Tarquin is neither epic nor a straight fighter!

[Raineh Daze]

'Why does a Blackguard have to be evil' rather misses the point of a Blackguard. Same for questioning the 'good' component of a paladin (their entire schtick is holy warriors of good, see).

Now, why a Paladin has to be lawful? That's a better question.

[Tragak]

Why does a Paladin have to be lawful good (or Blackguards Evil)? There are plenty of Neutral deities out there - I guess they just get left out.

Some alignment restrictions are just arbitrary - despite what the class really represents.

Yes, but those gods already have champions: Clerics.

AnnandaleGaming wrote what I think is a pretty good explanation for why Paladins are supposed to be LG. Spoilered for length:

Spoiler

Show

Let me preface this with a few things; paladins are one of my favorite character classes to play in D&D. The allure of the class is, to me, to create a distinctive personality and background within a very rigidly defined archetype. That, and being able to whup ass on evil, in particular, better than anyone else. The paladin is a "fighter without bonus feats" against things like elementals, animals, and the like. But when fighting evil...a creature or person deliberately out to harm others...the paladin kicks ass above and beyond all others.

And when I play D&D, I want to play a hero. Usually. Playing evil characters tends to bring out facets of me I'd rather not acknowledge. Of course, any class can be a hero (excepting bards; nobody believes a bard can be a hero), but the thing about the Paladin is, he is destined to be. It isn't a choice, and it may not even be what he wants, but it is what he is on a more fundamental level than any other class.

Now, I've noticed a trend in recent supplements and such to introduce "variant" paladins. I don't necessarily have a problem with variations of paladin abilities, but most of these variations seem to be on the order of "letting people play a paladin that isn't LG." There's the CG paladin, the LE paladin, the CE paladin.

And that's all nonsense. Rot. Swill. Garbage. Stupid. Fluff. A CRUTCH FOR WEAK PLAYERS WHO CAN'T HANDLE THE GAME.

Ahem. Sorry. Was channeling Weird Pete for a second there.

Point is, Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons, in fact.

Let's start by examining the origins and meanings of the word "paladin." Without too much linguistic nonsense, paladin appears to have originated around 1595, referring in French literary romance to the 12 knights in attendance upon Charlemagne. Other less specific definitons; a paragon of chivalry, a determined advocate or defender of a noble cause...most of the rest of the definitions proceed from there.

Now, how does this relate to Paladins being Lawful Good only? Patience. We'll get there.

One of the arguments I often here for the variant alignment Paladins is, "Well, other gods have champions, too." Sure they do. They're called CLERICS. Or, for that matter, rangers or wizards or druids. If you want to become a super-duper CG champion, you work toward the "Holy Liberator" PrC.

Furthermore, folks, Chaotic Goodness is not a cause. Chaotic Good is the alignment that says "don't start none, won't be none," or "stay away, leave me alone, let me go my way." Mal Reynolds of Firefly is the perfect example of CG. He follows his own needs and conscience as the situation dictates, but isn't really out to change the world (not usually). He's a good man, sometimes even a very good one, but he's not a Paladin, and he'd laugh if you suggested he was. Chaotic Good is, by and large, a reactive sort of alignment, and Paladins are by their nature an active class. Their mandate is to actively hunt down evil and eradicate it. Chaotic Good characters aren't generally out to do that. They're individualists. Not crusaders.

By extension, CG gods aren't the kind who'd want their followers out championing causes, are they? I mean, combating evil where you find it, sure...but are they likely to grant significant power, like the paladin wields? I don't know, but I don't think so. Again, it's a matter of active vs. reactive. Chaotic Good beings react to threats or perceived injustices or crowding of individual freedoms; are those the kinds of things a Paladin does? Well, yes, but not as a cause. I just don't see it as possible to define "Chaotic Goodness" or CG deities as "a cause" or

As for Lawful Evil paladins? Still not buying it. Lawful Evil is not so much a cause as it is an alignment geared towards acquiring personal wealth and power. But again, anybody can do that. You don't need special abilities to make you a dominating conqueror, not really. And there's the Blackguard PrC to cover the situation of the "anointed of a dark god." And I have no problem with the Blackguard PrC filling that role, and it makes sense to me, for several reasons. For starters, dark gods aren't, I don't think, likely to grant those kinds of powers to someone who hasn't gone out and proven themselves devoted to the cause; I don't see 1st level characters in the "blackguard" role. Secondly, there are specific rules about the PrC that pertain to Fallen Paladins who take up the role, and that makes all kinds of sense to me. Nothing a dark god likes better than stealing the champion of his enemy.

I don't see a CE god granting those sorts of powers lightly, either, which is why I also don't buy the CE paladin variant. Look, imagine a dark god, d&d style. They are an eternal and inexorable and ineffable expression of all that is evil in the nature of sentient beings. They aren't going to share their power lightly, not without tremendous consequences to the sharee.

Contrast this to your typical LG god. They're exactly the opposite, and, I feel, much more likely to grant powers to someone based on their potential. Someone has to go and combat the evil out there, right? And while the representatives of LG gods can spend the time and energy to train and shepherd and educate those prospective, the deity in question needs to equip them with the ability to do what they are Called to do. I just think it's hard to make an argument that someone is Called to do evil in the way a Paladin is Called to do good. Most evil arises out of self-interest, of a desire for more personal wealth/power/magic, whatever, and rarely does it rise (or sink) to the level of proselytizing and actively seeking to spread the word and 'erdicate good.' Sure, there might be some few truly, truly devoted who act in that manner, but...are they going to go seek out and train their replacements, people they'd have to share power with?

A keen example here is the Sith (chorus of boos from all of you prequel haters; just trust me). There are 2 at a time, because otherwise, they get overwhelmed with backstabbing, plotting, assassinations and the like, and nothing gets done. The way a new Sith advances is by killing one up top. Don't share power. Don't make it easy for your replacements. Is this the kind of environment that fosters lots of individuals with potential to become great champions of evil, the way most Campaign Settings seem to picture Paladinhood?

No. But it is a way to foster the role of something like the Blackguard, a champion of evil who has proved himself by...being a champion of evil. I have no problems with the concept of an "anti-paladin" being applied to a PrC. But not a base class.

There's a game balance issue here, too. Paladins (along with Monks) get the most class-centric abilities, things no one else can effectively do. Most of these, for the Paladin, come at relatively early levels. By level 6, a paladin has gotten all of the abilities he's going to get; Aura of Good, Smite Evil 2/day, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Turn Undead, Special Mount, and Remove Disease 1/day. If you don't want the remove disease too badly, you can just go to 5. If the paladin doesn't have severe alignment restrictions, then min-maxxers might just take 5 levels and never go back. Some of them will do that anyway. But if they're a Chaotic Good Paladin, they can go and take levels in, say, Bard or Barbarian. The former, being so Charisma based, stacks especially well in a numbers way, but doesn't make any damn sense in a roleplay manner.

Finally, there's the challenge of playing a Paladin. Making a Paladin CG removes the very challenge that makes playing a unique Paladin so compelling. Look, I've played many a CG character in my life, but let's be honest; it's the easiest good alignment to play well, and might be the easiest in the game to effectively manage. You don't have carte blanche, but it's close.

The thing is, most people picture the Paladin as "Lawful Stupid," inevitably losing their life in a foolish cause, or being a prig who has no sense of humor and lives on bread and water. The fun of playing a Paladin is challenging that assertion. Lawful Good doesn't offer nearly as much latitude as anything else does, but that doesn't mean you can't have personality or that you have to be a stiff-necked prig. For example, one Paladin I played for a long time spent a fair amount of free time at a brothel. Not as a customer, mind you, nor in a paid position, but he hung around because, fairly often, the women there needed protection, or a little 'cure disease,' or someone to help them out in a number of ways. Maybe what they were doing wasn't legal, but the goddess he followed stressed caring for the younger, the weaker, those without means to protect themselves, etc. He saw that he was doing that, didn't accept money for it, didn't sleep with any of the girls (though Paladins don't have to be celibate, far from it) and all in all, helped make it so that the lives the women in that brothel had were better than they otherwise would've been. Maybe he preached a little bit...if he saw an opening...but not too much.

Anyway, enough character reminiscence. The point; Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons. They shouldn't be anything else.

TL, DR: To him (and I agree, despite disagreeing with Chaotic Good being characterized as "passive"), "what the class means" is the Knights of King Arthur or Charlemagne.

[Raineh Daze]

I can't agree with that person, simply because of their attitude towards Chaotic Good.

Good is Good. Your stance on the matter of laws vs personal freedoms does not affect that. 'Chaotic gods wouldn't empower their followers to fight evil!' suggests that said gods aren't, in fact, particularly good at all; they sound more Neutral if they don't care there's Evil around enough to stop it.

(They also seem to hold the belief that Law is better than Chaos, which is fundamentally misinterpreting the alignment system; that axis has no 'better' or 'worse' side)

[Angel Bob]

I will also agree that the writer's interpretation of Chaotic Good is incorrect... but I agree entirely with their interpretation of an ideal paladin.

[Olinser]

I can't agree with that person, simply because of their attitude towards Chaotic Good.

Good is Good. Your stance on the matter of laws vs personal freedoms does not affect that. 'Chaotic gods wouldn't empower their followers to fight evil!' suggests that said gods aren't, in fact, particularly good at all; they sound more Neutral if they don't care there's Evil around enough to stop it.

(They also seem to hold the belief that Law is better than Chaos, which is fundamentally misinterpreting the alignment system; that axis has no 'better' or 'worse' side)

Yeah, I have to agree with you. The author of that post seems to have Chaotic Good confused with True Neutral. And doesn't really offer any real reason that Paladins HAVE to be LG - other than he doesn't want them to be able to take levels in Barbarian or Bard.

The author seems to think that LG is the only alignment that actually goes out battling Evil.

Chaotic Good are MORE likely to be out hunting down evil, because they don't have to worry about laws and rules preventing them from doing Good. If a CG knows of something going on that is morally wrong but legally right, he is actually just about the ONLY alignment that will do something about it.

[Raineh Daze]

The main reason paladins are Lawful Good is that a Chaotic knight is a contradiction waiting to happen. It's because the fluff and class abilities build them as a heavily armoured feudal warrior, though--not because a divinely empowered holy warrior is Lawful.

[Snails]

In the feudal tradition, the common use of the word "honour" is to describe land awarded to a family for service (typically valiant service in war). What is understood is a rich honor supports many well-armed violent men that are bound by oaths for obedient service in war.

Very roughly, "I am very honorable" = "Do not @%#$! with me; my word has consequences."

The feudal system is all held together by interwoven oaths with positive duties towards both superiors and inferiors, that often extend across generations. In this context, to be a "chaotic knight" is to be an "outlaw" -- one who lives outside the legal system. That is a self-contradiction.

In a heroic fantasy setting an outlaw could easily be Good, e.g. Robin Hood, but he is not a knight. (In some traditions, Robin Hood was once a knight. But while he is skulking about in the forests, he is not. By definition, he does not have "honor", and his word and oath have no meaning within the general legal system that holds society together.)

[Stormlock]

I think they guy was some sketchy views of alignment (no way Reynolds is good for starters, nice maybe, but not Good) but he had the basic idea right.

A Paladin is, essentially, a holy warrior granted authority by his church, compelled to act in their service for moral reasons.

A chaotic church is not going to have that kind of hierarchal authority to begin with. One of the tenets of the alignment is that individuals govern themselves, they do not all follow a greater authority. Individuals might worship a diety, but their church has no right to impose upon others.

An evil church might have that kind of authority, but it's tenets are selfish, hedonistic ones. Someone serving such a church would not do so for moral reasons, but to attain more power or be spared from their ire. What would a lawful evil paladin crusade for? Getting himself some nice loot and hot chicks? Why would any church empower such an individual?

A blackguard works because he is already powerful and his actions have served the purpose of a dark god. He's earned their favour. But some powerless guy who just wants to be a bigshot? The dark gods can't possibly empower everyone like that, it'd be their entire group of followers. Only the strongest should have any authority over any others.

Whereas in a good church, what determines who should have authority is their righteousness, not their strength. That, and the concept of them being an extension of the law, is why a paladin only makes sense as a LG class at level 1.

[KillItWithFire]

I think they guy was some sketchy views of alignment (no way Reynolds is good for starters, nice maybe, but not Good) but he had the basic idea right.

Eh, I think you'd be hard pressed to call him anything else. I'm thinking particularly of the episode "Heart of Gold" in which Reynolds decides to help the downtrodden due to their situation alone and at great personal risk. It's an attitude he regularly displays. He'd like to have you think he's a callous thief but his nature gets the better of him when he rushes to oppose oppression despite cost to himself. Remember Train Job, returning the medicine despite the fact that the action came at SERIOUS cost to himself and his crew. I think that's the defining part of good vs. neutral. A good person will perform good acts (helping the defenseless, stamping out evil) even if there is a personal cost while a neutral person would be stopped by it.

A Paladin is, essentially, a holy warrior granted authority by his church, compelled to act in their service for moral reasons.

A chaotic church is not going to have that kind of hierarchal authority to begin with. One of the tenets of the alignment is that individuals govern themselves, they do not all follow a greater authority. Individuals might worship a diety, but their church has no right to impose upon others.

An evil church might have that kind of authority, but it's tenets are selfish, hedonistic ones. Someone serving such a church would not do so for moral reasons, but to attain more power or be spared from their ire. What would a lawful evil paladin crusade for? Getting himself some nice loot and hot chicks? Why would any church empower such an individual?

Unless they aim to further the cause of evil. In the same way a LG Paladin can zealously destroy evil in all its forms, a LE evil Paladin could do the same to good. He could believe it is the right of the strong to oppress the weak as part of his moral view and good would oppose them on that. So in the name of "Evil" he hunts agents of good.

A blackguard works because he is already powerful and his actions have served the purpose of a dark god. He's earned their favour. But some powerless guy who just wants to be a bigshot? The dark gods can't possibly empower everyone like that, it'd be their entire group of followers. Only the strongest should have any authority over any others.

I don't think players who choose Paladin are born Paladins, they live their life until they are called and take their first adventurer level as a paladin. You can in fact, exist as a person without having player class levels. Why shouldn't a blackguard be able to do the same thing?

Chaotic Good are MORE likely to be out hunting down evil, because they don't have to worry about laws and rules preventing them from doing Good. If a CG knows of something going on that is morally wrong but legally right, he is actually just about the ONLY alignment that will do something about it.

Lawful != respects human made laws as the only authority

Law and Chaos are defined more by your devotion to a cause or code and need not have anything to do with man-made laws. If a Paladin adventures into an evil country and the law there states that murder is the proper and only way to deal with someone who bumped into you, will he feel obliged to cut down a man who ran into him by accident? No because he has no respect for that law. A chaotic character however would be more likely to change his personal viewpoint on a moment to moment basis. That's not to say that they are weak-willed compared to their lawful cousins, just that they don't try to define what good is so they play it by ear much more often while a lawful character would rather justify his actions with something more than a gut feeling. That's my take anyway.

[Stormlock]

Eh, I think you'd be hard pressed to call him anything else. I'm thinking particularly of the episode "Heart of Gold" in which Reynolds decides to help the downtrodden due to their situation alone and at great personal risk. It's an attitude he regularly displays. He'd like to have you think he's a callous thief but his nature gets the better of him when he rushes to oppose oppression despite cost to himself. Remember Train Job, returning the medicine despite the fact that the action came at SERIOUS cost to himself and his crew. I think that's the defining part of good vs. neutral. A good person will perform good acts (helping the defenseless, stamping out evil) even if there is a personal cost while a neutral person would be stopped by it.

Yeah but at the same time, he regularly steals from perfectly innocent people and takes plenty of shady jobs he doesn't need to so he doesn't have to live under any sort of authority. And remember the first episode, where he leaves the guy behind to die so he didn't have to drop any cargo?

He's pretty solidly CN in my book. Neither selfish nor selfless. He has lines he won't cross but still puts himself first.

Unless they aim to further the cause of evil. In the same way a LG Paladin can zealously destroy evil in all its forms, a LE evil Paladin could do the same to good. He could believe it is the right of the strong to oppress the weak as part of his moral view and good would oppose them on that. So in the name of "Evil" he hunts agents of good.

This is just a silly concept. He's doing evil deeds... for the benefit of OTHER evil people, at his own expense? This makes no sense.

He could hold those beliefs, but then he'd simply oppress the weak for his own benefit. He wouldn't go around beating up paladins so that his inferior colleagues (who would just as soon slit his throat and take everything he owns) can beat up peasants without being opposed.

I don't think players who choose Paladin are born Paladins, they live their life until they are called and take their first adventurer level as a paladin. You can in fact, exist as a person without having player class levels. Why shouldn't a blackguard be able to do the same thing?

Because a first level adventurer has no power. A guy who has been an evil **** for 80 years by abusing his apprentices in his smithy isn't more worthy to become a Blackguard because he's been more of a ****. It's the guy that's strong enough to raze a church and slaughter everyone that deserves that position.

OTOH, the guy who has been a saint for 80 years working at an orphanage is worthy of the honor of becoming a paladin, because he's proven his dedication.

Good guys care about dedication and chivalry in their champions. Bad guys care about strength in theirs, and expect them to follow the path of evil not out of trust, but temptation.

To use a real world example, if you're choosing someone to run a charity under you, you choose the guy who works most selflessly, because he's least likely to betray it, which is more important than his efficiency. If you're choosing someone to run a gang under you, you choose the guy who'll get the most useful **** done, not the one who'll kick the most puppies along the way.

Good's goal is to aid the innocent. Evil's goal isn't to hurt the innocent, it's to aid oneself- the innocent are irrelevant.

Lawful != respects human made laws as the only authority

Law and Chaos are defined more by your devotion to a cause or code and need not have anything to do with man-made laws. If a Paladin adventures into an evil country and the law there states that murder is the proper and only way to deal with someone who bumped into you, will he feel obliged to cut down a man who ran into him by accident? No because he has no respect for that law. A chaotic character however would be more likely to change his personal viewpoint on a moment to moment basis. That's not to say that they are weak-willed compared to their lawful cousins, just that they don't try to define what good is so they play it by ear much more often while a lawful character would rather justify his actions with something more than a gut feeling. That's my take anyway.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you saying you could have a LE paladin but not a CG or CE one?

[KillItWithFire]

Yeah but at the same time, he regularly steals from perfectly innocent people and takes plenty of shady jobs he doesn't need to so he doesn't have to live under any sort of authority. And remember the first episode, where he leaves the guy behind to die so he didn't have to drop any cargo?

He's pretty solidly CN in my book. Neither selfish nor selfless. He has lines he won't cross but still puts himself first.

No I don't. I haven't watched the first episode in a while so I don't quite remember this. Provide a bit more context maybe? In any case, I find he acts selfish if no one is harmed by it but if he feels it's within his power to help those in need he does so. It's pretty hard to justify "Heart of Gold" as anything other than selfless or going through great trouble to harbor the Tams. If he truly acted selfishly there was no reason for him not to call the FEDs as soon as he knew who they were for a reward because as that point he had no personal stake in the Tams, they were not friends or crew-mates. At the very least, if he didn't want to deal with the alliance there was no reason to offer them passage. Especially since River makes things "not go smooth." He harbored them at personal cost to himself. He also puts himself at risk to aid members of his crew or his friends. The Tams having been kidnapped springs to mind. "War Stories" does as well. His gut reaction is to help good people who need help. But the practical side of him reminds him he needs to put food on the table and keep a low profile.

This is just a silly concept. He's doing evil deeds... for the benefit of OTHER evil people, at his own expense? This makes no sense.

Replace every instance of evil with good in this sentence and you have a paladin. Good and evil are both subjective concepts. If you have a champion who's code challenges him to perform good regardless of personal gain for the sake of good, why not evil? Evil doesn't HAVE to be performed for personal gain, it just usually is.

He could hold those beliefs, but then he'd simply oppress the weak for his own benefit. He wouldn't go around beating up paladins so that his inferior colleagues (who would just as soon slit his throat and take everything he owns) can beat up peasants without being opposed.

Why wouldn't he? If he holds the belief that evil should be allowed to flourish completely independent of what those who follow it think of him for doing so, why wouldn't he?

Because a first level adventurer has no power. A guy who has been an evil **** for 80 years by abusing his apprentices in his smithy isn't more worthy to become a Blackguard because he's been more of a ****. It's the guy that's strong enough to raze a church and slaughter everyone that deserves that position.

OTOH, the guy who has been a saint for 80 years working at an orphanage is worthy of the honor of becoming a paladin, because he's proven his dedication.

To the cause of good yes. Why can't the same be said for one who has shown his dedication to evil?

Good guys care about dedication and chivalry in their champions. Bad guys care about strength in theirs, and expect them to follow the path of evil not out of trust, but temptation.


To use a real world example, if you're choosing someone to run a charity under you, you choose the guy who works most selflessly, because he's least likely to betray it, which is more important than his efficiency. If you're choosing someone to run a gang under you, you choose the guy who'll get the most useful **** done, not the one who'll kick the most puppies along the way.

If the power comes when I give them my divine blessing why is that a requisite for it in the first place? In this situation I'd choose the mass murderer obviously but because he's shown that he has more courage to follow the path of evil. He will spit in the face of the law and risk the wrath of justice simply to perform acts of malice. The abusive master is at no risk to himself as aside from heroes walking into town, most would not interfere with his right to treat his apprentices how he deems fit.

Good's goal is to aid the innocent. Evil's goal isn't to hurt the innocent, it's to aid oneself- the innocent are irrelevant.

What if I am helping the downtrodden because I like it when they worship me and give me free things. Am I being evil or good? That aside though, I think this statement is the source of our disagreements is our different definitions of good and evil. If you were to boil down my definition of the good/evil scale it goes as follows:
Good: acts in the benefits of others even at cost to himself
Neutral: acts in the benefit of others IFF there is no or minimal cost to himself and/or harms others IFF there is significant benefit to himself
Evil: Acts to harm others even if there is no benefit to himself

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you saying you could have a LE paladin but not a CG or CE one?

While I agree with that statement that isn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to put forth my definition of law vs. chaos and why paladins are seldom chaotic.

I'm sorry if I seem disjointed at times, I'm trying to work on other things at the same time and my attention is divided so feel free to ask for clarification if you need it I can't imagine I'm being 100% free of communication errors.

[Tragak]

That aside though, I think this statement is the source of our disagreements is our different definitions of good and evil. If you were to boil down my definition of the good/evil scale it goes as follows:
Good: acts in the benefits of others even at cost to himself
Neutral: acts in the benefit of others IFF there is no or minimal cost to himself and/or harms others IFF there is significant benefit to himself
Evil: Acts to harm others even if there is no benefit to himself

Personally, I'm inclined to say that "hurts others for personal benefit" vs "hurts others regardless of personal benefit" to be an issue of "calculating evil" vs "For the Evulz" rather than "Neutral" vs "Evil."

I always felt that Neutral, rather than being just "Evil-lite," means "Average, Normal." Normal people don't risk their lives for strangers without either a Good and/or Lawful streak, but they also wouldn't hurt others except to keep their loved ones from being hurt worse.

As such, rather than "hurts others for personal benefit" being Neutral and "hurts others regardless of personal benefit" being Evil, "hurts others for personal benefit" is Amoral Evil and "hurts others regardless of personal benefit" is Immoral Evil

[Rakoa]

Would you look at that? Not a single post on this page contains the name "Tarquin". This page being page 9 of the thread about Tarquin.

Just an observation.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

Just came here, new poster.
Interesting... Paladin alignment, honor issues, huh.

Well, I think that it has been stated somewhere earlier, that his high mental scores (good int for genre savvy, decent cha for bluffs and diplomacy/intimidation, decent wis for perception and motive guessing) suggest towards one of the other melees, like warblade.
Swashbucklers seem to be a bit lightly armored, no...
Warblades would have decent abilities for his dodging and throwing (setting sun maneuver) although also some serious sidestepping and roilar's gambit type stuff.
Mage-type class would be uncommon under that type of armor.
High mental stats all... huh.

[Stormlock]

Good: acts in the benefits of others even at cost to himself
Neutral: acts in the benefit of others IFF there is no or minimal cost to himself and/or harms others IFF there is significant benefit to himself
Evil: Acts to harm others even if there is no benefit to himself

Yeah, this is where we're disagreeing. I'm with you on good, but I'd use your Neutral as Evil, and think your Evil is just cartoonish and doesn't really exist.

My Neutral would be someone who acts in their own best interest, all else being equal, but helps others at least as much as he harms them. Someone who gives as much as he takes, so to speak. A hermit is neutral because he doesn't bother with anybody, and a rogue that steals from everyone (good or evil) to feed his family/orphanage/bundle of kittens is also neutral. He harms some good people to help others, and harms evil people to help himself.

The episode of Firefly I'm talking about involves them robbing a bank (it was actually the beginning of the movie, not the first episode) when reavers show up. He starts fleeing on his flying sled while a guy is hanging on to the side begging to be saved. He tells him no, shoves him off and watches the reavers catch him before putting a bullet in his head. That's borderline evil if you ask me.

He justifies it to whatsername later by saying he needed the cash to keep the ship flying, but A: He didn't need ALL the cash and B: Keeping the ship flying isn't a necessity. People live all over the place in the outer worlds. He could sell his ship and live on a farm and not have to rob banks. He abandoned an innocent man to certain death so he could keep his ship. A good character should never do such a thing imo.

[KillItWithFire]

Yeah, this is where we're disagreeing. I'm with you on good, but I'd use your Neutral as Evil, and think your Evil is just cartoonish and doesn't really exist.

Indeed, I agree that in the real world, most fall under neutral and that is by design. But the alignment system doesn't measure the real world it measures the D&D world where there are in fact cults and creatures dedicated to the pain of others.

My Neutral would be someone who acts in their own best interest, all else being equal, but helps others at least as much as he harms them. Someone who gives as much as he takes, so to speak. A hermit is neutral because he doesn't bother with anybody, and a rogue that steals from everyone (good or evil) to feed his family/orphanage/bundle of kittens is also neutral. He harms some good people to help others, and harms evil people to help himself.

I tried to convey that with my neutral definition. It all comes down to the cost/benefit in my definition. I think everyone knows what good is and wants to be good, so acting good of there is no cost is human. Also all people want to benefit and increase their own standing. Meaning that to do evil to gain is also human. For me, the two extremes occur when one performs good or evil without those reasons.

The episode of Firefly I'm talking about involves them robbing a bank (it was actually the beginning of the movie, not the first episode) when reavers show up. He starts fleeing on his flying sled while a guy is hanging on to the side begging to be saved. He tells him no, shoves him off and watches the reavers catch him before putting a bullet in his head. That's borderline evil if you ask me.

He justifies it to whatsername later by saying he needed the cash to keep the ship flying, but A: He didn't need ALL the cash and B: Keeping the ship flying isn't a necessity. People live all over the place in the outer worlds. He could sell his ship and live on a farm and not have to rob banks. He abandoned an innocent man to certain death so he could keep his ship. A good character should never do such a thing imo.

Yes I remember this now. While the shooting could be seen as a good act, turning him away when he was begging would for me be neutral. Reavers were attacking and a panicked person would be out to save their own hide. To allow the man on would require slowing the ship and dragging the man on while risking the Reavers to come closer. You could make a case for evil also but I don't think the one act defines him. The thing I'm focused on is the trend he normally shows leans more towards good. Since he is not a divinity it is reasonable for him to assume he will act outside his alignment especially in stressful situations. Since it is an uncommon occurrence for him to act this way I still call him good.

Anyway this is in fact getting off topic so if you want to continue the discussion PM me? I know I'm enjoying it but I don't want to take away anymore space from the people discussing Tarquin.

[jidasfire]

Would you look at that? Not a single post on this page contains the name "Tarquin". This page being page 9 of the thread about Tarquin.

Just an observation.

On a long enough scale, every OOTS forum discussion turns into a debate about alignment, Miko, or Familicide.

[DaOldeWolf]

On a long enough scale, every OOTS forum discussion turns into a debate about alignment, Miko, or Familicide.

^That quote is so awesomely true I would love to have it in my sig.

[jidasfire]

^That quote is so awesomely true I would love to have it in my sig.

Wow, that's a first. Permission granted.

[Tragak]

On a long enough scale, every OOTS forum discussion turns into a debate about alignment, Miko, or Familicide.

MIKO WAS A NEUTRAL EVIL DRAKETOOTH!!!

[Olinser]

On a long enough scale, every OOTS forum discussion turns into a debate about alignment, Miko, or Familicide.

Or 'X would beat Y if Z happened'.

[Rakoa]

I have, in trying to get us back on topic, gotten us on a different off topic. I really should have seen that coming, actually. As you were!

[FleshrakerAbuse]

The randomness makes it interesting. (Randomness on how long it takes).

[Bulldog Psion]

It appears that Tarquin's class is "Tarquin." And that his level is "permanently and deliberately indeterminate."

[137beth]

New challenge: Decide what tier the Tarquin class is. I'd say around tier 3--foresight about narrative structure is a nice utility, plus a bunch of interesting in-combat tactics to help contribute against most kinds of combats. It might be a high tier 3 class, but there are no gamebreaking spells, so probably not tier 2.

[Rakoa]

New challenge: Decide what tier the Tarquin class is. I'd say around tier 3--foresight about narrative structure is a nice utility, plus a bunch of interesting in-combat tactics to help contribute against most kinds of combats. It might be a high tier 3 class, but there are no gamebreaking spells, so probably not tier 2.

I would agree. He would have some divination type stuff to represent his ability to dramatically predict events as they unfold and the actions of people, many many different kinds of combat styles, including one to represent his defensive style. Perhaps the ability to switch between them as the need arises, so bonuses for fighting multiple foes (like the Order) are different than when fighting a single foe (like Elan). Lots of Charisma based stuff, no doubt.

Someone in the Homebrew threads needs to get on this. I'd love to play a Tarquin.

[Bulldog Psion]

This means that the other five members of his adventuring party are likely homebrews as well, true? Or at least four of them, since Malack appears to be a regular cleric.

[Poppy Appletree]

Not a straight fighter? Well, I guess when he said he was soon to be married in #753 he wasn't dismissing outright that he might be bisexual.

[martianmister]

It appears that Tarquin's class is "Tarquin." And that his level is "permanently and deliberately indeterminate."

Tarquin's homebrew class is a combination of fighter, blackguard, dashing swordsman, warblade, bard, rogue and monk.

[Crusher]

Tarquin's homebrew class is a combination of fighter, blackguard, dashing swordsman, warblade, bard, rogue and monk.

Why create a whole new class when he could have just taken 2-3 levels of each and called it a day. :p