Before looking at XP cards, Roland has two advantages over Skids when it comes to murdering things: +1 Fight and his signature gun. Skids has far more advantages, however:

1) A more combat-relevant ability. An extra action to either fight or move to an area to fight is more relevant than gaining a clue.

2) Access to more combat-relevant cards. Both can play the Guardian weapons, Guardian allies, and Viscous Blow, but Skids can also play the Rogue weapons, Backstab, and Sneak Attack.

3) Better economy. Skids has better access to efficient resource generation, which makes playing the more expensive combat/damage assets (guns, Dynamite) far easier.

When you look at the current XP cards, Roland does get the Shotgun as another weapon, but Skids gets access to cards that make succeeding in a combat more likely (Sure Bet) or more effective.

This is not to say that Roland is a bad investigator, just that he is more rounded: his two classes let him fight and investigate. With the current cards Skids is far more focussed on killing things*, but that does mean that he is less able to investigate. This makes Roland a better solo investigator, but if you want to add combat punch to your team, Skids is a better first pick. It doesn't mean that Roland cannot fight, but from what we've seen of the deluxe box, Skids is (and will be for a while) the best combat/damage investigator.

*As an aside, I find it odd that people like evading so much with Skids. He has a good agility, and can play Pickpocket, but I don't think that it makes the most of his cardpool. Wendy's mix of Rogue and Survivor cards make her much better at using evade as an offensive tool.

While I agree with you on basically everything, I'd hesitate to mention access to Rogue weapons. Backstab and Sneak Attack are great. The Rogue weapons in my opinion are simply outclassed by the Guardian ones. Specifically machete for Skids.

Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone use the Rogue weapons for Skids? Have they been effective? Why use them over a machete?

Lastly, I just want to mention that I don't think it's that people like evading so much with Skids. I agree that he's better off usually just killing things in the first place, but he's still pretty great at it and offers him options in dealing with enemies in a way that Roland does not have access to. Skids' great evade ability is what makes machete shine so much on him in my opinion. Also any enemies that take more than one round to defeat is better handled by Skids in general due to his aptitude for evasion.

-KhalBrogo, Being lawful does not mean blind obedience to the law. There are several lawful evil kingdoms. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow their laws? No being lawful is a personality that leans towards a code of conduct being of religious, social or personal in nature.

I actually really appreciate you bringing this up.

I never claimed that lawful = blind obedience to the law. I understand what lawful means. Let's explore your example. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow his/her own laws? Do you expect a lawful good police officer to follow his/her own laws?

Given that Roland is an officer of the law as an FBI investigator isn't it safe to assume that his code of conduct, rules, and laws include those he's sworn to uphold? Including the rules/laws set in place regarding the intentional covering up of evidence and obstruction of justice?

Let's keep this on topic. This isn'ta forum on D&D, World of Warcraft, or real world Paladins. Each one of those has different ideology and beliefs, and is completely irrelevant to an FBI Investigator in 1920's New England, giant monsters or not.

-KhalBrogo, Being lawful does not mean blind obedience to the law. There are several lawful evil kingdoms. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow their laws? No being lawful is a personality that leans towards a code of conduct being of religious, social or personal in nature.

I actually really appreciate you bringing this up.

I never claimed that lawful = blind obedience to the law. I understand what lawful means. Let's explore your example. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow his/her own laws? Do you expect a lawful good police officer to follow his/her own laws?

Given that Roland is an officer of the law as an FBI investigator isn't it safe to assume that his code of conduct, rules, and laws include those he's sworn to uphold? Including the rules/laws set in place regarding the intentional covering up of evidence and obstruction of justice?

Life is not that black and white. I am sure Roland respects the law but he also has common sense and knows that parading a ghoul corpse downtown is going to cause more trouble for him and his investigation than it's worth.

Especially in 1920s when people were much more superstitious and God fearing and the police often very corrupt. The Arkham investigators represent people who operate outside of conventional organizations because of the forbidden knowledge they have and the knowledge that it would drive mot people insane.

-KhalBrogo, Being lawful does not mean blind obedience to the law. There are several lawful evil kingdoms. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow their laws? No being lawful is a personality that leans towards a code of conduct being of religious, social or personal in nature.

I actually really appreciate you bringing this up.

I never claimed that lawful = blind obedience to the law. I understand what lawful means. Let's explore your example. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow his/her own laws? Do you expect a lawful good police officer to follow his/her own laws?

Given that Roland is an officer of the law as an FBI investigator isn't it safe to assume that his code of conduct, rules, and laws include those he's sworn to uphold? Including the rules/laws set in place regarding the intentional covering up of evidence and obstruction of justice?

Life is not that black and white. I am sure Roland respects the law but he also has common sense and knows that parading a ghoul corpse downtown is going to cause more trouble for him and his investigation than it's worth.

Especially in 1920s when people were much more superstitious and God fearing and the police often very corrupt. The Arkham investigators represent people who operate outside of conventional organizations because of the forbidden knowledge they have and the knowledge that it would drive mot people insane.

I agree with SuperMarino re getting off topic, so I'm only going to address this one last time.

I never said life is black and white. What you said is fine and I largely agree with you but when you get into the area of "more trouble than it's worth" you're wading out of Lawful Good territory and into Non-Lawful Good territory. I'm not arguing that Roland is not good, just that if he's covering up evidence he's probably not Lawful Good. Lawful Good people act as good people are expected or required to act.

My understanding is that Lawful Good is a very restrictive alignment. If you are a fan of the Dresden Files, one character that comes to mind when I think of Lawful Good is Michael Carpenter. Harry Dresden on the other hand is very much Non-Lawful Good (definitely not Lawful Good but probably Chaotic Good).

I can very easily see Harry doing good but questionable things in the realm of "more trouble than it's worth." I can't say the same for Michael. Michael has a very strict set of rules as a knight of the cross and although they can be incredibly inconvenient or frustrating he adheres to them because he's Lawful Good.

At this point, we're just arguing our various nuanced definitions of alignments. semantics essentially. Let's just agree that our definitions are different and we're both right. I think we can both agree though that Xenu's Paradox is wrong haha - in particular because he brought up the argument that a Paladin can be essentially any alignment (if so then why the correction?).

Anyway on that note, let's get back on topic.

The back of Roland's card is pretty clear as to his motivations. He is a man in a tough spot. Torn between duty and the horrific truth.

Roland had always taken comfort in procedure and rules. As an agent in the Bureau, he was relieved to have guidelines to follow in any given situation. But lately, his Federal Agent's Handbook had been entirely unhelpful given the cases he'd been assigned. Try as he might, Roland could find no mention of what to do when confronted with strange creatures, gates through time and space, or magic spells. If he hadn't seen it with his own eyes, he would never have believed it... and there's no way his superiors would understand. Roland knew he would have to handle this one himself.

Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone use the Rogue weapons for Skids? Have they been effective? Why use them over a machete?

The times I've played skids I do use both the Rogue and Guardian weapons. For one I don't mind the 45 or derringer, they're pretty similar so having access to both is really just like having 4 guns in the deck (as opposed to Rolands 3). Additionally I REALLY like keeping the switchblade in the deck because it's a fast action to equip it and you don't take damage if you're already engaged. I agree that Machete is the weapon if choice for him but you only have two of them. Sometimes you're already engaged with an enemy before drawing one. At that point I'd prefer to throw something in his open hand to help him fight even if I'm going to ditch it later (either by replacing it or just getting the extra fight off it).

I think Roland does have one thing over Skids though. Unless I'm mistaken Skids can't take the Shotgun.

Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone use the Rogue weapons for Skids? Have they been effective? Why use them over a machete?

The times I've played skids I do use both the Rogue and Guardian weapons. For one I don't mind the 45 or derringer, they're pretty similar so having access to both is really just like having 4 guns in the deck (as opposed to Rolands 3). Additionally I REALLY like keeping the switchblade in the deck because it's a fast action to equip it and you don't take damage if you're already engaged. I agree that Machete is the weapon if choice for him but you only have two of them. Sometimes you're already engaged with an enemy before drawing one. At that point I'd prefer to throw something in his open hand to help him fight even if I'm going to ditch it later (either by replacing it or just getting the extra fight off it).

I think Roland does have one thing over Skids though. Unless I'm mistaken Skids can't take the Shotgun.

You're right Skids can't use the Shotgun. I've considered using switchblade but typically my Skids decks have Machete x2, Vicious Blow x2, Backstab x2, and often but not always Sneak Attack x2. I find that I can usually deal with enemies with Backstab, Vicious Blow, or Sneak Attack if I don't have Machete yet. If I have none of those he can at least evade pretty reliably until he draws one.

It just bothers me that switchblade doesn't help you succeed and when you do it's a gamble whether the damage bonus helps or not. Maybe it's due to my personality but I much prefer the reliable +1 combat, +1 damage effects over the conditional damage bonus effects. Honestly I consider adding knife in before switchblade.

Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone use the Rogue weapons for Skids? Have they been effective? Why use them over a machete?

The times I've played skids I do use both the Rogue and Guardian weapons. For one I don't mind the 45 or derringer, they're pretty similar so having access to both is really just like having 4 guns in the deck (as opposed to Rolands 3). Additionally I REALLY like keeping the switchblade in the deck because it's a fast action to equip it and you don't take damage if you're already engaged. I agree that Machete is the weapon if choice for him but you only have two of them. Sometimes you're already engaged with an enemy before drawing one. At that point I'd prefer to throw something in his open hand to help him fight even if I'm going to ditch it later (either by replacing it or just getting the extra fight off it).

I think Roland does have one thing over Skids though. Unless I'm mistaken Skids can't take the Shotgun.

You are correct. However, with the exception of Bosses, the Shotgun isn't worth much. It's a potentially dangerous overkill for smaller enemies, and has very limited ammo. Skids can dispatch with the Bosses just as easily with Dynamite, which is more reliable, and Evasion + Backstab.

No. Paladins don't cover up evidence.

Does he? I always thought that his weakness having to investigate extra hard because of cover ups by the government agency he is working for - Fox Mulder style.

Nope, he covers up evidence of spoopy stuff because People Aren't Ready To Know.

Which could easily qualify as Lawful Good since he's rigidly adhering to an ethos (Lawful) designed to benefit others (Good).

Also, the law is silent on the subject of ghouls, night-gaunts, and Ancient Ones, so whether they are capable of committing crimes in the first place (from a legal POV) is extremely dubious; thus, covering up evidence of their activities is arguably not unlawful from a jurisprudence standpoint.

Further, Paladins are not required to be Lawful Good in many editions of D&D; Unearthed Arcana, for example, presents variants for every alignment in 3.5 while 4th Edition merely requires that your alignment match that of your deity. There's even a subclass specifically for antiheroic characters (the Blackguard.)

Rules lawyer'd

Covering up evidence is an obstruction of justice i.e. illegal and unlawful.

The law being silent on the subject of ghouls, night-gaunts, and Ancient Ones is irrelevant. Your ignorance of the law is made obvious from your statement that you impose relevance on the ability of these actors to commit crimes. The very discussion regarding their ability to commit crimes is absolutely unnecessary. The crime is that he's actively and intentionally hindering an investigation.

That evidence is intentionally being covered up is what is relevant. Roland could be covering up evidence of a dog's actions and it could still be illegal. For example, let's say he's covering up evidence that a dog somehow turned on a stove and started a fire which burned a house down (which I've seen in an insurance case as an attorney). His covering this up could be insurance fraud as well.

Thus, the fact that evidence is intentionally being covered up in an investigation is the key factor - it doesn't matter whether the actors directly involved in the actions pertaining to the evidence are capable of committing a crime, the actors do not necessarily have to be the ones being prosecuted.

If you want to go down this road that Paladins can include non lawful good characters and potentially even include Blackguards then why did you correct me in the first place? If you're not talking about a lawful good character what are you talking about? If you're saying Paladins include everything under the sun then your statement/correction was completely unnecessary and unhelpful.

Lawyered.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/42/77/0a/42770ae137786bca0b819f2dc45fe039.jpg

Paladin is a gameplay archetype that boils down to "smite enemies, protect allies." It is independent of the concept of alignment, although the traditional D&D paladin is Lawful Good.

Lawful Good is a concept that people have been arguing over the definition of literally since the day it was invented. Batman, for instance, has been classified as Lawful Good since he never deviates from his personal code despite being a vigilante; the fact that GCPD is utterly corrupt illustrates the difference between "lawful" (as in "lawful authority",) lawful (as in "obeying the law",) and Lawful (the alignment.) This upsets some people who conflate the Lawful alignment with obedience to lawful authority or adherence to an external code of laws, which apparently includes you.

But hey, let's say Roland tries to do things by the book. Calls up the field office and tells him he just shot a ghoul. You honestly think the response is going to be "Good work, Agent Banks"?

They'd throw him in the nuthouse and the evidence would disappear anyway, and he knows it. Insistence on doing things by the book when the book not only doesn't apply but **doesn't even exist in the same universe as what you're dealing with** isn't Lawful Good, it's Lawful Stupid.

The law being silent on the subject of ghouls, night-gaunts, and Ancient Ones is irrelevant.

Actually, in Lovecraft, ghouls (if they were known to the general population) would be considered an indigenous people, as they are non-supernatural sentient beings who are native to the area, predate the founding of the United States, but currently have no legal representation or arrangement with the United States government. (Lovecraftian ghouls are not undead, but their own kind, who don't have any more magic than humans innately beyond the ability to wander in and out of the Dreamlands at will)

I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant anyway, as the feds in "Innsmouth Horror" cover up the existence of the Deep Ones, so Roland's Cover Up is probably 100% legal (even mandated).

I actually feel Zoey is more of a paladin, she kills because God told her to, and with her willpower, dabbles a bit in the arcane.

Shes more of a Favored Soul

I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant anyway, as the feds in "Innsmouth Horror" cover up the existence of the Deep Ones, so Roland's Cover Up is probably 100% legal (even mandated).

Be careful. Just because a government does something doesn't make it legal.

I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant anyway, as the feds in "Innsmouth Horror" cover up the existence of the Deep Ones, so Roland's Cover Up is probably 100% legal (even mandated).

Be careful. Just because a government does something doesn't make it legal.

https://youtu.be/HiHN3IJ_j8A

I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant anyway, as the feds in "Innsmouth Horror" cover up the existence of the Deep Ones, so Roland's Cover Up is probably 100% legal (even mandated).

Be careful. Just because a government does something doesn't make it legal.

I think the feds knew about creatures, but i'm not convinced they 100% caught any deep ones. Still, regardless of legal or illegal, it's a matter of right and wrong, and neighbors of Innsmouth were aware of the "concentration camps" that the inhabitants of Innsmouth were put in. I assume the government knew enough, and destroyed many of the hybrids, took records, artifacts, broke up the Order of Dagon church, ect.

i'm not saying that the deep ones are good, but the Feds did do something pretty heinous themselves, and it was to protect the minds of the people who, if subjected to this truth, might completely lose order.

in a way, Roland is doing the same thing, covering up deeds of dark arts, monsters, all in the name of keeping society in order.

I love how this thread has derailed from Skids to Nixon.

I love how this thread has derailed from Skids to Nixon.

I am not a ghoul!

I love how this thread has derailed from Skids to Nixon.

Just as Ashcan has Duke, how long will it be until FFG releases Skids' sidekick, Checkers?