Quote Originally Posted by Carry2 View Post
Because he uses almost exclusively Chaotic means to achieve this. He ignores his own legal systems on a whim,
The only example we might have seen of this is the bounty hunters misplaced paperwork. Which isn't ignoring the legal system at all. It's unfairly subjecting them to the legal system.


employs illusion, deceit, and manipulation,
Which are not unlawful things. Lying to someone does not make you chaotic.

and regularly topples or usurps existing governments.
In order to establish a more central and more stable government. Not chaotic.

There is basically nothing that Tarquin does that makes him look lawful except for long-range consequences.
How about appreciating that Roy sticks to his word? How about sticking to his promise to tell Elan about Girard? How about giving his word to Elan after they escaped the blade barrier? How about an unwillingness to lie about the forces he sent to aid/conquer the city and instead left things intentionally vague with the captain?

If this is a standard we tacitly endorse, it logically follows that an ostensibly Good PC could do nothing but employ torture, slaughter the innocent, and throw in a bit of gratuitous rape for good measure, and still come out smelling like roses if s/he (A) had some plausibly benign long-range plan, and (B) could statistically demonstrate that their actions had the net effect of decreasing suffering somehow. Are we really okay with that conclusion?
There is a difference between lawful and good. Tarquin hardly smells like roses and is definitely very Evil. No one is saying that what he is doing is a good thing.

You mean the rest of the book where Redcloak does, according to his brother, go on to betray his people, and aid and abet a lich sorceror intent on world domination? To the extent that the paladins can be blamed for that outcome, they can be blamed for incompetence, but not for intent- in the sense that actually killing RC in the first place would have avoided this outcome. I'm not saying that's the only interpretation, but it's certainly a viable one.
So you're calling the paladins evil for incompetence for failure to kill Redcloak? Given that the cloak is a relic of their God that the paladins knew nothing about, the likelyhood of another cleric picking it up and pursuing the gates are still pretty high.

They failed to kill Redcloak, and so he pursued the gates. Which he would have done had the paladins not attacked, because he would be following orders of the previous head cleric of the Dark One, who had similar goals.

The thing is that, within D&D rules- and not just the finicky details surrounding BAB or five-foot-steps, but the core behavioural philosophy of the class- paladins are not allowed to make that kind of call. They are 100% invested in the deontological ethics side of the spectrum, to the extent of literally not being allowed to put one foot wrong, ever, without serious comeuppance. Whereas their decisions in SoD are 100% consequentialist, and any comeuppance is conspicuously absent or glossed over.
And Rich has alluded to that some of the Paladins did fall that day. Lets say Redlcoak saw them fall, would that take away from the pain of his people being killed, would that take away his hatred? I would venture to say no.

As for the paladins being glanced over, as The Giant said, it is not their story. SOD is how Xykon and Redcloak came to be the villains that we know now. Going into the story of the paladins of those who fell, of the trials of those who sought atonement; is not relevant to the story because it doesn't matter.

This may make for a fine story, and if these were just generic crusading zealots serving their crystal dragon amaterasu, I would be fine with that. But these are not D&D paladins, and calling them so is not contributing to the alignment debate, any more than telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 is contributing to a debate over mathematics. It's just lowering the signal to noise ratio.
Why do they have to contribute to anything but a good story?