Tarquin is Chaotic good!

[krossbow]

In a reprise of the "belkar is lawful good" threads, here's "tarquin is chaotic good".

rationalizations to this ridiculous proposal: go!




"Tarquin's actions are bringing divine punishment down upon an evil society; every one of those slaves was probably a murderous sociopath who was imprisoned for their actions, and most inhabitants of the southern continent are likewise evil.

Tarquin is merely Kira, bringing his judgment upon an evil and corrupt world!

As for being chaotic.... i don't know, he didn't file paperwork for that fire?"

[Morquard]

After the 20 or so other posts in the last week with pretty much the same content, this isn't really funny anymore, sorry.

[rokar4life]

Your point is moot, Kira was lawful evil

[Maximum Zersk]

Your point is moot, Kira was lawful evil

Insane evil, more like.

[Psyren]

Now I have an urge for a Tarquin "Just as planned" motivational. I'll wait until he gets a Nale-esque evil grin though. :smallwink:

Interesting prediction:
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Elan and Nale had to team up to take Tarquin down?

[The Pale King]

I wasn't aware that even Belkar's most rabid defenders ever tried to claim he was actually good, let alone Lawful Good. I thought the most generous theory, before it eventually became a joke, was that he was actually Chaotic Neutral.

[Dr.Epic]

Tarquin is chaotic good in the same way Adrian Veidt is chaotic good.

[Maximum Zersk]

Now I have an urge for a Tarquin "Just as planned" motivational. I'll wait until he gets a Nale-esque evil grin though. :smallwink:


Oh he did that already.

[apenpaap]

Now I have an urge for a Tarquin "Just as planned" motivational. I'll wait until he gets a Nale-esque evil grin though. :smallwink:

Panel 7 of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html

[Lord_Gareth]

Tarquin is chaotic good in the same way Adrian Veidt is chaotic good.

Stop. About face. March AWAY from combining Watchmen with D&D morality. Now don't you bring that stuff into this forum again, you hear? We've got a decent neighborhood going on and we don't need that crap 'round here!

The tone of this post is mostly in jest but, seriously. No Watchmen + Alignment. It ends only in flames and sorrow.

[Tass]

Six-gunned in 10... 9... 8...

[Lvl45DM!]

Tarquin is chaotic good in the same way Adrian Veidt is chaotic good.

I.E. Not? The business man who worships kings of the past and nukes/squids the world to bring order would be LE.

EDIT Oh and Psyren, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0751.html panel 10
Enjoy

[Lord Bingo]

Here's an idea for the next threat:

Is Elan really Evil? -and a genius mastermind who is stringing everyone along to achieve world dominance?

Anyone up for rationalizing this ridiculous proposal?:smallannoyed:

[Lvl45DM!]

Well notice that Elan is the only one Belkar actually likes. V saved his life, he's scared of Roy, he loathes Durkon, he thinks Haley is hot. But he actually likes elan enough to go rescue him. So obviously Elan has got something going on with Belkar that noone else knows about. Oh and is it a coincidence that Elan, a BARD couldnt tell that Xykon was conning him into touching the gate? or that he had to be physically prevented from doing so? or that he blew up the castle in order to weaken the universe!
Nale is officially the good twin

[Alagaesian]

Well notice that Elan is the only one Belkar actually likes. V saved his life, he's scared of Roy, he loathes Durkon, he thinks Haley is hot. But he actually likes elan enough to go rescue him. So obviously Elan has got something going on with Belkar that noone else knows about. Oh and is it a coincidence that Elan, a BARD couldnt tell that Xykon was conning him into touching the gate? or that he had to be physically prevented from doing so? or that he blew up the castle in order to weaken the universe!
Nale is officially the good twin

Ah, but if Elan was going to avoid being blown up by the wards on the gate, then he would need to be pure of heart. Being evil doesn't allow him to have that. So, obviously, Elan is not only evil, but also suicidal.

[Nilan8888]

Tarquin is chaotic good in the same way Adrian Veidt is chaotic good.

There is actually an argument that could be made that Adrian Veidt is Lawful Neutral, or even Lawful Good.

Tarquin is just plain Lawful Evil.

[Lvl45DM!]

Ah, but if Elan was going to avoid being blown up by the wards on the gate, then he would need to be pure of heart. Being evil doesn't allow him to have that. So, obviously, Elan is not only evil, but also suicidal.

Obviously Elan is an Epic Level Bard. Thats how he managed to survive so long despite being so useless. He cast an epic level spell that changed how his alignment appear secretly. The only time Elan has been seriously harmed is by Nale, or Nale's associate Thog, who have struck from behind, or by the blue dragon, which Elan was obviously faking to get in to see his father.

[apenpaap]

Elan also annoyed V to the point where she left the fleet, which eventually led to her deal with the IFCC.

[Lvl45DM!]

GENIUS!
Also he did seem rather annoyed at Kubotas death... he obviously had plans for him!

[hamishspence]

There is actually an argument that could be made that Adrian Veidt is Lawful Neutral, or even Lawful Good.

Tarquin is just plain Lawful Evil.

Most of the arguments for Veidt being LN or LG tend to work as follows:

Alignment is "general moral and personal attitudes" and is not based on deeds. No matter how much evil you do, unless you gain a "general moral and personal attitude" consistant with Evil Alignment

(specifically "willing to debase or destroy innocent life for fun or profit")

you cannot be Evil.

Indeed, if you still:

"have concern for life"
"have respect for the dignity of sentient beings"
"protect the innocent" and
"are willing to make personal sacrifices to help strangers"

you are Good.

Fans of the D&D splatbooks, however, may place more weight on the acts themselves, than the intentions- Veidt has repeatedly committed serious evil acts (mass murder, killing innocent people with cancer) and is willing to go on doing so toward his goal.

So- he is evil no matter how Good his intentions, or his personality traits.

[Lvl45DM!]

Doesn't matter his intentions or his actions. Veidt is not chaotic good. He might be good, neutral, evil, any combination of those three. But he AINT chaotic, the man is a paragon of self control

[hamishspence]

Not sure if anyone's suggested Veidt's CG in this thread.
This post:

Tarquin is chaotic good in the same way Adrian Veidt is chaotic good.
implies that he isn't, not that he is.

Closest thing to an argument for CG could be

"his methods are Chaotic- a great lie to deceive the world being the most notable".

But, even if "lying is Chaotic" was the case (and there's some evidence to suggest it's not all that chaotic- one archdevil, Baalzebul, is called Lord of the Lies) some minor Chaotic acts don't automatically move one out of Lawful alignment.

Roy proves this pretty well- he regularly uses Chaotic means toward Lawful ends, but in the end, he was judged as being right for LG rather than NG afterlife.

Getting back to morality in the OOTS-verse, rather than the Watchmen-verse- any notable cases where a character's alignment is still blurry?

In a thread on the D20 & other roleplaying games forum, someone argued for Therkla that, regardless of her being called out as "a spokesperson for Neutrality" in Don't Split The Party- she fits NE better than Neutral.

Though the main rationale, seemed to be her reaction to Detect Evil (hide) here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html

[LtPowers]

But he AINT chaotic, the man is a paragon of self control

I know not the Watchmen, but self-control has absolutely zero to do with the law-chaos axis of alignment. It's all about how one views the ideal society: a society of order or a society of freedom.


Powers &8^]

[Skaven]

Maybe before he put on that helmet.

[hamishspence]

It's all about how one views the ideal society: a society of order or a society of freedom.

One's "natural personality traits" may play a part though- you might have a Chaotic character who has nearly all the traditional Chaotic traits, yet their default reaction to authority, is to obey it rather than rebel- and they might actually approve of Order.

PHB: "neutral characters feel neither a compulsion to obey nor rebel"

may be a guideline,

but it's not the only factor.

[Lvl45DM!]

Therkla seems NE to me. She didnt care about good guys and bad guys, she just wanted the hot guy and her daddy figure. Shes selfish and immature on top of being a ninja assassin, willing to turn on her allies and kill them just for holding her crush hostage, when she had done equally repugnant things. She was willing to let Lien get carved up. NE to the bone

[hamishspence]

Therkla seems NE to me. She didnt care about good guys and bad guys, she just wanted the hot guy and her daddy figure. Shes selfish and immature on top of being a ninja assassin, willing to turn on her allies and kill them just for holding her crush hostage, when she had done equally repugnant things. She was willing to let Lien get carved up. NE to the bone

The quote from Don't Split The Party was:

In many ways, I see Therkla as a sort of spokesperson for Neutrality. Not only the sort of Neutrality that looks out for their own interests, but the sort that sees a need for balance.

Therkla isn't actively involved in keeping that balance, but it is her instinct to seek it. When the feces hits the fan, her solution is for the Evil people to go over here and the Good people to go over there, and everyone just chill.

She can't understand each side's need to defeat the other. In her world, everyone would just respect each other's alignment preferences, and that would be that.

Of course, it's no surprise that it doesn't work out. Her death is a direct result of her unwillingness to subscribe to the with-us-or-against-us mentality of Kubota and, to a lesser extent, Elan.
So- there might be a bit of grey area there.

[Lvl45DM!]

She can be a spokesperson for Neutrality while still being basically NE. Shes not devoted to the cause of evil but she does more than enough to nudge her that way, even if it was basically Kubotas fault. Similarly, sorry to bring back Watchmen but it fits, while Veidt himself may not be Lawful Evil, the vast majority of people who started running around doing similar things would be, and so he can be seen as a spokesperson for LE, even without neccessarily being of that alingment 100% himself. The Joker in the Dark Knight espouses a CN philosophy, but acts CE

And of course there is grey area
Its OOTS might as well be called "What Alignment System?"

[hamishspence]

She can be a spokesperson for Neutrality while still being basically NE. Shes not devoted to the cause of evil but she does more than enough to nudge her that way, even if it was basically Kubotas fault.

Possible. TV Tropes does give her a Neutral alignment based on that quote- but they may have been too quick to leap to that conclusion.

[Lvl45DM!]

I refuse to check the page because I want to go to sleep at some point tonight. But it seems Word of Giant puts her as Neutral so we can go with she was NE until she decided to semi betray Kubota by asking Elan out when she moved into TN territory?

[hamishspence]

we can go with she was NE until she decided to semi betray Kubota by asking Elan out when she moved into TN territory?

Sounds about right- NE with TN tendencies, or TN with NE tendencies- either way, she's "a spokesperson for Neutrality".

[Kish]

I wasn't aware that even Belkar's most rabid defenders ever tried to claim he was actually good, let alone Lawful Good. I thought the most generous theory, before it eventually became a joke, was that he was actually Chaotic Neutral.
At least one person did claim that he was actually Chaotic Good. I think it may have been almost pure perversity, however.

[Nilan8888]

Veidt is definately not chaotic.


Fans of the D&D splatbooks, however, may place more weight on the acts themselves, than the intentions- Veidt has repeatedly committed serious evil acts (mass murder, killing innocent people with cancer) and is willing to go on doing so toward his goal.

So- he is evil no matter how Good his intentions, or his personality traits.

Then I'd argue that there's a hole in that sort of logic, gaming system or no. The entire premise of Veidt's position is that if he did not do preceisely what he did, there would be MORE suffering. Yes, he did many a terrible thing: but that very thing he did saved lives.

What Tarquin does may save lives, but that is incidental. Veidt, on the other hand, in no way shape or form would be doing any of what he was done if he did not think the destruction of the world was at stake. That fact that this is what was at stake was his primary motivation for starting everything. Those who would say his acts alone are what counts are being rather absolutist, and saying that the world can easily find conditions under which only evil men can save it.

To stand and say "Billions are now dead, but at least I didn't have to kill that million people... who are now also dead anyway. But hey, at least I'm still GOOD" I find a narcissistic statement that itself could be argued to be evil. For the sake of your own self-image, you consign the human race to oblivion: I might not call Adrian Veidt a hero for his acts, but the alternative is DEFINITELY not a heroic stance.

[hamishspence]

At least one person did claim that he was actually Chaotic Good. I think it may have been almost pure perversity, however.

yes- Corvis, on the 2nd page:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6483



To stand and say "Billions are now dead, but at least I didn't have to kill that million people... who are now also dead anyway. But hey, at least I'm still GOOD" I find a narcissistic statement that itself could be argued to be evil.

The difference is, the Good person doesn't just stand there doing nothing- they die trying to save the human race in a manner that does not involve committing outright Evil acts such as mass murder.


Those who would say his acts alone are what counts are being rather absolutist, and saying that the world can easily find conditions under which only evil men can save it.

Not necessarily the acts alone- but the acts have more weight than the intentions.

A Good person who commits a mildly [Evil] act to save the world is probably still Good despite that one Evil act.

A lot of very strongly Evil acts though.... alignment shift.

[Nilan8888]

The difference is, the Good person doesn't just stand there doing nothing- they die trying to save the human race in a manner that does not involve committing outright Evil acts such as mass murder.

Yes but this presumes such an option will be present. My statement on self-image wasn't just consigned to those that will sit back and let inaction count as their moral "choice": it ALSO speaks to those that would, for the sake of this self-image, persue other avenues that already appear unable to work.

Veidt did not enact his plan because he saw another alternative and just didn't want to take it: he did it because he looked at ALL the possible avenues and saw no other plan that would really work. For someone else who hasn't been spending their lives trying to resolve this question to come in and say "well you haven't tried hard enough" I find arrogant in the extreme. Veidt hasn't worked hard enough? Well to that person I'd say, what have YOU been doing over these past decades?

Veidt doesn't do these things just because. His life is absorbed with the goal of saving the human race from annihilation. If there were a less bloody path to take, it seems to me he would have taken it. Moore doesn't seem to suggest that one is available -- if one is, nobody else is taking it. To just call him evil, then, is rather one-sided.

In fact, if Veidt is evil, you would possibly have to argue that everyone else is MORE evil since it was clear to everyone that they were on the brink of annihilation, and Veidt was the only one working to prevent it. Everyone else in the world just sort of shrugged their shoulders and let the US and USSR sleepwalk the globe into self-destruction.

[Kish]

yes- Corvis, on the 2nd page:
Not Corvis. :smalltongue: That was sarcasm, not perversity. The one I'm thinking of said, "In my games, he could perfectly well be Chaotic Good, just dealing with penalties for not acting his alignment perfectly...And just because I can, I'm sticking to the 'fact' [my air quotes] that Belkar is Chaotic Good."

[hamishspence]

The one I'm thinking of said, "In my games, he could perfectly well be Chaotic Good, just dealing with penalties for not acting his alignment perfectly...And just because I can, I'm sticking to the 'fact' [my air quotes] that Belkar is Chaotic Good."

Good point. I wasn't on the forum that far back though- so don't know who said that. If it was more recent, I may have seen it, but it doesn't sound familiar enough for me to identify it.


In fact, if Veidt is evil, you would possibly have to argue that everyone else is MORE evil since it was clear to everyone that they were on the brink of annihilation, and Veidt was the only one working to prevent it. Everyone else in the world just sort of shrugged their shoulders and let the US and USSR sleepwalk the globe into self-destruction.

The difference here, is between evil action, and evil inaction- most of the characters were trying to help others in ways they could- Night Owl, for example.

I suspect a lot were defaulting to "trust Dr Manhattan to not let things get that bad".

Is saying Veidt was "using Evil means toward his end" unfair in a D&D context? Somehow I don't think it is.

[Nilan8888]

The difference here, is between evil action, and evil inaction- most of the characters were trying to help others in ways they could- Night Owl, for example.

Actually I don't think that's true: Night Owl did try to help others, yes: but he didn't try to do anything about the elephant in the room: the Cold War dynamic that held the world on the brink of annihilation. Night Owl and the others saw that as Adrian did. And unlike Adrian, they did nothing to stop it.


I suspect a lot were defaulting to "trust Dr Manhattan to not let things get that bad".

Ah, but would that act really be defined as "good"? Again, that's inaction.


Is saying Veidt was "using Evil means toward his end" unfair in a D&D context? Somehow I don't think it is.

I don't dispute that he used evil acts toward his end. I also don't dispute that it might be considered evil and an alignment shift in D&D. However, as much as I love D&D, it's the sort of thing that would expose for me the reality that it is just a game that falls short of certain complex questions.

If your end is like Tarquin's, I think we're good on casting the person into the evil category.

If not only is your end nothing short of the survival of the human race... AND add to it the fact that if the survival of the human race was not at stake then none of these evil acts would ever have taken place because Veidt would have otherwise avoided them just as much as Night Owl... then I think we're different territory. If we're arguing that Veidt would have done this stuff if the political situation wasn't what it was, then I think we'd have a good case for him being Evil, but I don't think that's what the situation was. I don't think he would have done any of it if he thought the human race could survive for another 150 years or so.

[hamishspence]

If not only is your end nothing short of the survival of the human race... AND add to it the fact that if the survival of the human race was not at stake then none of these evil acts would ever have taken place because Veidt would have otherwise avoided them just as much as Night Owl... then I think we're different territory.

"It's for the survival of the species" has been discussed in quite a lot of media- and different writers tend to weight it differently.

If it was unnecessary, but, they had no way of knowing it at the time, an act can still be portrayed as somewhat abhorrent.

In the Ender Wiggin series, his xenocide, is portrayed as not inherently evil more because he didn't know he was committing it, than because there was no way of knowing it was unnecessary at the time.

(because by contacting Ender's mind, the Hive Queens were already aware that human beings were as sapient as Hive Queens, rather than being unintelligent drones).

[krossbow]

Hah. It would seem this has steered 180 degrees away from random insanity towards actual logic.:smalltongue:


Anyways, the problem with saying that doing something "for the greater good" because you are able to think of a way to do things "the right way" is the correct action is a bit of a paradox. You are not all knowing; you have to admit this to take the easy road. Unfortunately, you are also JUST as unable to guarentee that your excesses will lead to people's lives being saved.

Look at the watchman; its even hinted at that the deaths of all those individuals might end up being wasted anyways; its hinted at that the plan would come to nothing anyways.
If you can't guarentee that your murder will 100% insure the greater good (which finite beings never can insure; and infinite beings would never have to murder due to having perfect knowledge of things ahead of time, thus meaning they should be able to find a better way) then you should never resort to the easy path. The worst atrocities have always been done by people doing things because "there's no other way." Communism's excesses are a great example of this; "Revolution is not a tea party" and all that.

[hamishspence]

If you can't guarentee that your murder will 100% insure the greater good (which finite beings never can insure; and infinite beings would never have to murder due to having perfect knowledge of things ahead of time, thus meaning they should be able to find a better way) then you should never resort to the easy path. The worst atrocities have always been done by people doing things because "there's no other way."

Best not to give specific real life examples- but, you'll find plenty of fictional characters to make the same assertion that

"some of the worst things imaginable have been done by people with the best of intentions." (Alan Grant: Jurassic Park III)

[Burner28]

discussing the alignment of ozymandias- we probably not going to get anywhere but using evil means for any reasons makes you an evil alignment in DnD at the very least not neutral so how people can say that ozymadias is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good I don't know.

[Lvl45DM!]

Using Evil for Good means, makes you good in D and D. Neutral is either no good and no evil or a balance between the two, and since doing evil and causing good, deliberately, strikes a balance, calling Veidt LN makes the most sense, though the act at the end of Watchmen was LE

[hamishspence]

It's probably due to the fact that the only books that explicitly call out Murder as Evil Means, are splatbooks.

And that the PHB says "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"- with "murder in order to save all human life" being considered compatible with "respect for life".

[Kish]

Using Evil for Good means, makes you good in D and D.

Bzzt. No. No D&D book supports that.

[Lvl45DM!]

Bzzt. No. No D&D book supports that.

I mustve had a brain fart when i typed that cos I'm well aware that thats not even close to right. But i can't figure out what i meant :smallconfused: I might have meant that using Evil for Good makes you Neutral
Hmm yes that makes most sense. Similar to how Roy uses Chaotic means to get Lawful goals done and that makes him basically Neutral even if he is 'trying'

[hamishspence]

I mustve had a brain fart when i typed that cos I'm well aware that thats not even close to right. But i can't figure out what i meant :smallconfused: I might have meant that using Evil for Good makes you Neutral

There is some support for that, in Heroes of Horror- but it's still limited.

The examples were of a Dread Necromancer doing evil acts for the Good of Others.

Typical Evil Acts a Dread Necromancer will be doing, are Casting Evil Spells, and Rebuking Undead (As he levels up, he will automatically, be transforming himself into an undead, a bit at a time).

These are mild evil acts- compatible with a Neutral alignment.

In Champions of Ruin, regularly committing Evil acts, can lead to an Evil alignment regardless of Good Intentions.

But this may apply primarily to Severe Evil Acts- destroying souls, murder (especially murder for pleasure) and severe torture.

[Lvl45DM!]

Ah, i see. Necromancers evil acts are what ive decided to call metaphysical evil rather than moral evil. Calling on the dark powers to save people. But does it say that its a Good action or merely for the good of others?

[hamishspence]

The casting of the spell itself, is the Evil action.

The "for the good of others" is what the necromancer starts doing once they've finished casting the spell. Say- ordering the animated undead into saving many lives.

(Imagine if, in Star Trek II, instead of Spock going into the irradiated room, he animated a nearby dead body as a zombie, sent the zombie into the room, and controlled its actions, causing it to save the ship)

And this is the point where :

"Good Acts + Good Intentions can balance out minor evil acts"

can come into play.

[AlDjinn]

I can't abide the whole "Adrian Veidt is Lawful Good" thing because his actions are EXTREMELY illegal (therefore unlawful), though one could argue a lawful evil person would be okay with them if he felt he wouldn't get caught (but even that's a thin stretch). As for Chaotic Good, I can see someone murdering a few people for Good ends to be Chaotic Good, such as murdering an evil King, or even him and his evil lieutenants...but as for killing every low ranking guard in the city (you know, just to be safe), that would be more Neutral than good.

Adrian Veidt I would see as True Neutral with Chaotic tendencies, or Chaotic Neutral with Neutral tendencies. He did what he felt he had to do, but he never talked to Mr. Manhattan about his plan...doing so may have gained him insight into a better way, or at least solidified that there wasn't a better way (and Mr. Manhattan, being the embodiment of TN, would have told him truthfully and supported him either way). Adrian was so sure that he knew better than everyone else on the planet without actually trying to reason with any world leaders or other supers. This makes his "it was the only way" plea nothing but a rationalization for his evil action. That much evil couldn't be totally rationalized away anyway, especially if he had the ability to call all the supers (again, including Mr. Nuclear deterrent) together for a different answer. Heck, if he could recreate the event that created Mr. Manhattan, he could replicate enough of him to make any amount of nukes stoppable.

I'm not saying Adrian was a horrible character. He had a driving goal and belief system that made him feel he was right. Unfortunately, so did every major dictator or would be conquerer in the real world. Like him or hate him, Neutral is the way to go.

/soapbox

[Burner28]

I can't abide the whole "Adrian Veidt is Lawful Good" thing because his actions are EXTREMELY illegal (therefore unlawful), though one could argue a lawful evil person would be okay with them if he felt he wouldn't get caught (but even that's a thin stretch). As for Chaotic Good, I can see someone murdering a few people for Good ends to be Chaotic Good, such as murdering an evil King, or even him and his evil lieutenants...but as for killing every low ranking guard in the city (you know, just to be safe), that would be more Neutral than good.


Adrian Veidt I would see as True Neutral with Chaotic tendencies, or Chaotic Neutral with Neutral tendencies. He did what he felt he had to do, but he never talked to Mr. Manhattan about his plan...doing so may have gained him insight into a better way, or at least solidified that there wasn't a better way (and Mr. Manhattan, being the embodiment of TN, would have told him truthfully and supported him either way). Adrian was so sure that he knew better than everyone else on the planet without actually trying to reason with any world leaders or other supers. This makes his "it was the only way" plea nothing but a rationalization for his evil action. That much evil couldn't be totally rationalized away anyway, especially if he had the ability to call all the supers (again, including Mr. Nuclear deterrent) together for a different answer. Heck, if he could recreate the event that created Mr. Manhattan, he could replicate enough of him to make any amount of nukes stoppable.

I'm not saying Adrian was a horrible character. He had a driving goal and belief system that made him feel he was right. Unfortunately, so did every major dictator or would be conquerer in the real world. Like him or hate him, Neutral is the way to go.

/soapbox


I kinda doubt killing millions of innocent people would put you at Neutral and not Evil in DnD terms

[Lvl45DM!]

He DID save billions, if only temporarily. But Lawful
Does
NOT
mean
obeys the law!

Just remember Redcloak is perfect LE. Compare him to Veidt and youll see why Veidt is def Lawful, though may swing between Neutral and Evil. I'd put him at evil because of the whole cancer thing...that was cold

[The Pilgrim]

Sounds about right- NE with TN tendencies, or TN with NE tendencies- either way, she's "a spokesperson for Neutrality".

Note that The Giant's quote about her neutrality seems to refer to the Good-Evil Axis, more than anything else.

[hamishspence]

I'd put him at evil because of the whole cancer thing...that was cold

It does indicate a certain "lack of respect for life" and "lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings".


Note that The Giant's quote about her neutrality seems to refer to the Good-Evil Axis, more than anything else.

True- and it could be that her concern for following the letter of the rules while bending the spirit of them, as she demonstrates when arguing herself out of trouble with Kubota, might indicate Lawful leanings.

[abc123]

Tarquin is true neutral

[Lvl45DM!]

I think her rules lawyering is just indicative of her training not alignment. A Chaotic guy would be willing to rules lawyer as would a Neutral character. And her actions were mildly evil. Remember she DID almost let Lien get carved up.

[Dalek-K]

Tarquin is Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil... Why?

Helmet of Opposite alignment! When he had the helmet on talking to roy and belkar he was bad ass but when he took it off.... He became more like elan.

When he cut the head off of someone in a flashback he had the helmet on... When he was running for his life while carrying nale he had it off...

Hmm

[lindorm]

Tarquin is Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil... Why?

Helmet of Opposite alignment! When he had the helmet on talking to roy and belkar he was bad ass but when he took it off.... He became more like elan.

When he cut the head off of someone in a flashback he had the helmet on... When he was running for his life while carrying nale he had it off...

Hmm
Even if he had the Helmet of Evol on when ordering his minions to set x number of slaves on fire to spell his son's name, gloating on it afterwards aint a Good act.

[Dalek-K]

He ordered it while the helmet was on and the helmet's effects last a while after taking it off ^ ^

I sense Matlak (err whatever his name is) could be behind a plot like that.