Suggest a Class for Me

[jqavins]

I've got a this character concept that I could probably implement with a fighter, but there might be a better class for it. 3.5 or Pathfinder. Here's the concept:

I'm a warrior for good. I defend the weak and innocent, and protect our homes. Using force shouldn't ever be the preferred course, but when it can't be avoided, you've got to win, by any and all means available. To defeat our enemies, I will stop at nothing. Poison? Torture? Lying, cheating, and stealing? Absolutely! If I can take out the BBEG through assassination instead of direct conflict of arms, fewer people get hurt. If the invading army can be met by our own army of zombies then the living soldiers don't have to be placed at risk. It's not how you fight that matters, it's whom you fight and why.

[Tvtyrant]

I've got a this character concept that I could probably implement with a fighter, but there might be a better class for it. 3.5 or Pathfinder. Here's the concept:

I'm a warrior for good. I defend the weak and innocent, and protect our homes. Using force shouldn't ever be the preferred course, but when it can't be avoided, you've got to win, by any and all means available. To defeat our enemies, I will stop at nothing. Poison? Torture? Lying, cheating, and stealing? Absolutely! If I can take out the BBEG through assassination instead of direct conflict of arms, fewer people get hurt. If the invading army can be met by our own army of zombies then the living soldiers don't have to be placed at risk. It's not how you fight that matters, it's whom you fight and why.
That is less of a class indicator as it is a personality profile.

Any class that doesn't require Good would work, picking a higher tier would be best for actually having the power to accomplish those goals. Cleric seems good, devoted to a cause of Defend my Weak. TN, grab some appropriate domains.

Protection and War seem good.

[Venger]

what kind of special powers do you want your guy to have?

assuming you want to do some necromancy and want to be a soldier who commits war crimes, check out bone knight. they come from karrnath, who uses the corpses of soldiers who died in combat as zombies and skeletons to serve out the rest of their tour of duty so they don't have to sacrifice as many living people against their enemies.

[DMVerdandi]

I mean, the others are right. That's more personality than vocation. One could have the same sentiment with almost any class. Classes are simply the how to your why. It's the means in which someone makes something happen.


Now, since I don't know what you want to do or how, one of the better things to do is simply throw out something that can do it all.
The Pathfinder Vigilante class can definitely put you in that role of behind the scenes hero that subverts the standard to get things done. It even has archetypes that cast if you so need it, but without changing the fundamental part of the class. You have a "normal" identity, and then you have your "vigilante" identity, and you kind of shift between the two for the social game and the door-kicking game.

Outside of that, the investigator is also pretty good, and you can't go wrong with a good old wizard or arcanist. Instead of playing that bookworm archetype, play em as jack bower/solid snake/James Bond; No one said you had to play any overused whizzard stereotype, ESPECIALLY with a class like those that just gets powers from research and information. Go full counter-terrorism, and be a steely-eyed killer with a particular set of skills.
Naturally, Arcanist is a smidge better than the two for not being a one hitter quitter, but wizard can pull ahead with a few of their 3rd party archetypes.

[Arkain]

Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/inquisitor-archetypes-paizo/sanctified-slayer) Basically a jack of all trades class you can develop however, with the archetype trading out some of the divine aspects for sneak attack and tactical options. Tactics domain may be a good idea.

[Falontani]

Gray Guard Paladin (Complete Adventurer or Complete Scoundrel, afb atm)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Gray Guard Paladin (Complete Adventurer or Complete Scoundrel, afb atm)

Not quite. While grayguards aren't as strictly bound by the paladin's CoC as standard paladins, they are as absolutely forbidden from taking any evil act as any other paladin is.

To the OP; Since you said fighter in a way that suggests to me that you'd like a martial suggestion rather than a dedicated spellcaster, I'm going to suggest a CN crusader. If it wasn't coming from some flavor of cleric, I'd expect that sort of rhetoric out of a crusader. That's not to say you couldn't shoehorn just about anything into that persona (barring a good alignment restriction) but crusader is the thing that leaps to my mind.

[Andor13]

Pathfinders Path of War Stalker and Harbinger classes might serve. Stalker is more of a poison/assassin/sneaky type, whereas the Harbinger is all about harnessing inner dark mojo, and makes an excellent skirmisher/debuffer.

For extra grimdark there in an undead themed maneuver path in Lords of Night that could get bolted onto either class by a trait or joining an organization.

[Zombulian]

G r a y g u a r d
r
a
y
g
u
a
r
d

[jqavins]

That is less of a class indicator as it is a personality profile.
So is wearing a loin cloth and distrusting magic, but they made barbarians a class anyway.


I mean, the others are right. That's more personality than vocation. One could have the same sentiment with almost any class. Classes are simply the how to your why. It's the means in which someone makes something happen.There are lots of specialized classes that invent a how for a very narrow, specific what. I imagine this character as primarily martial, but I could go other ways of there's one of those specialized classes out there that would fit the concept well.


Any class that doesn't require Good would work...
That's not to say you couldn't shoehorn just about anything into that persona (barring a good alignment restriction)...
You're missing the point. This character is designed to challenge the idea that acts are inherently evil. The old debate about "do the ends justify the means" is a silly one, because in everything we do every day there are consequences ranging from using oxygen that someone else could use to slaughtering thousands, and benefits ranging from continuing to live to eliminating a politically opposed tribe. Of course it's evil to slaughter thousands for darn near any imaginable end, just as it's virtually never evil to breath. The question must always be "does this end justify these means?"

D&D (and similar) has tropes that say using poison is evil, consorting with undead is evil, etc., and I'm out to blow that up. So this character is good, and does these things when and only when the ends justify them.


Not quite. While grayguards aren't as strictly bound by the paladin's CoC as standard paladins, they are as absolutely forbidden from taking any evil act as any other paladin is.
Well, that actually makes the grayguard sound perfect.

Thanks all for the suggestions. I'll look them over over the next few days.

[BowStreetRunner]

To the OP; Since you said fighter in a way that suggests to me that you'd like a martial suggestion rather than a dedicated spellcaster, I'm going to suggest a CN crusader. If it wasn't coming from some flavor of cleric, I'd expect that sort of rhetoric out of a crusader. That's not to say you couldn't shoehorn just about anything into that persona (barring a good alignment restriction) but crusader is the thing that leaps to my mind.

I would second the Crusader. They can be any alignment except true neutral, so your ethos isn't an issue here.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It look like Crusader and Avenger to me.

*Those are two different suggestions.

[Venger]

It look like Crusader and Avenger to me.

While avenger's a cute fit fluffwise, it provides no real synergy with crusader. It retards your stance/maneuver progression for little benefit. You're better off going crusader 20. You can commit just as many war crimes that way, and get 9th lvl maneuvers besides.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

While avenger's a cute fit fluffwise, it provides no real synergy with crusader. It retards your stance/maneuver progression for little benefit. You're better off going crusader 20. You can commit just as many war crimes that way, and get 9th lvl maneuvers besides.

I was giving two different suggestions.
I think I need to edit it.


BTW, for some people fluff is all, maybe he will like the unintentional suggestion of using them both.

[Goaty14]

This is 100% a wizard, if not, a truenamer.

[Venger]

I was giving two different suggestions.
I think I need to edit it.


BTW, for some people fluff is all, maybe he will like the unintentional suggestion of using them both.

see, you said "and," so I stupidly assumed you meant "and," while it sounds like you meant "or"

stormwind aside, you could do a lot worse than crusader/assassin, though you could do better with swordsage/assassin, since it provides better synergy

[FreddyNoNose]

Bathroom attendant with a side of Chimney Sweep.

But seriously: Fighter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're missing the point. This character is designed to challenge the idea that acts are inherently evil. The old debate about "do the ends justify the means" is a silly one, because in everything we do every day there are consequences ranging from using oxygen that someone else could use to slaughtering thousands, and benefits ranging from continuing to live to eliminating a politically opposed tribe. Of course it's evil to slaughter thousands for darn near any imaginable end, just as it's virtually never evil to breath. The question must always be "does this end justify these means?"

D&D (and similar) has tropes that say using poison is evil, consorting with undead is evil, etc., and I'm out to blow that up. So this character is good, and does these things when and only when the ends justify them.



I hope you've discussed this idea with your DM. Suddenly springing an alignment... "discussion"... on him in the middle of a session is really bad form and, if he doesn't agree with your position, your character idea is shot.

Like it or loathe it, there -is- RAW regarding alignment. By those guidelines the character you've described is decidedly non-good. If your DM is willing to change it, cool. Do you. If not, be prepared to accept that and move on.

[Tvtyrant]

So is wearing a loin cloth and distrusting magic, but they made barbarians a class anyway.

They made Conan a class. You are taking a world view and asking for a class, any of them except Paladin will work. Cleric of Ideal can be the most focused on it, Crusader as mentioned can do it for martials.



You're missing the point. This character is designed to challenge the idea that acts are inherently evil. The old debate about "do the ends justify the means" is a silly one, because in everything we do every day there are consequences ranging from using oxygen that someone else could use to slaughtering thousands, and benefits ranging from continuing to live to eliminating a politically opposed tribe. Of course it's evil to slaughter thousands for darn near any imaginable end, just as it's virtually never evil to breath. The question must always be "does this end justify these means?"

D&D (and similar) has tropes that say using poison is evil, consorting with undead is evil, etc., and I'm out to blow that up. So this character is good, and does these things when and only when the ends justify them.

I'm not missing the point, it just doesn't work in D&D. Having an alignment debate in real life sounds at least wice as fun as online. None-good by the games terms and rules.