - I think his name is Embarl.

@ IotW

Edwin didn't kill Minsc's witch - ever.

You may argue that it isn't evil to find Valygar - it certainly isn't. But upon finding him, it becomes clear that you didn't hear the whole story. I argue that it is still evil to kill him because now that you realize he's not as bad as the Cowled Wizards claimed, you realize that it is in fact the Cowled Wizards who are evil. So it isn't Chaotic in the least to let him live once you find him.

Many people are reducing this to strictly a matter of alignment. Yes, alignment was a major part of my initial post, but I was basing my assessment of Keldorn not just on his alignment, but his personality. He gets so uppity over seemingly small details, that he forgets the major ones. I still say there's no way he would do the bidding of thieves. The Underdark? Yes - he needs to do so in order to survive. At the very least, I think Keldorn would wait until the 15,000 gp were raised and realised that it was the Shadow Thieves that were going to help you get to Imoen before aiding them. However, to just walk in the guild and accept a mission - not very likely.

 

Aldeth, the IotW has a name, if you can, adress him with that. I think it is... err... something with letters at least.