As the title states (and as I am sure there have been threads about this), it questions the authenticity of the position "Anti-Paladin". Sure, this thread will have its childish moments of "That name is stupid" and the like, but I'd rather be serious and intellectual with this discussion.
With that preface said, I would like to state my (fairly) educated perspective on the profession: It's too simplistic (as well as stereotypical,) and makes the class seem too easily self-defeating. Here are my points:
- The literal meaning of "Anti" means "Against" or "Opposed to". This makes the concept of Anti-Paladins seem to only have angst towards Paladins, even though the class itself was designed to have quarrels with everything (including itself and anything similar to it). Similarly, it also serves as a figurative foil to the Paladin, while intent may be true, still remains contradictory to its other design allocations.
- The factor that the class is designed to be on nobody's side but their own (and even then it's still questionable) shows that the concept lacks a coherent (and thusly, complete) sensibility. While such a play style is something that shouldn't be discouraged, its design will mean that the class as a whole suffers from themselves, making it unviable. This is reflected in the description as to how an Anti-Paladin acquires their class features, which makes no sense based upon the behavioral tendencies of the Chaotic Evil alignment that they associate with.
- Deriving their ability to be effective against only good creatures proves that the mechanical concept is mirrored to that of any other Paladin; this does drive the ideal of a level of Anti-Paladinism, the whole "I must inflict suffering to all!" style remains on a superior (as well as a separate) strain.
So after evaluation, the question that brings toward the debate is "What would(/could) be a more suitable name(/title) for this class?" Here are a couple ideas that came to mind:
-Blackguard: Remember 3E? This Ex-Prestige Class (that does not exist in Pathfinder) was D&D's answer to an Evil Paladin-like concept. (This also raises the idea of simply allowing Paladins to be either Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, with each alignment choice receiving their respective class features, similar to that of clerics.)
-Deathknight/Shadowknight: These could serve as class names, and are fairly self-explanatory titles. Similarly, these may also be names for archetypes that can expand, alter, or replace some features.
I have said my $0.02. I would like to hear everyone's input on this matter, so as to see where I stand amongst the many.
Edit: Sorry for triple-thread post; tablet wasn't loading.
For a more historical angle there's always warlock. In medieval lore they're the male equivalent of a witch - not in a sense of abilities necessarily, but in a sense of men who 'signed on' with the devil in the same way as witches. Unlike simply sinful or wicked people who are bad for whatever reason, a warlock has more of flavor of 'duty to evil (Satan)' the way a paladin is about duty to good(God).
Like a lot of seriously bastardized medieval lore, modern fantasy has gone to town with all sorts of ideas and interpretations of what a 'warlock' is supposed to be, but that's the actual, original meaning.
I think Anti-Paladin is perfectly descriptive. It is literally the antithesis of everything the Paladin stands for.
Where Paladins stand for truth, justice, and the Golarion way, Anti-Paladins stand for chaos, death, and destruction.
That said, a name change is something I wouldn't be opposed to, but I think the current name is both fitting and simple, something that's good for a class name to be.
Also, I disagree with bullet #2. The Anti-Paladin isn't on his own side, he exists to further the cause of the Demon Lords, the destruction of all that exists. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's just MurderDeathKill all the time, they can have foresight and work towards the "Greater Evil" intelligently and with forethought.
I think Anti-Paladin is perfectly descriptive. It is literally the antithesis of everything the Paladin stands for.
Where Paladins stand for truth, justice, and the Golarion way, Anti-Paladins stand for chaos, death, and destruction.
That said, a name change is something I wouldn't be opposed to, but I think the current name is both fitting and simple, something that's good for a class name to be.
Also, I disagree with bullet #2. The Anti-Paladin isn't on his own side, he exists to further the cause of the Demon Lords, the destruction of all that exists. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's just MurderDeathKill all the time, they can have foresight and work towards the "Greater Evil" intelligently and with forethought.
Yet they are both by alignment and by description, more than just the opposite of the Paladin class. My point is that they serve as more than the Antithesis of Paladins, but also Harbingers of Darkness and Champions of Evil; but when the description and intention of their alignment contradicts the whole concept of Antipaladins (I.e. How can they even get powers when there are no rules or order [and thusly no reason] for such a thing to occur? It's not like there can be a contract between them and this Greater Evil, and even if there was, there is nothing keeping such a pact in check).
They need to have a semblance of order or they will otherwise be no different than what I described; mindless maimkillburn characters that quarrel amongst themselves. I mean, here's a typical Antipaladin conversation:
AP #1: Hey, I see a fellow Anti-Paladin! My code tells me to kill everything in my path, so he will fall by my blade!
AP #2: Look, a fellow Anti-Paladin! I must kill him for my own power, and the powers granted by my lord, whose life I will claim to further my Evilness!
There will be instances where the Antipaladin may choose to work with whoever for their own goals, but having no sense of order defeats its own concept, and by rights if they choose to work with anything, they lose their powers for developing a sense of order. That's why I propose the alignment should be Lawful Evil instead, and the name to be changed since they are more than a Paladin foil.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
it would be easier to just lift the alignment restrictions on the paladin or use the following concept.
Paladin of Justice (Lawful Good)
Paladin of Freedom (Chaotic Good)
Paladin of Order (Lawful Neutral)
Paladin of Anarchy (Chaotic Neutral)
Paladin of Benevolence (Neutral Good)
Paladin of Cruelty (Neutral Evil)
Paladin of Harmony (True Neutral)
Paladin of Tyranny (Lawful Evil)
Paladin of Terror (Chaotic Evil)
they are all champions of the gods, they merely all favor different gods and different walks of life.
For a more historical angle there's always warlock. In medieval lore they're the male equivalent of a witch - not in a sense of abilities necessarily, but in a sense of men who 'signed on' with the devil in the same way as witches. Unlike simply sinful or wicked people who are bad for whatever reason, a warlock has more of flavor of 'duty to evil (Satan)' the way a paladin is about duty to good(God).
Like a lot of seriously bastardized medieval lore, modern fantasy has gone to town with all sorts of ideas and interpretations of what a 'warlock' is supposed to be, but that's the actual, original meaning.
But Warlock, like you said, is associated with witchcraft, and Anti-Paladin doesn't neccessitate any relation to witchcraft; It shows a connection with evil. Warlocks are former witches who have forgotten the rule of karma and went after evil and power.. . .
Nice names, Lumi.
it would be easier to just lift the alignment restrictions on the paladin or use the following concept.
Paladin of Justice (Lawful Good)
Paladin of Freedom (Chaotic Good)
Paladin of Order (Lawful Neutral)
Paladin of Anarchy (Chaotic Neutral)
Paladin of Benevolence (Neutral Good)
Paladin of Cruelty (Neutral Evil)
Paladin of Harmony (True Neutral)
Paladin of Tyranny (Lawful Evil)
Paladin of Terror (Chaotic Evil)
they are all champions of the gods, they merely all favor different gods and different walks of life.
They're champions of the principles of certain alignments; they may support gods who echo that alignment, but the main determining factor is *alignment*. Indeed, there are Paladins who support the basic force of good itself, without worshipping any god . . . .
But anyway . . .
I'm working on three alternate Anti-Paladins, representing the three evil alignments. They are:
Knight of Tyranny ( Lawful Evil )
Knight of Iniquity ( Neutral Evil )
Knight of Atrocity ( Chaotic Evil )
As suggestions for other names for Paladins of other alignments, there is :
Knight of Order ( Lawful Neutral )
Knight of Evolution ( True Neutral )
Knight of Chaos ( Chaotic Neutral )
Knight of Freedom ( Chaotic Good )
We have the same name for CG Paladin ( nice choice ). I haven't thought of names for the others, but your "Knight of Justice" for LG Paladin is good as a title, or regular "Paladin", for short.
it would be easier to just lift the alignment restrictions on the paladin or use the following concept.
Paladin of Benevolence (Neutral Good)
I think Lawful Good would epitomize Benevolence better than Neutral Good. Just my two cents .. . . .
it would be easier to just lift the alignment restrictions on the paladin or use the following concept.
Paladin of Benevolence (Neutral Good)
I think Lawful Good would epitomize Benevolence better than Neutral Good. Just my two cents .. . . .
benevolence is more about kindness and forgiveness. neutral good alignment is the alignment that best represents kindness, forgiveness, and idealized goodness without bias.
for example
a mother Theresa type character would be neutral good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does come up every so often - do a search on these forums and you'll find some threads.
Antipaladin is a perfectly fine name. It has precident and history going way back to the early days of D&D, describes the concept quite well and actually, to my mind at least, sounds quite realistic and serious.
Feel free to change the name in your home game if you and your players wish but as far as I'm concerned, the name antipaladin does not changing!
it would be easier to just lift the alignment restrictions on the paladin or use the following concept.
Paladin of Benevolence (Neutral Good)
I think Lawful Good would epitomize Benevolence better than Neutral Good. Just my two cents .. . . .
benevolence is more about kindness and forgiveness. neutral good alignment is the alignment that best represents kindness, forgiveness, and idealized goodness without bias.
for example
a mother Theresa type character would be neutral good.
To each their own . . . .
I prefer the name that the Companion set gave for Chaotic (and implicitly evil) warriors -- the Avenger. And incidentally, people speaking of the long history of the anti-paladin in the game seem to ignore that the first two incidents in that history were (a) the class being presented largely as a joke ("when defeated, the anti-paladin will speak the magic words 'curses, foiled again' and seek to depart at once") and (b) Gary Gygax pitching a fit about what an awful idea it was. So.
I can't contest that originally the class was meant as a joke, but there are more sophisticated versions of this class. An organized knighthood of evil serving an evil master is one possibility ( Knight of Tyranny, which I'm writing. . . .). A Psychotic Knight willing to do *anything* to torture or torment his opposition is another ( Knight of Iniquity, a NE Anti-Paladin .. . ). A deranged, demoniac who champions terrible gods ( and demons! ) and thrives in Chaos is the third .. . ( Atrocity Knight )
What's amazing is noone thought of the concept of the Hunter until D&D 3.0 came out - or at least, that I'm aware of or as a PC class. After all, not everyone who's steeped in wilderness lore or has a favored enemy neccessarily is into magic ( i.e. Ranger ).
Anti is short for Antithesis.
The antithesis of something is it's direct opposite. Not just in opposition, but it's very reflection in a mirror, a true opposite in every way.
That is what an anti-paladin is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class name does not ever need to appear in character. There's nothing wrong with a character whose mechanical class is Anti-Paladin calling herself the Grand Dame of Atrocity, for example.
Yes, the Anti-Paladin from APG is essentially an "Opposites Paladin". I'm going to stick with creating evil Paladin-like characters for organized evil ( Knight of Tyranny, LE ) and psychotic evil ( Knight of Iniquity, NE ). Organized evil, I think, would make for more terrifying villians for PCs to fight ( or if they're evil-inclined, *JOIN* LOL! ). Evil plus Empire. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the class "Anti-Paladin" predates the class name "Blackguard", in any case...for some reason, WoTC changed it. *shrug*
How about = Mass Murder
I have no real issues with the anti-paladin's name. It has historical precedence etc.
However, I still think they should have been lawful evil.
I have no real issues with the anti-paladin's name. It has historical precedence etc.
However, I still think they should have been lawful evil.
Agreed, 100%!! Matter of Fact, I'm designing one around that very premise. . .
I have no real issues with the anti-paladin's name. It has historical precedence etc.
However, I still think they should have been lawful evil.
That was one of the issues I cited; the behavior one expects of a Blackguard (the term I will call them from now on) and their code in correspondence to their alignment behavior are both mutually exclusive of each other. You can't have this "code of evil" to conduct with your class feature, yet have the alignment which says such things have no meaning due to their own hunger for power which nobody of that alignment is even willing to share with?
The idea Lumière provides is probably the best and most fair approach, since 3.X allowed Paladins of any Lawful alignment, with the class features adjusted based off of Good, Neutral, or Evil alignment, similar to Clerics and Channel Energy. Though the idea for a Paladin based off of each alignment possible defeats the concept of one of the very few limits of that character.
Honestly, I wonder where we get all of this "historical precedence" from, since the closest thing I can come up with is a simple association with Christanity's "Anti-Christ," and that's a stretch since it refers to a specific individual, not a group or set of people.
@LazarX: Conan the Barbarian, anyone? I will agree it's not always a precedent to have a class name serve as a suffix to a famous title, but saying it never was or has been before is horsepuckey. On that note, how many people call themselves with the suffix "the Anti-Paladin" in comparison? A lot less than Conan the Barbarian, if there even was such a statistic.
My point is that the term matches up to its role in some ways; I've never denied this, but that it doesn't match up in all the ways it's supposed to (I.e. conflicting alignment behavior v.s. class behavior, for starters).
I'm also a fan of "Blackguard," rolls off the tongue nice and sinister.
The class name is irrelevant. Your PC can call himself anything he wants, no matter what the class is called. He can call himself a Dark Lord, a Dread Knight, a Scourge ... whatever tickles his fancy.
For my homebrew game we have Paladins (as per the book), Avengers (CG variants that oppose oppressive law), Tyrant Knights (named for the LE God the Tyrant who rules over, well, you understand) and the Anti-Paladin, so named for mechanical reasons, because thematically no one calls themselves that.
They call themselves Paladins (if they don't realize they've fallen) or Devout (if a demon gave them their power) or Steve (if they're a serial killer who the dark Gods have blessed).
Anti-Paladin is what WE say so we know what WE are talking about. It adds so much mystique if you never call them that in you game.
|
Meh. I dunno. The word "blackguard" still sounds cooler to me than antipaladin. It reminds me too much of that whole trope of putting the word "anti" onto things to make them the opposite. There was an entire overly long gag on the idea done in some show or other, and the memory of it makes it impossible for me to take the antipaladin seriously. It's not that its necessarily a dumb name...it's just...lacking...something.
Now, Knight of the Sepulcher. Heheh, that sounds evil and dramatic.
I refer to Evil-alignment Paladins as Knights of Evil and it seems to go well. The organization of Lawful Evil - that is, a terrifying servant of a diabolical mastermind - seems better as a terrible villian against the good in the party. Chaotic Evil is, well, just too Chaotic to organize schemes that make for good roleplaying, and the fight scenes that go with it. My two cents. . .
The class name is irrelevant. Your PC can call himself anything he wants, no matter what the class is called. He can call himself a Dark Lord, a Dread Knight, a Scourge ... whatever tickles his fancy.
Yet the class name serves as a preface and description for the type of character (and abilities) they grow into. Anti-Paladins(Blackguards) as they are written have a contrary premise of how they are plausible. Calling them Anti-Paladins means they are against Paladins through and through, when they are against so much more; life, purity, freedom, mercy, etc. Blackguards in 3.X encompassed this, and it didn't have the contradictory "Stupid Evil" alignment that Anti-Paladins have (though Stupid alignment is still a requirement for some Blackguards), which serves as a stipulation for the Anti-Paladin's name incompatibility.
Hence my thread to question the name's authenticity. (Of course, another solution is to change the concept of the Anti-Paladin to fit the nature it's intended to fill, but I always found the name to be too..."erratic".)
Edit: Put down wrong phrase; corrected it.
I refer to Evil-alignment Paladins as Knights of Evil and it seems to go well. The organization of Lawful Evil - that is, a terrifying servant of a diabolical mastermind - seems better as a terrible villian against the good in the party. Chaotic Evil is, well, just too Chaotic to organize schemes that make for good roleplaying, and the fight scenes that go with it. My two cents. . .
That's exactly how an Anti-Paladin (Blackguard) should be designed, especially since that was the case in 3.X. But Paizo must've decided Anti-Paladin is a stupid name, so it must serve Stupid Evil. *sarcasm*
|
I like Blackguard, but there seems to be a bit of a creative backlash against class or monster names that are made up of two words (sometimes called portmanteau's, incorrectly) like Warmage or Spellthief or calling a dinosaur a Fastclaw or Glidewing. There might also be a smaller backlash against overuse of the word 'black' to denote 'evil.'
So, that in mind, I tend to call antipaladins Reavers. (From the Dark Ages of Camelot 'antipaladin' class, not the crazy Firefly space-cannibals.)
For a LE anti-paladin, I'd go with Tyrant or something.
I do miss the old names for class levels. IIRC, the Antipaladin had Blackguard, Reaver and 'Villain of the Darkest Dye' among it's titles...
I'm not sure any old Antipaladin could pull off 'Villain of the Darkest Dye' without a monocle or something to complete the image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC the anti-paladin came out of 1st edition in a Dragon magazine and had to be CE, hence anti LG and anti paladin.
They should just be Paladins, but each god could have one, and each diety and alignment expresses their chosen warriors and their abilities differently.
A Paladin of a god of death like Urgathoa would have a lot of death and undead-influencing abilities. His code and tithing might involve corpses and death in some manner. A paladin of a neutral god like Irori might have a code influencing knowledge and absolute justice.
You could even have two good paladins of different god's with dynamically different abilities and play styles. For example a Paladin of Torag might be a more traditional Paladin, but a Paladin of Angradd might have a different code that requires more action and bravery and his abilities might have fire-like influences in them.
If you were called to fight against a knight as a your religion's chosen warrior and he said "you will be my opposite-knight" wouldn't you roll your eyes?
They should just all be Paladins.
Well, a LE "anti-paladin" would actually agree with a paladin on a few things. Even some CE anti-paladins have one or two points of agreement, now that I think about it, such as
1. Violence makes problems go away!
2. Neutral is for pansies!
3. Armor is awesome!
4. Capes should always swirl dramatically!...and so on.
Yeah. The whole "but anti-paladins should be the total opposite of paladins!" doesn't really work. The closes you will come to the total opposite of a paladin would be a CE wizard focusing in manipulation.
Opposites work best when there's just one or a few (VERY MAJOR) difference(s).
They should just be Paladins, but each god could have one, and each diety and alignment expresses their chosen warriors and their abilities differently.A Paladin of a god of death like Urgathoa would have a lot of death and undead-influencing abilities. His code and tithing might involve corpses and death in some manner. A paladin of a neutral god like Irori might have a code influencing knowledge and absolute justice.
You could even have two good paladins of different god's with dynamically different abilities and play styles. For example a Paladin of Torag might be a more traditional Paladin, but a Paladin of Angradd might have a different code that requires more action and bravery and his abilities might have fire-like influences in them.
If you were called to fight against a knight as a your religion's chosen warrior and he said "you will be my opposite-knight" wouldn't you roll your eyes?
They should just all be Paladins.
You mean take the Crusader Cleric and rename it Paladin? :S
Paladins aren't nearly as focused at gods as clerics are - paladins draw their power from their ideals, not the gods. If it's tied to a god, why not simply make a cleric, which are just that - the militant arm of the church. The crusaders are just that - holy crusaders. Turning paladins into them would take away from the flavor and uniqueness of both the cleric and paladin.
The idea Lumière provides is probably the best and most fair approach, since 3.X allowed Paladins of any Lawful alignment, with the class features adjusted based off of Good, Neutral, or Evil alignment,
I don't agree that it's a good approach at all, and don't see how what 3.X did has anything to do with it. 3.X did a lot of weird stuff. I'm all for blessed warriors of different alignments, but I don't want them to be called paladins or be simple paladin clones. I'm all for cleric archetypes, or cavalier archetypes (made that as an example in another thread discussing this issue). I just don't think the paladin abilities fits all alignments equally well (which is the linked archetype give a lot different abilities that I feel fit better with the alignment), and having a "code of conduct" as a defining feature of a chaotic creature is iffy, just like you said. It has to be redefined and changed quite heavily, like the idealistic drive approach I had in the example above.
Honestly, I wonder where we get all of this "historical precedence"
It both has historical precedence in the game (from 1e I believe, though the same is true for it being CE, but I have a bigger issue with that) and, IIRC, it has been used by the catholic church in some of their middle age writings, with about the same meaning as anti-christ, which refered not only to a single person but can also be used about groups (there's even a plural "antichrists" directly from the bible, but I don't remember where).
IIRC the anti-paladin came out of 1st edition in a Dragon magazine and had to be CE, hence anti LG and anti paladin.
Yeah it became one of the most popular Dragon articles, and a fixture in the game.
Dragon later did another article with a different paladin-type for each alignment. This was still in the 1st edition AD&D days. They all had weird names; one of them was "Paramander".
They should just be Paladins, but each god could have one, and each diety and alignment expresses their chosen warriors and their abilities differently.A Paladin of a god of death like Urgathoa would have a lot of death and undead-influencing abilities. His code and tithing might involve corpses and death in some manner. A paladin of a neutral god like Irori might have a code influencing knowledge and absolute justice.
You could even have two good paladins of different god's with dynamically different abilities and play styles. For example a Paladin of Torag might be a more traditional Paladin, but a Paladin of Angradd might have a different code that requires more action and bravery and his abilities might have fire-like influences in them.
If you were called to fight against a knight as a your religion's chosen warrior and he said "you will be my opposite-knight" wouldn't you roll your eyes?
They should just all be Paladins.
You mean take the Crusader Cleric and rename it Paladin? :S
Paladins aren't nearly as focused at gods as clerics are - paladins draw their power from their ideals, not the gods. If it's tied to a god, why not simply make a cleric, which are just that - the militant arm of the church. The crusaders are just that - holy crusaders. Turning paladins into them would take away from the flavor and...
I think crusader clerics and paladins are redundant. I'm not personally fond of anti-paladins. But if evil gods can have them, logically everyone in the pantheon should be able to pick a champion. It's an all or just good paladins thing for me.
I like Blackguard, but there seems to be a bit of a creative backlash against class or monster names that are made up of two words (sometimes called portmanteau's, incorrectly) like Warmage or Spellthief or calling a dinosaur a Fastclaw or Glidewing. There might also be a smaller backlash against overuse of the word 'black' to denote 'evil.'
So, that in mind, I tend to call antipaladins Reavers. (From the Dark Ages of Camelot 'antipaladin' class, not the crazy Firefly space-cannibals.)
For a LE anti-paladin, I'd go with Tyrant or something.
I do miss the old names for class levels. IIRC, the Antipaladin had Blackguard, Reaver and 'Villain of the Darkest Dye' among it's titles...
I'm not sure any old Antipaladin could pull off 'Villain of the Darkest Dye' without a monocle or something to complete the image.
Reaver is a pretty cool name for an Anti-Paladin, and fitting. It's equally as promising as Blackguard.
Tyrant would be good, but it often refers to rulers and hierarchy, and not all Anti-Paladins would be nobles or kings or what have you.
I think any form of Paladin should always be Lawful; considering they are supposed to be following a code set forth by their deities/religious beliefs, regardless of being Good, Evil, or Neutral. This is why the Anti-Paladin is a complete pile of horsepuckey: CE aligned creatures only care for themselves, and death/rape/pillage to the rest; no pacts, no contracts, just "Hey, whoever survives last wins!" (Anarchy) style of play, of which their character theme cannot support.
Demon: Hey, Wanna kill some innocent prostitutes? I'll give you more power!
Anti-Paladin: No, I'll just kill you for that, even though your boss gives me these jobs and these powers.
Demon: Don't you think he'd get mad at you for doing that and take away your powers and leave you to be a bum?
Anti-Paladin: I'm Chaotic Evil and so is our boss; he wouldn't care. I'm surprised he gave me powers, jobs, and cannon fodder I can play with when he's just as crazy and cold-blooded as I am. That generosity he gives me is unconstitutional of him both as a bad guy and as a random encounter, And he should get thrown out!
This is about how much sense this Stupid Evil Anti-Paladin garbage makes out to be; the fact it's considered a 1E tradition that's STILL being used for its obvious hilarity as a serious base class for Pathfinder shows how much of a joke that both the class and the concept as written is just a bad comic paid in homage to a game developing legend (may he rest in peace).
Psh, and is antipasto too ridiculous of a hors d'oeuvre name?
I did like Blackguard better though, but Antipaladin doesn't bother me.
|
|
Antipaladin was such an awesome class that the name stuck for all times, ridiculous as it sounds.
I much prefer it to Blackguard because the latter does not evoke the same feeling of pure awe I felt when I first read the description of the antipaladin in that article a long time ago.
It did open a new wellspring of creativity in the games at that time too and we saw wonderful fully-fleshed BBEGs appear in its wake, rather than the cartoonish ones that preceded it (when the scenario even had one rather than seemingly random gatherings of terrible monsters and devious traps just waiting for the PCs).
BTW : you people have too shortsighted a view of what CE can be :-))
This is why the Anti-Paladin is a complete pile of horsepuckey: CE aligned creatures only care for themselves, and death/rape/pillage to the rest; no pacts, no contracts, just "Hey, whoever survives last wins!" (Anarchy) style of play, of which their character theme cannot support.
Demon: Hey, Wanna kill some innocent prostitutes? I'll give you more power!
Anti-Paladin: No, I'll just kill you for that, even though your boss gives me these jobs and these powers.
Demon: Don't you think he'd get mad at you for doing that and take away your powers and leave you to be a bum?
Anti-Paladin: I'm Chaotic Evil and so is our boss; he wouldn't care. I'm surprised he gave me powers, jobs, and cannon fodder I can play with when he's just as crazy and cold-blooded as I am. That generosity he gives me is unconstitutional of him both as a bad guy and as a random encounter, And he should get thrown out!This is about how much sense this Stupid Evil Anti-Paladin garbage makes out to be; the fact it's considered a 1E tradition that's STILL being used for its obvious hilarity as a serious base class for Pathfinder shows how much of a joke that both the class and the concept as written is just a bad comic paid in homage to a game developing legend (may he rest in peace).
This is a common and fairly baffling misconception.
"Chaotic Evil" is not "Chaotic Stupid". That's why Chaotic Stupid is used as a pejorative. It's not true and it's playing the alignment wrong.
If it were true Demons would be too busy backstabbing each other to get anything done. And yet...
On the Abyss, most balors serve demon lords as generals or captains (those balors who don't are even more potent, and are known as balor lords—see below). A balor typically commands vast legions of demons, and while it often lets these slavering and eager minions fight its battles, the balor is far from a coward. If presented with an opportunity to join a fight, few balors choose to resist.
If what you said were true:
1.) How would a Balor have the self-discipline to be a general or even a lord, a leader of armies? You'd think he'd just go it alone if he just wanted to rape and plunder.
2.) How would there be an army in the first place if there were no organization in the ranks? And it specifically states ARMY. Not horde, or "undisciplined masses of demonic forces"?
While CE characters are said to often be (and note the "often", since alignment isn't a straitjacket) "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable" it also says, right there in the description, "If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos".
COMMITTED to the spread of evil and chaos, implying they ARE capable of a long term goal furthering evil and destruction.
They're not automatically shortsighted and stupid, contrary to what you wish to believe.
IIRC, it has been used by the catholic church in some of their middle age writings...Antipopes have existed since the 3rd century A.D.
I wonder what kind of class features that has.
|
|
I wonder what kind of class features that has.IIRC, it has been used by the catholic church in some of their middle age writings...Antipopes have existed since the 3rd century A.D.
I dunno, what's the opposite of a bulletproof clowncar?
Perhaps he can banish people to the antipodes?
@Rynjin: Valid points, but being organized and having a hierarchy or chain of command is not the same as a pecking order, which is what keeps the demons in check.
Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid alignments have at-best a pecking order. Everyone knows if even a few of those "minions" have the capabilities to take on their Balor commander, they wouldn't sit there and bow to its whims (unless they are using him for their own personal gains, and that contract runs out when they no longer have a use for them); no, they're going to take the reins themselves (and then fight amongst each other for absolute control), because that's how it operates.
If they were organized or had a hierarchy or had any semblance of actual order (I.e. Lawful Evil), there would be no back stabbing or renegeing on pacts/contracts, etc. Which is much more prevalent in Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid for the obvious reasons. Anti-Paladins don't even really have a code to follow because their alignment design throws such things out the window. (Hence why I prefer the Lawful Evil alignment/Blackguards.)
Perhaps there wouldn't be, but you're confusing "Backstabbing is possible" for "Backstabbing is inevitable".
There's a huge difference, with the former giving room for intelligent jokceying for power, and the former being self-destructive and yes, stupid.
There is absolutely no reason an Anti-Paladin would renege on his contract. That's stupid. He can't take a Demon Lord, and he gets powers in exchange. It's pure self interest to keep his end of the bargain.
That's why it FITS. It's an extension of his opposite Paladin-ness. Paladins follow their Code because of their dedication to the ideals, and receive powers in exchange. On the flip side, Anti-Paladins are incentivized to dedicate themselves BY the powers. Selflessness vs Selfishness.
A LE Anti-Paladin would be great, as would a CG Paladin, but an LE one wouldn't be an ANTI-Paladin, really.
Note that up until 3.5, the Drow where considered chaotic evil. And their society may be backstabbing totale but they're neither stupid nor "random".
But you understand my point. As soon as the Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil Anti-Paladin gets what he wants from whatever, he'll just kill it so he can either get more power or secure what he already has (or get back what he gave up in exchange for what he got).
An example best comes from this episode of Family Guy.
My point is that when it comes to Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil, stuff like the above will happen all the time, And it doesn't matter if the quarrel happens with their own followers in the same exact manner. When the opportunity presents itself, they will take it, as not taking it is contradictory to their alignment, and when they fail to follow their Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil alignment, they lose their powers they normally receive.
But let me explore your point further: let's take Demon Lord A (DL for short), and Anti-Paladin A (AP for short). When the DL decides he wants better minions, he decides to create his first AP, and says "Do bad stuff in my name and you'll get power!" AP says "Okay!" Now, AP gets strong enough to take on the DL. Is the AP going to deny his in-born behavior of insurrection (that is encouraged by his DL), lose his powers for doing so and the DL will get AP B to do his bidding instead, or will he vanquish his lord, secure his position of power and authority like he was trained and instructed to do by the same DL whom he slain?