Should CRPG Paladins be completely exempt from falling?

^ Well, how about checking the poll results?

 

It has nothing to do with the moral convictions of the developer. It's the moral convictions of a Lawful Good alignment. Now, yes, there is some variance into just what those are from person to person, which is why Paladins don't always even get along with each other. However, being confined to what the devs wrote as being fall-worthy for a Paladin in ToEE is no different than dealing with the DM's decisions in a PnP game, 'cept maybe you can bribe or wear down the DM until they give in, which isn't very Paladin-ish.

Now, I do think the "insta-fall" idea is a little extreme, but that would also depend on the Paladin's code. By default in v3.5 D&D, a Paladin falls if her alignment shifts away from Lawful Good. This would allow for some evil acts to be perpetrated as long as they're not too evil and are balanced out by enough good to keep the Paladin Lawful Good.

On the other hand, Paladin can also be run with a very detailed code (such as the Chivalric code that Paladin is initially based off of) and if they violate any part of that code, whether it would change their alignment or not, they fall. This, actually, makes much more sense, and is how Paladin is being run in ToEE. This would, in fact, allow for any alignment of Paladin so long as that alignment was able to still abide completely by the code of the Paladin.

Now, I do think that the first method is an easier way to manage it in a video game (look at Paladin and the alignment system in NWN2, for example), but if you take out the ability to fall, you take out a key feature of Paladin.

Also, I find it odd you say Paladins are so weak. They're not pure damage like a Barbarian or Fighter, certainly, but they have other strengths that make them just as powerful overall, if not more so. A Paladin won't go running away in fear. Barbarians and Fighters likely will. A Paladin is far less likely to fail on all their saves than a Fighter or Barbarian. A Paladin can provide supplemental healing, Fighter and Barbarian can't. A Paladin can self-buff. Fighter can't. A Paladin can Turn Undead, a Fighter and Barbarian can't (though, admittedly, there's not much use for a Paladin turning undead when you have a Cleric of Pelor). There's also Smite Evil, which at higher levels can be a nice boost to damage, not to mention the boost to your To Hit. And a Paladin never has to take a penalty to their AC to have any of their buffs active, and is able to wear Full Plate, unlike the Barbarian, without it having to be the even more expensive Mithril Full Plate.

 

Define "Lawful", define "Good". Define them in such a way that there would be no argument about their interpretation.

 

Well, since ToEE is a D&D-based game, the definition from the SRD should suffice, no?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Anything beyond the above definition is personal preference, and not RAW. If Troika (aka, the game's "DM," chose to interpret it to mean Paladins fall due to the drinking contest, then that's how it's interpreted for this game in this situation.

 

1. the paladin doesn't need to participate, he needs only be in a "party" with someone who participates.

2. this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the drinking contest issue. It is about paladins in general, in ALL games that have a moral alignment system. Should they or should they not be penalized in game (by losing powers) due to preprogrammed scripted "moral choices" in CRPGs.
And troika is not a DM, troika PROGRAMMED a bunch of scripts to act as pseudo DM. Those scripts could have bugs and more importantly, cannot account for all possibilities.
Oh, and even though its the DM's prerogative, that doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and bad choice that should be criticized.

3. the definition is extremely vague. (WOTC alignment stuff is notoriously vague and contradictory)
(besides which, this is not a definition of LAW and GOOD, but of LAWFUL GOOD... I cannot just take the LAWFUL GOOD and apply its LAWFUL part to LAWFUL EVIL)

ex:

Vague and meaningless statement.

It states:
A. LG is committed to fighting evil
B. LG is disciplined
C. LG is relentless

questions: what is evil? how does a good person fight it? in what manner is an LG character disciplined? if they are "relentless", how far will they go? Does committed and relentless mean the end justifies the means?

So, is lying an evil act, or a chaotic act? what about lying for a good cause? is it evil to lie to the nazi officer when he ask if you are hiding jews in the house?
Helping those in need... vague. are we talking welfare here?
Speak out against injustice... what is injustice?

now we are talking about feelings? the guilty of what? what kind of punishments are we talking about here?
Does this mean that LG believe in eye for an eye? should child molesters be tortured to death to satisfy an LG character thirst for punishment of the guilty? or if we are doing eye for an eye, institutionalized rape of rapists...

 

Discussion on this topic or not, we're still forgetting that this is a CRPG derived from a PnP RPG.

All scenarios cannot and could not be accounted for. Nor, in this case, should they be.

Regardless of semantics, the Troika is the DM. It's rules stand as is and the modders aren't going to mess with it too much, especially if it already conforms to RAW (as much as it's possible).

Noe let's take this just a little further. If the modders completely re-scripted the Paladin to reflect, say, what Taltamir believes they should be (not to start an argument, just to help illustrate the point), can you imagine the reaction of the other players who feel Paladins are just fine for this particular RPG?

The modders have to maintain a balance somehow. Sacrifices are made and as long as the majority is happy, that's the best they can hope for.

In fact, I'm not even sure Co8 has the proper hacks to even attempt such a feat.

 

IIRC, all it takes is editing a few dialogue lines.

While we're at arguing this stuff, let me throw this out there - should a Lawful Good party not be able to complete the Brothel quests because they refuse to take on Ophelia's "services"?

But anyway, I don't think there's a point in arguing semantics and getting into philosophical discussions on good and evil - because it's frankly not really the point in a cRPG game. D&D "good" and "evil" are labels that have little to do with the philosophical good and evil, and just need to conform to the setting. IMO, as long as the interpretation is consistent there should be no issue - meaning there's no reason to change the original approach.

 

...Because that's how the DM (in this case Troika,) chose to interpret it. If you can find a RAW precedent that clearly states Troika was in error, you may have some leverage. But you seem to only have your opinions on what is "right" or "wrong" with the way Troika did things.

The drinking contest is one of the scenarios in which a paladin may fall in this game. Seems like that makes it relevant to me. If you're not talking about this game, bring it up on the General Discussion Forum, not the TOEE forum.

Same difference when discussing a CRPG.

You've never shown any reluctance to criticize anything that doesn't fit your definition of how things should be. My solution: fix anything you'd like to conform to your vision, and submit it to Co8. It'll probably end up right next to Orion's mod in the "other" downloads.

The definitions of the alignments have always been vague, starting from the beginning, so don't blame that on WotC. Maybe, just maybe, Gygax did that on purpose so as to allow individual DMs to define the specifics as they felt it applied to their particular campaigns, players, etc. Again, as the DM of this game, it is Troika's perogative to define the actions of a paladin in their game as inappropriate and thus possibly deserving of a fall.

 

As much as I really want to stir the pot and get into a really involved discussion on the semantics of religion, I must respect ST's wishes and just say that I don't think players should be given a warning that their paladin has a significant chance of failing his deity's basic precepts. They should already know right from wrong if they chose to play a paladin. Hell, they should already know if they've passed the 1st and 2nd grades!

Unless they're a paladin from the time of the spanish inquisition. Or the crusades. Or any other war in man's history fought because of religion.

Oops, I meant no, players shouldn't be given any warning at all. :twisted:

*edit*
Hmmm...I also don't think a paladin should be excommunicated because he's running with a bad crowd. That's where he should be and his morals and ethics would be best served. He would be trying to get them to see the light. If he was travelling with a bunch of lawful good people, he or she would have no one to preach to, thus wasting his time while he could be out converting the masses, by sword if need be.

Oops, I did it again. :blush: