Templar v. Inquistor. Which one to be?

[TheWiredNe]

<DIV>I was wondering if any of you beta players out there can help me decide between Templar or Inquistor by telling me the major diffrence between the two.</DIV>

[TheWiredNe]

<DIV>nevermind since Im evil I can't even become a templar <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Inquistor it is.</DIV>

[Urguw]

<DIV>You could do the betrayal quest at 17th and become a Templar, but I think Inquisitors will be equally sought-after by groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Betrayal Quest — Qeynos<BR>Level to Start: 15<BR>Level Boundary: 17<BR>Seek Out: Cordun Brenland, Qeynos Harbor<BR>• “Qeynos to Freeport — Exile”</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Betrayal Quest — Freeport<BR>Level to Start: 15<BR>Level Boundary: 17<BR>Seek Out: Stilus Graphium, East Freeport<BR>• “Freeport to Qeynos — Exile”</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The biggest drawback of the Templar is that they can't significantly contribute to the group's DPS.  Inquisitors, however, have numerous spell lines to increase group DPS throughout their careers.  Templars might be slightly more desired in the end-game for epic battles, but the Inquisitor will effectively enjoy 30 seasons of leveling faster.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Urguwno on <span class=date_text>11-12-2004</span> <span class=time_text>05:23 PM</span>

[Za]

<DIV>I like to liik at it this way:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars boost the spirit and envigorate the soul... Thus providing better heals and buffs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors threaten you with damnation and invoke fear and remorse... Thus being better debuffers towards the enemy, but for the group, they increase their combat effectiveness.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which is really why I don't see why all inquisitors must be evil. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Troy Spir]

I think they should change the "good" and "evil" to something else. Perhaps something less polarizing. "Shadow" and "Light" maybe or something. All the "Evil" alignments are not nessisarly "theives and jerkoffs" nor are all the "Good" alightments nessisarly "Helpers of all mankind." A more complex alightment system would help ala D&D.

[Blackrai]

<DIV>Well, using D&D as the example, it's true, not all evil creatures are "thieves and jerkoffs".  In this case, the Inquisitor represents the epitome of "Lawful Evil".  Very strict adherence to their faith, where everyone who does not adhere is branded a heretic and purified by flame.  Templars are no less fanatical about their beliefs, but it's a different kind of fanaticism... rather than taking everyone who disagrees and burning them at the stake, they try to convert them (often by force).  They're inquisitors of sorts, but they're more of the "good" inquisitors.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So... either way, you can be an inquisitor, in the actual sense of the word.  It's just that in EQ2, Templars represent the "Crusading Fanatics taking back the holy lands" inquisitors, and Inquisitors represent the "Spanish Inquisition; someone told me you were a witch; repent now or die painfully" inquisitors.  If you play or have ever heard of Warhammer 40k, that's the best example I can think of.  EQ2 Inquisitors are the Witch Hunters, hunting down their own people to purge heresy from their ranks.  EQ2 Templars are the Daemonhunters, hunting down the foul demons of the world (and those who help them) to protect mankind.</DIV>

[Za]

<DIV>Great examples!</DIV>

[Tokage]

<DIV>Yes very good examples! Kinda makes me glad I rolled a second healer to make it to templar! Thanks!</DIV>

[VandurLast]

<DIV>i disagree with Inquisitors being classified as Lawful Evil.</DIV> <DIV>i tihnk they are the ultimate personification of Lawful Good. They are part of the institution that will do good for, to and on behalf of you whether you like it or not. Whether or not you agree with thier definition of what "good" is is irrelevant to whether or not they see themselves as pursuing good.</DIV> <DIV>To be Lawful Evil they would have to know thier religon is a scam, not care about doing good  as thier religon states or else merely use it to further thier own ends.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also think theres an argument for the Qeynos Templars being Neutral/Chaotic Good. Someone who is truly Lawful wouldnt say "sure buddy you dont need to have faith, you can do/believe whatever you like" when presented with the faithless/heretical/whatever. A real Lawful Good cleric would tell those halflings and such that he is going to save thier souls whether they like it or not.</DIV>

[Myrn]

<DIV>That's a pretty cynical view of Lawful Good, but I agree with it.</DIV>

[Nanochler]

Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. That's just taken from a random site and it is pretty much how I see it. Your assuming that evil is inherently chaotic so they have no disregard for ideas like law, this isn't true. Evil has order as well but it is based around a different set of ideas. Like ratting people out would be an example. A Inquisitor is exactly this, he pushes his faith forward without regard to how he does it. A templar on the other hand is extreme also in his beliefs but not in his methods. Just look at the most classic example of Lawful Good, a paladin. A paladin doesn't seek out a heretic without an actual reason. Like if he passes a guy on the street with a "No God" sign he isn't gonna take him out right there.<p>Message Edited by Nanochleric on <span class=date_text>12-12-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:11 PM</span>

[VandurLast]

<DIV>Nah man im not assuming anything about being Chaotic.</DIV> <DIV>Im just saying that its possible to impose your will on others and possibly even cause pain, suffering and death while still being true to an alignment of "good". The person doing those acts just needs to think/beleive that the death etc he is causing is in the name of good.</DIV> <DIV>King Richard the Lionheart is often held up by Anglo's as the epitome of a holy crusader fighting for truth and justice, travelling to the holy land to smite evil and make the world a nicer place. He caused more than his fair share of pain, suffering and death while he did it though and even more did it while hanging on to his Lawful Good alignment.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>lets talk about your theoretical Paladin. Your situation is fine so long as the paladin belongs to a Church that preaches tolerance and is accepting of the lack of faith that others may have. What about a lawful good Paladin whose Church says that people with no faith are being evil because if enough people die without being redeemed/enlightened the world will end and demons will rule the earth?</DIV> <DIV>If he leaves the "No God" sign bearing people alone he isnt really being faithful to his Lawful alignment is he? Now hes deciding his own moral code and is therefore either Neutral/Chaotic Good. thats the difference between your archetypal paladin and Druid/Ranger right there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All you have to do is get your head around the fact that a real hard-core "lawful Good" person isnt someone most people in the Western world would agree with or feel comfortable about.</DIV>

[Kuroika]

You bring up an interisting question. Namely, are good and evil something objective or are they merely opinions that people hold. The fact is that in the real world people gererally don't think of themselvs as being evil. This hold true for almost anyone. For instance almost everone aggrees that Hitler was evil except hitler himself. He thought he was doing a good thing. Philosophers have been arguing for thosands of years about this issue so i have no doubt that we will not be figureing it out in this forum but it should be noted that this discusion is not about the real world but about the world in EQ2. In that world, much like the one in D&D, good and evil are not just different points of view but real entities. In that way the fantasy world takes a more traditional view of the issue. Its true that Inquistor's wouldn't actually view themselves as evil, just as every other person in Freeport would also not view themselves as evil. However in the world of EQ2 Freeport is considered evil by the absolute standard of good and evil that governs that world. Therefor Inquistors are evil even if they themselves wouldn't view it that way. To give you a real world example, I view the crusades as being even even though the people who took part in the crusades viewed what they did as a good thing. A lawful good character would never use force as a means to make someone follow thier beliefs, because, while they want others to share thier beliefs, part of those beliefs is that others must come to belief without being forced or it wouldn't be genuine in the first place, and even if the belief of the person was genuine it would still be wrong to force them. Those seem to be basic tenents to good faiths in D&D and seem to be brought over into EQ2 as well considering the differences between Qeynos and Freeport.Sorry if this post delved a little deeper into philosophy than anyone on this post expected. This is the kind of stuff i studdied in college so just couldn't resist commenting on it when i saw this thread. P.S. In case anyone wonders, i was NOT trying to call the Catholic church evil in paragraph three.

[Auria]

<DIV>Haha, the OP was asking beta testers. This is a reaaaaally old post. Maybe you could repost that information in the Cleric forum to help inform prospective Templars/Inquisitors. :smileyhappy:</DIV>