In the older edition and on tabletop, it was simpler.
For one, with a DM, you could argue your logic for why your paladin did X, you can explain his PoV.
For another, with old paladins they got their powers from a diety that had a specific moral system, but that was known and it was the dieties rules.
There is no DM to argue with in a CRPG.
And oaths? Oaths are personal. They are quite open to interpretation.
Paladin should speak the truth? Always? How about when going undercover and someone asks you who you are? White lies? What are the exceptions?
Show no mercy o my true enemies? Who is your true enemy? Wouldn't that be something you decide?
You can make a logical conclusion on where the line is, but if the dev disagrees Or didn't take it into account - you fall.
This makes me worried, but I cannot come up with a plausible solution.
I already see frustrated Paladin players.
And it seem getting companions is a lot more limited in this game. Either do evil act or you cannot get evil companion. I recall in BG2, you could recruit pretty much any evil companion without ever doing anything evil and IIRC, they stayed in your party and didn't bail immediately.
Last edited by Ellderon; 05/08/23 06:47 PM.
