But why does the blackguard need to be evil? OK, he serves the deities of darkness etc. But, can't we not make more like warlock?
same resone a paladin is lawful good even when his god is not.
Paladins are shining example of good
Blackguards are corrupt paragons of evil
simple as that more or less
|
holy warriors do, they have domains. Cleric are holy warriors ya need to accept that.
Really, I don't. I do accept that *you* want to limit them to such a role, for some reason.
Clerics *can* be holy warriors. They can also serve as a primary spellcaster, quite effectively.
And if Clerics are the only 'holy warrior' we need in the game, then you're just arguing that the Blackguard *and* the Paladin are redundant and should be ditched.
I don't 'need to' agree with that logic.
My logic no not at all. The cleric class is based off of holy military orders. The three listed were. The Teutonic knights, the knights Templar and the Hospitalers.
What I am saying is the cleric does not fill every roll in the church, most are done by npc class. The cleric is the military arm of the faith.
That is the role they were made to fill. If ya don't want to use them that way that's up to you but that is indeed the resone for the cleric.
|
|
My logic no not at all. The cleric class is based off of holy military orders. The three listed were. The Teutonic knights, the knights Templar and the Hospitalers.
Perhaps in 1st edition. And the Paladin was based off of the character in Three Hearts & Three Lions, but that doesn't mean that every single person who plays a Paladin has to play that same character.
We *are* capable of going past that 30 year old statement, yanno.
It's a simple metric, and you've avoided responding to it, other than to refer to stuff that's decades old and has no bearing on 3rd edition (or even 2nd edition!) classes;
Choice 1) If there is no need for a holy warrior class, other than the Cleric, then there is no need for the Paladin.
Choice 2) If there *is* room to have a Paladin *and* a Cleric, then there is no reason at all not to have holy warriors of other alignments.
But why does the blackguard need to be evil? OK, he serves the deities of darkness etc. But, can't we not make more like warlock?
now that is a good idea. Warlocks were a great idea that needs a Pathfinder version IMO
choice 3} The cleric is the holy warrior, the paladin is it's own unique thing. There is no resion to dilute the paladin into something it is not.
I can see a place for a blackgaurd I am not saying there is not but it is not just a paladin with all the same powers but backward.
A paladin is the white knight the shinning pagon of good, not just a mere holy warrior. His powers are unique to him that is fitting. Are you saying a druid should be just a cleric as well?
A blackgaurd is the champion of evil a lord of corruption so his powers should be his on and uniquely fit for that role.
choice 3} The cleric is the holy warrior, the paladin is it's own unique thing. There is no resion to dilute the paladin into something it is not.
I can see a place for a blackgaurd I am not saying there is not but it is not just a paladin with all the same powers but backward.
A paladin is the white knight the shinning pagon of good, not just a mere holy warrior. His powers are unique to him that is fitting. Are you saying a druid should be just a cleric as well?
A blackgaurd is the champion of evil a lord of corruption so his powers should be his on and uniquely fit for that role.
so would you be alright with a separate Templar base class or a Crusader that is not a carbon copy of the Paladin?
Cause thats what I would like to see
yeah really i have no issue with other classes but copying just the one class cheapens it and makes the others cheap copys nothing more.
A class should not be a copy but stand on it's own.
that being said even the 3.5 phb calls a cleric a crusader. it was what they are built from. I would reather see a none warrior cleric class really as the cleric fills the standard roll of holy warrior. While the paladin fills the role of shiny paragon of good
that one works well with pathfinder really
|
I've been watching this thread with some interest...and amusement. A lot of good points have been made here. Some I agree with, others I do not. The blackguard, when it was called the anti-paladin, was not a class meant to be played by PCs (although there were DMs who allowed that sort of thing to happen). Even in 3E, the blackguard was obviously not meant for PCs to play. Why would I say that? It's simple really: D&D is supposed to be a game about heroic fantasy. Heroic, derived from heroism. The game is about the struggle of good vs. evil (though law vs. chaos can factor into it as well). PCs are meant to be heroes, those who uphold virtue and all things good, just, and right. And standing above these is the paladin, that paragon of heroism. There is no such thing as an evil hero; that is just an oxymoron. Evil, by its definition, precludes the act of being a hero. And by performing evil deeds, one is marked as a villain. And the most base of villains is the blackguard. I find it amusing that while numbers are being quoted from previous editions, no one is really quoting text because it is there that you will find a lot of what is needed to be known. The blackguard (anti-paladin), if memory serves, while capable of standing toe-to-toe with the paladin, usually didn't. Why is that? Has to do with the inherent nature of being evil, I think, because evil has a way of bringing fear into the heart of those perform such deeds. It is justified, however they need to in their mind, but the result is still the same: villains are cowardly. And that will always be the case, no matter how much evil is built up to be something that isn't. It's why villains run when the fight goes against them, its why true villains use overwhelming numbers and/or force. It is to cover up that one inadequate aspect of their very nature.
Why would anyone want to play a class that, despite however much it is polished up to be bright and shiny, at its very core represents those concepts? I can't fathom it really, especially if we're playing the game as though it were about 'heroes' overcoming the forces of darkness and villainy. Which is why I shake my head at the notion of making this a PC class. It shouldn't be one. It should stay an NPC class, whether it be in its current PrC format or as a full on "base" class.
And as to the whole militant arm of the church, while paladins can indeed serve as that (and often do), such a role falls primarily onto the cleric. Paladins can spring up without any association to a church due to the piety of their beliefs (an aspect of origin brought up in 3E that few people seem to recall and of which Joan of Arc is a good example).
Now I'm just stating my opinion and, without question, it is a strong one. I don't think that the core book should have the blackguard in it if they are planning on making it a full base class. Paizo should release it as part of another book, if for no other reason than to give them time to work on it properly.
|
|
It's simple really: D&D is supposed to be a game about heroic fantasy. Heroic, derived from heroism. The game is about the struggle of good vs. evil (though law vs. chaos can factor into it as well). PCs are meant to be heroes, those who uphold virtue and all things good, just, and right.
'Heroes' also can refer to the heroes of Greek lore, who were often violent, ill-tempered, occasionally patricidal, and, despite supernatural powers or divine heritage, very much filled with human foibles and failings.
D&D 'heroes' spend their lives invading the homes of people who look different than themselves, killing them, stealing their stuff and gaining power from the very act of killing and stealing. (Originally, one got XP for gold acquired, in addition for seperate acts of bloodshed.)
This 'good vs. evil' stuff is baggage, carried into the game by the reader. It's a game of home invasion, murder and theft, and has been since twelve dwarves realized that they needed a 'burgler' to complete their mission.
The game was inspired, in part, by the 'Paladin' from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It was *also* inspired by Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, Conan, Elric of Melnibone, and a diverse cast of other thieves, scoundrels, cutthroats, barbarians and mercenaries.
If you want to ignore the fact that the Assassin used to be a class in the Players Handbook, and pretend that the game is all about shining paragons of goodness, you're welcome to do so, but you can't go back in time and make that true for other people, 'cause it ain't so.
I started to say ya have a point and while you do there is a difference.
An assassin does bad things some times, he kills folks that what he does.
And that makes him evil yes.
A blackguard is pure evil, he'll pillage and rape poison whole cites, massacre babys if need be. He uses folks as mere pawns in his game, he corrupts the innocent topples kings and spreads tyranny though the world
he is everything that makes evil evil and he relishes it.
One does evil one is pure evil it's champions its crusader
So I have to say there is a big difference just as there is between a good knight or a cleric and a paladin
You need to recall that not all evil people are out to do evil things, they may be greedy most evil folks never kill or rob.
The assassin while evil is just doing what he is good at , he normally doesn't hate the folks he kills nore do most assassins enjoy killing to assess many have codes and some even have honor
The blackguard evil is his calling he is ment to bring misery suffering and pain into the world and he'll do it with massive glee.He'll bath in his enemy's blood and set the world to torch he is a thing of evil as pure evil and malevolence as any moral can be. He is a fiend given flesh a weapon of the blacklist black and he takes pride in the souls he corrupts and the lives he leaves broken. Each is a testament to hos wickness another offing to the darkness he serves.
No assassins and blackgaurds are not the same and no where close to each other in the amount of evil they do.
Just want to point out:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil characters simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
If we're going to talk about good and evil, we may as well remind ourselves of their definition (as far as Pathfinder is concerned). Personally, with that definition of "good", I can't even fathom how tromping through a cave killing trolls is even remotely "good". My point is, when you're saying "good" as it applies to Pathfinder paladins and clerics, remember that you mean the above definition. There is no "good-er" or "evil-er". You're one, the other, or neither.
I'd also like to add that arguing over whether a paladin or a cleric is the faith's holy warrior seems kind of silly to me. To me, paladins (and blackguards) are the executors of the faith, and clerics are the proselytizers. Either can act as the other, but this is the case that makes the most sense.
As far as how Blackguard should be represented by the rules, I always found it very odd that every single blackguard ever conceived of had rogue levels, knew how to cleave, and required knowing more about how to hide than he knew about his own religion, despite usually wearing heavy armor.
If the blackguard exists as a PrC, it needs to be a fighter/cleric hybrid, not a fighter/rogue hybrid. I would personally rather see it as a base class, because there's really no reason not to with paladin being a base class. But remember, you don't have to have levels in blackguard to be a foil for a paladin. There's nothing stopping a regular ol' fighter from being a beacon of evil (except of course, he doesn't radiate an aura of evil).
What's more we must remember that the original creatures who's "homes" PC's where invading were Evil, much like the orcs and orukai (spellings wrong I'm lazy) in LoTR. There wasn't any question about it. In later editions this has changed more and more however the starting part was still the same.
|
An assassin does bad things some times, he kills folks that what he does.
And that makes him evil yes.
Killing people isn't always evil, in my opinion, and I don't see that it's necessary to do it face-to-face, either, sometimes. Police snipers aren't evil and they kill people at distance and, if needs be, without warning.