I'm trying to decide on a new main character to take through Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 and I'm down to 3 options. I'll list them in order of preference.

Option 1: Dwarven Fighter/Cleric, (still debating whether to dual wield or go two handed staff, of which I'm leaning more towards dual wielding)

Option 2: Human Paladin great sword user. (the debate on this one is whether to be a Chevalier or basic Paladin and be able to use crossbows as well)

Option 3: Human fighter through BG1 and then dual into Cleric at the very start of BG2 with the head cannon that it was Iranicus's experiments that unlocked the new abilities (I have the exact same weapon debate as option 1 although again I'm leaning more towards dual wielding)

I dont really have any idea of who I'm going to fetch along with me as of now and will probally decide as I play the game. Options 1 & 2 are about the same level of preference for me with 3 been clear last place (I would prefer to do option 3 as a dwarf but sadly that can't dual class)

Any advice or suggestions on the pros and cons of the different options would be greatly appreciated (especially on the benefits of what weapons to go for as a cleric or which Paladin kit to use).

Thank you in advance.

If you want your character to feel like a true hybrid, choose option 1 or 3. Paladins get very little magic and get it late, so they play like fighters with very minor magic ability. Fighter/Clerics are more like true hybrids (and, IMO, are what Paladins *should* have been like, with perhaps some mechanism that requires a character to earn the class, which doesn't really work well in AD&D before 3e).

Personally, I would be aware of what classes are represented by Baldur's Gate 2 recruitable characters and avoid having the main character be a clone of one of them. Relevant to your choices, BG2 has:
* An Inquisitor. (I note that this particular Paladin kit lacks the abilities that distinguish a Paladin from a plain Fighter.)
* A dual-class Fighter/Cleric, dualing at level 7. This particular character is even a romance option, and is actually the only option for those characters who can romance him (though many players don't like his personality).

With this in mind, I would probably go for #1, unless you *really* want to see what makes the paladin unique. If you go #2, I would not use the Inquisitor kit.

(Side note: If you do decide to do #3, you could import your character into the BG2 tutorial and get a little XP there before starting the main game, however this is definitely not necessary, especially if you take advantage of the companions the game gives you at the start of BG2.)

Edit: Also note that you could opt to do a Ranger/Cleric dual-class, getting dual-wield for free as well as druid magic. In the original BG2, this particular choice has some interesting characteristics, like being able to cast *all* druid spells except HLAs, and getting HLAs earlier than intended.

Edit 2: I think the early HLAs might actually only be fore the Ranger/Cleric multi-class, not the dual-class.

If the third option is a distant preference, then discard it now. Go with what you most want to play.

If you're interested in the Cavalier, then go ahead and use him over a basic paladin. The cavalier can serve on the front line, and if he really needs a missile weapon, then bring some throwing weapons along. Later in BG2, you'll be able to save on weight by using one of the throwing weapons that returns to the user.

Each half of the Fighter/Cleric will level more slowly than the Paladin, but the F/C will have Cleric spells available to provide buffs that the Paladin can't cast. The Paladin has more weapon options available. If you go through the trouble of keeping relevant buffs active, the F/C is probably stronger overall, but the Paladin will be more straight forward to play (and party member clerics can provide most of the buffs).

The F/C is probably best served using the Flail of Ages, and probably a hammer or mace in the off-hand. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact choices available, so I'd suggest doing some research. Crom Faeyer is a good hammer available in BG2, and the Mace of Disruption can be an undead killer.

You could always flip a coin to decide which one to play.

[Edit: I forgot about Carsomyr! The F/C can't use it, and it is potentially available earlier than any of the really good weapons the F/C could get. Hard to say whether that makes the Paladin a better warrior in the end game, but he gets a definite power boost in that department long before the F/C does.]

The higher your char's strength, the better dual wielding is because you get your full damage bonus from strength and specialization on both hands. (they nerved this in 3rd edition but the BG saga uses 2nd edition)

Orcs can be F/C and get +1 str and +1 con

Inquisitor is imho the best paladin kit. Yes, there's an NPC paladin in BG2 who's also an inquisitor but having 2 paladins in your party probably isn't a good choice anyway regardless of kits.

If I was to rate each one in preference out of 100 it would be 35/35/30 so its not a massive gap. the main appeal of option 3 is been able to acheive grand mastery and possibly not been restricted to only blunt weapons and is probally what I would go as if I could be a Dwarf. the bigest turn off is been restricted to been a human to play a dual class

Bows rule in BG1 and clerics are not allowed to use them so if you want your character to get a good share of kills in the party choose the paladin and specialize in bows at creation.

*shrug* Your proposed characters are similar enough that you really could get away with a coin flip decision. If there is any little thing that makes you like one of the options a little bit less, then just discard that option and choose one of the remaining ones: Play What You Want To Play. All 3 options will be plenty strong enough all the way through ToB. Does the PC getting the kill matter for anything?

Well, the protagonist is a Bhaalspawn and as such supposed to be bad-ass.
There's also the ego thing where players would rather not stand in the shadow of NPC's

Part of my problem with Dwarves (thought they're my favorite race) is that they're the only race that don't have a romance option. Then my issue with Clerics are that they're all ultimately relegated to worshipers of either Lathander, Torm or Tempus. Your character probably worships Moradin or maybe even Clangeddin, Gorm or Haela, but that's not who your holy symbol is going to be dedicated to and that's not who your class quests will be for.

So I say go Paladin. People grouse a bit about the overlap between Keldorn and the protagonist for using Carsomyr, but I feel like being a Paladin gives you the unique ability to gladly send Keldorn into retirement with his wife and daughters, excusing him from service at the end of his questline whereas other parties need to keep him to continue wielding the Holy Avenger.

Also, there's something uniquely rewarding about redeeming both Sarevok and Viconia from evil as a Paladin.

Have you considered Half-Orc Fighter/Cleric?

I was trying to think of some nice way of saying "Does it matter for anything besides ego?", but I couldn't think of anything so I left that part off.

Having the adventure go where I wanted it to go was always good enough for me. I didn't need to personally finish off the majority of the bad guys. :)

This makes me think of something:

* Would a pacifist, or near-pacifist, run be doable?

(There are multiple rulesets that could be used. One is that no monsters or NPCs are allowed to die, while another might be simply that the kill counts, which are recorded on the stat screen (in a submenu, I believe), must remain at 0 for all party members. I know that Nethack considers kills by pets to not break pacifist conduct, hence we could justify letting pets or summons kill enemies in a pacifist run, but one could easily justify forbidding that.)

A Gandhi Wizard who concentrates on hold and charm spells?
I had to laugh at the Ego comment because I tried Mage once, and Ajantis was my tank. I resented him all game. Felt stupid, but there it is.

Don't consider half-orc fighter/clerics. When you start boosting stats (events, items, spells), their bonuses over dwarves amount to -1 to AC and -1 THAC0 and +2 damage at most. Those are very insignificant numbers.

Dwarves however will always have a -5 advantage to saving throws vs breath, spells and wands. You know, the sort of thing that's likely to disable and kill your protagonist and force a reload.

+5 to breath, spells and rods saving throws is actually a very good reason to choose a "Shorty" class. Those Mind Flayers are killing me in BG2 :)