NWN2: a diplomatic character?

[JrK]

Besides, for a less 'paragon' y paladin take a look at one of the npc's from Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. Paladins can get drunk, be general pains in the ass and behave like barbarians apparently. AGAIN, prejudices. Get your heads out of your PHB's.

 

[Blacklung]

Guess I have a different view of roleplaying when it comes to D&D, at least for the video games. I build my character stats around whatever will work best for the class I'll be playing so I don't have to worry about the battles annihilating me because the programmers forgot that people do like to roleplay all the way through. After that is taken care of, I play the character according to how I see their personality (Not to the extreme of course. I don't play the super idiot mage or the rogue on tons of steroids).

After all, AD&D doesn't take into account a sarcastic vs. light humor vs. hot blooded vs. pessimist vs. any other real personality trait. The statistics seem more geared toward combat or avoiding combat (probably due to the combat origins of the PnP game) than actual roleplaying persona (unless you count the shoe-ins like bully or ladies man).

Plus, I suppose I preferred Black Isle's strategic take on D&D with the 6 person party, overhead view, fog of war, and actual battle planning.

 

[denizsi]

That is why they would not lie, because its against their aligment.

But what exactly is an alignment? Is it the ultimate definition of personality? If so, still absurd, even if it's there just to balance the strength with moral choices.

Probably an absurd example:

A group of 'teh evil' guys in a tavern, spot a lonesome paladin entering the place. The paladin seems to have a fine stash of gold on his body but also seems weak or tired. He seats himself.

Teh evil guys want the gold of course and think he's an easy prey. They approach the paladin and 'nicely' talk to him, asking him to turn the gold in. Paladin knows he doesn't have a chance against the group and he better shouldn't try either, because he is to carry an unwritten message to someone important somewhere, which will save some poor old people somewhere or bring peace to the half of the whole realms. If he can't, some of those people will become angry and naughty and will start raping and killing men and women everywhere they can.

However, he can't turn the money in either because that money will save and bring happiness and harmony to the other half of the realms, without which some of those people will also start raping and killing men and women, and he doesn't have the strength to pursue the evil guys once he turns in the money.

At that point, the paladin spots a good-looking, well suited stranger entering the tavern, carrying a stash of swords.

He knows he has a fairly high chance of persuading the evil guys to back off by saying something like that:

"You see that man over there, carrying swords? He is our squire. If you don't get lost in a second, he will see that there is trouble, and he will go out to call my companions who wait outside while I'm taking a moment of breath, also who not only will tear your sinful flesh all over the place, but also take away all your belongings and donate them to the locals in need."

Only that, he can't. He just can't, because he's just a damn LG, and if he does, he will have been a bad boy in the eyes of his deity, or his alignment (which is starting to sound like The Force and the dark side) will just move towards the other side.

Is that a correct example?

 

[Baphomet]

Alignment is mostly a matter of personal judgement. For example, half of the country thinks George W. Bush is Lawful Good where the other half think he's Chaotic Stupid.

 

[Drakron]

But what exactly is an alignment? Is it the ultimate definition of personality? If so, still absurd, even if it's there just to balance the strength with moral choices.

Aligment is were a person stands on the good/evil and law/chaos axis.

Usually its not a issue, unless they are a divine spellcaster class since gods are not going to grant powers to someone that is much away from their mold, there is usually a bit of a space so they be a bit removed from their deity own aligment.

Probably an absurd example:

...

Is that a correct example?

Sort off (paladins would be wearing heavy armor, thugs would avoid someone that is likely have combat experiance and ability) the point is a paladin simply have some mighty big shoes to fit, if he cannot fill those shoes he would better off being a fighter.

Also lets check what the paladin class skills are ...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

Diplomacy.

Not Bluff or Intimidate so why was a Paladin trying a bluff (its not intimidate) when he with a class skill and likely a with high charisma is more likely to achive.

Even if its a dumb move from the part of the player you have to remenber a paladin CAN and WILL fight with a decent change of comming out as a winner.

Its also not 2nd ed. AD&D with us using "The Complete Paladin Handbook", a Paladin can try to get away from combat using Diplomacy skill but in the end the Paladin must be willing to die for his moral code, downright lying is something he can get away very occasionaly depening on the circustances, in this case I see no reason why he wants to try such a bluff and even if I would not deck him with a lost of abilities (only willing commit a evil act grants that) but I would keep a eye on the player since it seems he wants to play a NG fighter.

In the end if you DONT want to play as a Paladin in D&D then dont play as one, dont pick the class and then act as if the paladin special abilities dont come with a cost, there is a code of conduct.

If you think that is bad, try the Samurai class that have to follow the Bushido code ... they get even worst.

 

[denizsi]

in this case I see no reason why he wants to try such a bluff

I can't see why. I mean, the way you put it, paladins should be T-800s with a moral code (well, actually I need not add the moral code part, as Arnie portrayed some "preprogrammed moral codes even though it was exclusive to him"). Is it all that hard or out of place to think that of a paladin at the limit of his power, recuded to a fragile flesh sometimes?

Diplomacy.

Not Bluff or Intimidate so why was a Paladin trying a bluff (its not intimidate) when he with a class skill and likely a with high charisma is more likely to achive.

Because diplomacy is irrelevant in my example? So a paladin can never pick up Bluff? And who says the skill sets in ADnD are perfect?

In the end if you DONT want to play as a Paladin in D&D then dont play as one

That sounded like the regular ESF apologists' defenses of Beth and OB. No offense, just that it looked funny for a moment.

dont pick the class and then act as if the paladin special abilities dont come with a cost, there is a code of conduct.

I don't oppose following a moral code which limits choices, and consequences of violating that code. I'm just looking for some logic and reason in the application of those codes and what maintains or supervizes the character's execution of them. If the paladin will 'fall from grace' in the above example, then it's simply retarded in my book.

Likewise, willing to die for a moral code without logic and reason would just as well be retarded. For instance, if the message Paladin carries is of upmost importance and a lot more important than his life or lives of a few others or his moral code, for which he can't afford to die and cause the message to be lost, his upmost morall duty should be to survive until he gives the message, which means he may sometimes be forced to turn a blind eye to some situations if he's certain that the thing is beyond his powers.

I'm not against such a choice not affecting the paladin at all. Since he's a good character, the desperation of not being able to help might tear him apart inside and it may and probably should reflect that on his stats in some ways, but I'm having a hard time thinking that it would also affect his paladinhood, his bonds with his deity and his powers in turn negatively.

If someone came out and said that paladinhood is mostly about the self-image of the paladin and his mental stature, I'd call that either a different state of dementia or an overly sensitive nature and be ok with it.

All that said, I didn't miss the parts where you said "downright lying is something he can get away very occasionaly depening on the circustances" and "even if I would not deck him with a lost of abilities (only willing commit a evil act grants that) but" as far as you are concerned.

See, I'm looking for logic, reasoning and consistence, not to do away with limitations and consequences.

Thanks for explanations by the way.

 

[aboyd]

I'm having the same problem I have with all DnD games. I want a character that's the best he can be at dialogue - talking, intelligent dialogue options, persuasive, etc (though intimidate is unnecessary). With a game like NWN2, I'm never sure what skills that translates into. Do I simply raise the Diplomacy skill to its highest? Or do I need high intelligence, wisom and charisma? It pretty much rules out any melee class as well. Anyone know how the game operates in this regard, and recommendations for classes/setups etc to get the most out of the game's dialogue?

Try creating a planetouched character, Aasimar (sp?). They get +2 to int or wis, and +2 to cha. They level slower, though. But I've created a planetouched cleric, and it has been very good, because with the extra +4 total to stats, I've been able to create a character which is excellent for int/wis/cha, and actually pretty decent at str/dex/con too. Then I also took the "ladies man" background, which gave further dialogue bonuses.

The game does use wisdom checks at least a few times in dialogue before you get to Neverwinter. I'm not sure if I've seen any pure int/cha checks, but since they influence your diplomacy/bluff, they're still important. I think having int at +2 bonus is important, because it doubles your amount of skills, yet it doesn't cost a lot to raise int up to that level. And cha is important because your bonus gets added into your diplomacy rolls. If you select a cleric, cha becomes important again, because it influences how many undead you can turn.

Lastly, remember that getting any stat to 18 requires giving up a lot of points. I think it costs 3 points to go 16 -> 17, and another 3 to go 17 -> 18. That's 6 points. It's much better to cap 'em at 16, spreading around the wealth, and then use the free stat point that you get at levels 4 & 8 (I think?) to boost your main stat to 18.

 

[Drakron]

I can't see why. I mean, the way you put it, paladins should be T-800s with a moral code (well, actually I need not add the moral code part, as Arnie portrayed some "preprogrammed moral codes even though it was exclusive to him"). Is it all that hard or out of place to think that of a paladin at the limit of his power, recuded to a fragile flesh sometimes?

*Sigh*

The Paladin is a pretty much a fighter that trades the extra feats for special abilities, your example simply does not work for the simple reason that in PnP its not the players vs DMs ... the players know every encounter either gives then a chance to win by any avaible means or its a impossible to win encounter and likely that they will survive in some way.

You example would never happen in a PnP session outside as a setup for the players, it also never happen in cRPG outside of setup.

In the end, its a game ... players know that.

Because diplomacy is irrelevant in my example? So a paladin can never pick up Bluff? And who says the skill sets in ADnD are perfect?

Bluff is not a class skill for paladins and paladins have several class skills to spread their points, bluff by essence means lying will at some point being brought up and so its unlikely any paladin is going to pick a cross class skill that means he can get kicked out of the class by use.

Diplomacy would be a better choice because its part of a paladin class, he also would
have a higher chance of success because its a class skill.

And please ... its a bluff and not diplomacy he is trying, its not about being "perfect" but trying something that falls under the skill description and what he tried was a bluff.

That sounded like the regular ESF apologists' defenses of Beth and OB. No offense, just that it looked funny for a moment.

I been around WotC forums for a time, I grown a little sick of people trying to remove the LG requirement out of it.

A paladin is a paladin, if you want to play a paladin without the class restrictions there are multiclass options and even PtC that fits the idea of a paladin and neither require the same as the paladin class.

I don't oppose following a moral code which limits choices, and consequences of violating that code. I'm just looking for some logic and reason in the application of those codes and what maintains or supervizes the character's execution of them. If the paladin will 'fall from grace' in the above example, then it's simply retarded in my book.

Oh?

Let me get this ... you have no problem with Monks having to be of lawful aligment but you have with paladins?

Its simple, in D&D the good/evil and law/chaos forces are a reality, paladins recive their powers because they are the epitome of LG ... gods dont even grant then such abilities, they come from such a strict closure to the forces of law and good.

It happens to monks too that cannot be unlawful.

Now as who does? well the DM does ... the example would not be a "fall-from-grace" except it was the staw that broken the cammel back (in short, he was acting in such way for a long time).

Likewise, willing to die for a moral code without logic and reason would just as well be retarded. For instance, if the message Paladin carries is of upmost importance and a lot more important than his life or lives of a few others or his moral code, for which he can't afford to die and cause the message to be lost, his upmost morall duty should be to survive until he gives the message, which means he may sometimes be forced to turn a blind eye to some situations if he's certain that the thing is beyond his powers.

Paladins make shitty messagers ... rangers and rogues makes good ones (expecialy rogues).

You know, I usually seem that "messager" being used to advocate the Paladins not having to be LG but it just shows how people simply dont get it ...

They make poor ones because they are geared for combat, leading and diplomacy ... nobody in their right mind would call Sir Lance-a-lot and give him the important message that will save the realms without backup, solo messagers needs to be fast and able to avoid enemies, paladins simply stick up too much.

I'm not against such a choice not affecting the paladin at all. Since he's a good character, the desperation of not being able to help might tear him apart inside and it may and probably should reflect that on his stats in some ways, but I'm having a hard time thinking that it would also affect his paladinhood, his bonds with his deity and his powers in turn negatively.

1) Lying once in a blue moon is not enough to lose his class abilities.
2) They are NOT CLERICS OR DRUIDS, his deity have nothing to do with it (in fact in FR you can be a paladin, fall and became a blackguard and still have the same deity as long its Helm that is LN ... as long he is LE).
3) If the player is unable to be LG then he sould never been a paladin to start with.

If someone came out and said that paladinhood is mostly about the self-image of the paladin and his mental stature, I'd call that either a different state of dementia or an overly sensitive nature and be ok with it.

But no problems with monks?

All that said, I didn't miss the parts where you said "downright lying is something he can get away very occasionaly depening on the circustances" and "even if I would not deck him with a lost of abilities (only willing commit a evil act grants that) but" as far as you are concerned.

Code of Conduct:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

It what it says and even of the whole "act with honor" is kinda off in that example and the punish is certainly is ... its still not something a DM will act upon unless is how the player is doing most of the time.

Paladins are lawful, it means unless they have a VERY good reason they will not lie but that does not mean they can, there is a law/chaos axis that is part of how a paladin recives his abilities and must be respected.

Likewise they dont get to "fall-from-grace" because they unwilling commited a evil act.

See, I'm looking for logic, reasoning and consistence, not to do away with limitations and consequences.

Thanks for explanations by the way.

Paladins are like monks, they get their abilities from Law but also from good, the moment they step away from law and good they lose then.

What you are missing is the good/evil and law/chaos that are as real forces as gravity, the multiuniverse is what makes paladins smite evil and all that and how monks stop aging (well still die from old age).

 

[RGE]

A good reason for paladins and monks to not lie, cheat and steal that is not based on alignment is the reputation of all paladins and monks, or at the very least the reputation of their orders and/or deities. As long as the word of a paladin, any paladin, is seen as trustworthy it can only help the diplomacy conducted by all paladins. If it became known that paladins lie when it's convenient or when they feel that it's necessary, people would of course trust paladins a lot less. Though I suppose that this mostly matters when a paladin is talking to badguys, and I guess a paladin really ought to pummel the badguys instead of talking to them. But perhaps it's more common that a paladin has to talk neutral people into not doing evil acts which they might not even consider evil? Well, not in RPGs, but in the day to day life of most paladins. Convincing strangers of doing the 'right thing' must be a lot easier if they know that the paladin can be trusted.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Reminds me of some cartoon I've watched when I was 11. Some pirates take this 'good' captain and his staff hostage and force them to tell the location of some treasure. Apparently, the captain can not lie due to some moral issues, so he tells them where the "treasure chest" is and by the time things have been resolved, he cockily goes around about how smart he was about misleading the pirates without lying. Just retarded.

Ugh. I've seen tons of those types of "twists". Always retarded shit that has nothing to do with reality, just the writers think they're some kind of clever but reveal themselves to be the jackasses they are.

 

[Zomg]

I'm on my umpteenth Darklands kick and I like how there is a strict supernatural morality there that isn't really something the player is supposed to agree with. The Church is Good, bar none - any traveling inquisitor has genuine divine right to extort you, on pain of virtue loss. You have no responsibility to keep deals with enemies whatsoever, and pacifism is totally alien - you can break a deal and skewer a dwarf king in a stereotypically evil way, but it doesn't touch virtue because nonhumans are always diabolical or just outside of the game's moral system.

I find it interesting when alignment is an alement of a setting in that way.

 

[denizsi]

*Sigh*

You need not be completely anal with my example. More probable and reasonable situations suited to both PnP and CRPG could be found.

Let me get this ... you have no problem with Monks having to be of lawful aligment but you have with paladins?

What, monks? Where did you get that I have a problem with paladins having to be of lawful alignment, but not with monks? I never said that. I even supported ramifications of shaded decisions for LG characters. I was simply asking what the essence of being a LG character meant and whether it's a wide-spread dementia with self-imposed morals or not (which you finally answered).

As for the rest of your words; the answer finally. So LG characters aren't just demented people with self-imposed morals, or it's not just how some pricky deities think of them and their actions.

Again, thanks for all the clarifications.

Now I dislike DnD more, heh.

 

[Balor]

@ Zomg
Right you are. Good is only what current social sitations says is good... cause there is no such thing is 'objective' good and evil.
Such things are purely products of human abstract thought and do not exist in real world.

 

[kingcomrade]

Such things are purely products of human abstract thought and do not exist in real world

That's right, those abstract thoughts have no consequence in the real world, which is why wars have never been fought over ideas and why people want their daughters to consort with rapists, because good and evil don't exist it's all relative man! How can you truly say being raped, or raping, is bad? There's no such thing as bad.

 

[Elwro]

Hopeless discussion radar: BLIP

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I'm on my umpteenth Darklands kick and I like how there is a strict supernatural morality there that isn't really something the player is supposed to agree with. The Church is Good, bar none - any traveling inquisitor has genuine divine right to extort you, on pain of virtue loss. You have no responsibility to keep deals with enemies whatsoever, and pacifism is totally alien - you can break a deal and skewer a dwarf king in a stereotypically evil way, but it doesn't touch virtue because nonhumans are always diabolical or just outside of the game's moral system.

I find it interesting when alignment is an alement of a setting in that way.

I'd like more games to take that route, although it might be harder to come up with an original standard of morality whereas the creators of Darklands just tried to replicate the views of medieval Germany.

KC, wars have been fought over a single iota (literally in the case of the monophysite heresy). Or we could say that the open justifications for war have little to do with their actual causes. But at any rate, the fact that ideas get people riled up doesn't prove that the ideas are based on objective reality. Most people subjectively dislike rape because they wouldn't want to be raped and would feel pity for those that are (headline-making Muslims excepted), but if the Marquis de Sade argues in favor of rape, how could he be proven wrong? All you can really say is "You're a sick fuck", then lock him up or kill him.

 

[aweigh]

Rape is Darwin telling us the species must survive lolz