It appears that Jason agrees with the multitude of players that feel that the Blackguard shouldve been made a base class.
Perhaps the only viable way to do this without using up the precious, limited space is to add an option for paladins who may choose to follow this path.
This man is correct. There IS room in the book for a sidebar that says "Blackguard: For lawful evil paladins, replace x class ability with x"
We've already been hooked, if you need to raise the price five bucks to include blackguard, everyone is still going to pay for the product. In fact, you could raise the price ten, or twenty or fifty and as long as you continued to provide new good content with the price increases, we'd still gladly pay.
Thus has Alphonse Joly's First Rule of Gaming Marketing been unveiled for the first time to mortals.
I must say i also concur. Providing within the paladin class the variation for the anti-paladin / "blackguard" (I still prefer anti-paladin) would be very worthwhile. The additional page it may take is a more than acceptable cost I'd be willing to pay.
Thing is an evil class does not suit many peoples playing styles, and in fact would be allowed in far fewer games as many DM do not allow evil pc's. So it would be a class that would be banned in most games.
Best leave this for another book
|
Thing is an evil class does not suit many peoples playing styles, and in fact would be allowed in far fewer games as many DM do not allow evil pc's. So it would be a class that would be banned in most games.
Best leave this for another book
same with the paladin
there is not always place for a Paladin in a campaignmuch less an evil campaign
anyway... it wouldbe interesting to add the blackguard as a champion for evil goods as an Optional rule...
if a DM doesn't want it... it still optional so he doesn't need to approve.
As a player of a multitude of paladins as well as a DM of an Evil campaign, I agree the Blackguard would be a great base class and was surprised it was not included in the Beta release. I do like the old 'Anti-Paladin' title better. It is not easy to play Lawful Evil, but if done properly it is a great experience!
Well the folks that want to run evil games done switch it around anyway. While they would fit in fine in a 2nd book, evil classes really do not have a place in the core as they are only useable in a certin type of game unlike the other 11.
Well the folks that want to run evil games done switch it around anyway. While they would fit in fine in a 2nd book, evil classes really do not have a place in the core as they are only useable in a certin type of game unlike the other 11.
That is because the other 11 are not absolute classes in terms of alignment. Fighters, clerics, Wizards etc...can all be evil or good for that matter. Paladins can not, so the idea of the anti-paladin is needed. Remember that while the classes are for players they are also the base for important NPCs and a paladin would have a great nemesis in the class of a blackguard. So mechanics would be great!
Myself I dont see a need to cut something to make room for what is basically an NPC class. If someone wants them in a game they are easy enuff to houserule
Not so long ago, the Ranger had alignment restrictions. Yes, the character had to be good, to protect the nice trees, Bambi and the little rabbits.
The Monk still has some alignment restrictions, and the Bard too.
All these restrictions should be abolished, including the ones for the Paladin.
As a crusader, a templar, a holy warrior, a champion, a knight, a Paladin could fit many alignments, it has been said over and over.
The Blackguard can then be seen as an evil version.
As a crusader, a templar, a holy warrior,
Ya know whats so funny is that is what a cleric is. He is not the man preaching to the farmers keeping the books, he is the military arm of his church.
|
|
Ya know whats so funny is that is what a cleric is. He is not the man preaching to the farmers keeping the books, he is the military arm of his church.
As a crusader, a templar, a holy warrior,
i agree :)
that is why i lvoe the cleric class that muchit as free form as you pick a deity and even then its quite open to work :D
if it just had a few extra skill points...
There are Evil, Death, and Destruction domains and plenty vile gods for clerics to worship. There are abyssal, infernal, and even aberrant (for the Far Realm feel) bloodlines for sorcerers. While the barbarian, bard, and monk all have alignment restrictions, you can still play an evil PC with those classes. True, the paladin is the shining, virtuous warrior of his god, but without the foil of the embittered, black-hearted scourge who serves her dark master with the same unfailing fervor, it just feels... incomplete.
The way i see it, the Paladin needs its dark reflection, the Blackguard, like a Jedi needs a Dark Jedi.
To make confrontations possible at any level between the two, both should be base classes.
Limiting the Blackguard as a prestige class means the paladin doesn't have to worry about such an encounter until higher levels. Which is a mistake.
I would be strongly in favor of a write up for optional rules on playing Monks and Paladins of varying alignments in the core rules. Thus preserving the original flavor of the classes but allowing a clear and well thought out way to change them with an economy of page space ( it might raise the page count by 2 at the most). You still can have a full write up for a Blackgaurd as a specific class down the line with abilities that differ from a standard paladin that happens to be lawful evil.
|
Look, I am a huge supporter of PAIZO, but shouldn't objectives and design/development determine things like size.
If size is such a constraint as in "precious, limited space," then why not 'break the rules' of these constraints.
I never stepped up to buy Monte's Ptolus, but let me tell you I could see the thing dripping with quality through-and-through: things like ribbon bookmarks, superior binding and SIZE!
Pathfinder RPG says, "Its Your World Now." In my world, I am okay with having a MEGA-SIZED book that defies all previous limits to size and quality. Of course, we all want PAIZO to be profitable, but by all means - - put EVERYTHING in there that should be in there. I will continue to buy scheduled supplements, but please make this RPG something breathtaking in the RPG industry in both substance, quality, and design.
I know Jason can do it. I know Erik could approve of a 550+ page Opus of incredible worth! I also understand the value of not "inflating" and monitoring "scope creep." But please, do it right the first time - avoid "web enhancements of stuff that didn't fit."
MAKE IT GREAT! MAKE IT AWESOME! MAKE IT "THE" RPG OF OUR TIMES.
Because I already have enough carefully "snipped" 229 page manuals. I want it all - authoritatively together, please.
But that's just my wish/opinion, I value differing opinions.
|
I prefer the Blackguard as a PrC and if it wasn't for the weight of history, the Paladin would make more sense to me as a PrC, too.
Yeah. It feels odd for the Blackguard to be more 'prestigious' than the Paladin, or for the Paladin to be something that can start at 1st level, as if the gods of good have no standards at all, but the evil gods make you prove yourself worthy of their dark blessings with five levels of hard work and petitioning an evil outsider!
We haven't used Paladins for quite some time (too much interparty conflict and too many TPKs from people 'roleplaying their alignment' and killing off their allies), but I'd much rather see a Holy Warrior or Crusader or Champion sort of class that *could be* a Paladin, or could swap out class features to better represent other ethos or churches. The Book of the Righteous did this excellently, IMO, and, using their Holy Warrior, and choosing the right alignment and 'domains,' you could *exactly* create a Paladin. Choosing different powers, and a different alignment, you could just as easily create a 'holy champion' of a goddess of storms or a god of death.
The best part about such a design is it's backwards compatible enough that the PFRPG core book could have just the 'Paladin' listed, and a later book come out with the larger set of options based on other faiths, allowing one to create a holy warrior of different dieties, using the same 'chassis' that was used to build the Paladin.
While Golarion may never have an 'Anti-Paladin,' it would be *beyond cool* if the same sort of framework could be used to build either a Paladin of Iomedae or a Hellknight of Asmodeus.
I would be strongly in favor of a write up for optional rules on playing Monks and Paladins of varying alignments in the core rules. Thus preserving the original flavor of the classes but allowing a clear and well thought out way to change them with an economy of page space ( it might raise the page count by 2 at the most). You still can have a full write up for a Blackgaurd as a specific class down the line with abilities that differ from a standard paladin that happens to be lawful evil.
We really dont need many write ups for various rules. The one thing about Paladins and Blackguards is that they should both be Lawful...both should have a code of conduct that they need to follow. Paladins are Lawful Good and follow the code of thier religion and Blackguards should be Lawful Evil and follow their church's code of conduct...just with sinister intentions. Is there a need for Lawful neutral? I dont think so.
Green Ronin put one out i belive it was called a holy warrior that had variuos abilities based on alignment...couldbe an option, but this is simpler IMHO.
I too agree that something for blackguards should be mentioned in the main book, even if it's only power-tweaks like Unearthed Arcana's paladin variants.
Is there a need for Lawful neutral? I dont think so.
There is still a niche for an archetype of LN paladin, a paladin of justice, where enforcing the law is all what matters, regardless of moral standards.
It follows the line of Judge Dread or Batman, or if you want to stay in D&D standards, consider paladins of Horus or Kelemvor.
consider paladins of Horus or Kelemvor.
I have seen both in play, they are Lawful good. Why does everyone think LG must act the same why every time? Paladins are LG ,however paladin orders are not all the same. Just because they fallow a slightly different code does not make them any less LG
|
|
Is there a need for Lawful neutral? I dont think so.There is still a niche for an archetype of LN paladin, a paladin of justice, where enforcing the law is all what matters, regardless of moral standards.
It follows the line of Judge Dread or Batman, or if you want to stay in D&D standards, consider paladins of Horus or Kelemvor.
Woah, yeah, Seldriss, you are spot-on correct! LN is a kickin' alignment to play. And when yourself or another player has it down-path, the party better watch out. As a GM it always amazes me how soft our society has become, that players squirm when a LN PC is played well. Ohhh, gotta love the LN. It is in a class all its own!
|
There is still a niche for an archetype of LN paladin, a paladin of justice, where enforcing the law is all what matters, regardless of moral standards.
It follows the line of Judge Dread or Batman, or if you want to stay in D&D standards, consider paladins of Horus or Kelemvor.
I think you mean Judge Dredd...
Judge Dread was a reggae artist...LOL
does that mean the Blackguard will be in the RPG book or in some supplement afterwards?
does it mean every alignment will have a "paladin"? seems only fair
does it mean every alignment will have a "paladin"? seems only fair
That be a cleric.
That be a cleric.
does it mean every alignment will have a "paladin"? seems only fair
not really no. CG and TN deities should have holy warriors IMO
but thats what a cleric is. A cleric is the militant arm of the faith, the holy warriors of the gods.
Clerics are not common preachers and bookkeepers, or anything of the like, they are the warriors of faith
|
|
but thats what a cleric is. A cleric is the militant arm of the faith, the holy warriors of the gods.
Clerics are not common preachers and bookkeepers, or anything of the like, they are the warriors of faith
thanks
someone who also understandwhy does people think they have armor and weapons besides just spells and are not called priests or healers?
clerics have been always being militaristic as based in templars and other similar orders... none on nuns and monks in old monasteries
|
|
but thats what a cleric is. A cleric is the militant arm of the faith, the holy warriors of the gods.
Clerics are not common preachers and bookkeepers, or anything of the like, they are the warriors of faith
In which case, remove Paladins entirely from your game, if you don't feel that anything other than a Cleric is needed for a 'holy warrior' or 'divine champion' or 'blessed knight' concept.
I'm fine with there being a Paladin, halfway between Fighter and good Cleric, and, since I've already accepted that, I'd be a complete hypocrite to be opposed to a Blackguard, halfway between Fighter and *evil* Cleric.
That being said, I don't think we need them in the core book.
The only reason I'd want Paladins (or Rangers or Barbarians or Druids or Bards or Sorcerers or Monks, for that matter) in the core book is to maintain what's already present in 3E.
Classes that aren't already 3E core, no matter how much they would logically fit into a world with more orders of Hellknights than Paladins, can be added in later books, rather than overwhelm Justin not only trying to adapt the current classes, but create entirely new ones, all at once.
but thats what a cleric is. A cleric is the militant arm of the faith, the holy warriors of the gods.
Clerics are not common preachers and bookkeepers, or anything of the like, they are the warriors of faith
so then no paladins or blackguards then right?
|
|
so then no paladins or blackguards then right?but thats what a cleric is. A cleric is the militant arm of the faith, the holy warriors of the gods.
Clerics are not common preachers and bookkeepers, or anything of the like, they are the warriors of faith
Actually he's right a Cleric is a warrior priest. Hence why they have training in armour
Set and merrik here is the thing. Clerics are holy warriors but a paladin much like a druid is something else.
A druid is more then just a nature based cleric. At the same time a paladin is something more then a mere holy warrior. He has a rigid code and a way of thinking and a connection an perepose that transcends mere faith. A paladin is chosen by his god a champion a holy knight. He is given gifts and a hard road to walk.
Making one of every AL cheapens the paladin and makes it less special. They are not meant to be common or of every type. They are meant to stand out to be the uncorrectable champion of his convictions.
A fallen cleric just becomes a twisted version of what he once was. He now serves evil but he is still a twisted cleric. or even they may just change jobs not evil but just a different flavor now but still very much a cleric.
A fallen paladin is nothing , he has lost his power and his glory, his shame and his lose will haunt him and be known to all. There may be one type to become overly twisted if ya want a blackguard but ones that are not evil and just cant walk that line are unmade, they are shamed by the lack of faith or conviction. they do not just switch to a different AL they fall and are undone.
Those who walk the path of the paladin are not mere holy warriors, they are held to a standard others would chaff under and making that line less of a challenge, less of a benchmark and standard to be held against makes them lesser
|
|
Set and merrik here is the thing. Clerics are holy warriors but a paladin much like a druid is something else.
A druid is more then just a nature based cleric. At the same time a paladin is something more then a mere holy warrior. He has a rigid code and a way of thinking and a connection an perepose that transcends mere faith. A paladin is chosen by his god a champion, a holy knight. He is given gifts and a hard road to walk.
Take out the word paladin and replace it with the word blackguard, and it's the same. Code, connection, chosen by a god, gifts, hard road to walk, blah-blah-blah.
Making one of every AL cheapens the paladin and makes it less special. They are not meant to be common or of every type.
In 1st and (to a lesser extent) 2nd edition, this was the case. Only humans could be Paladins, they had to have insane stats (17 Charisma!), and they paid more experience per level than Fighters.
In 3rd edition, *any* race can have Paladins, they can have 10s and 11s in all their stats and they pay the same experience as Fighters and Rogues to go up in level.
*IF* 3rd edition wanted to make them special and uncommon and all elite, they could have made them a Prestige Class, and not a common, un-special, non-prestige class that any pimply-faced wannabe can take straight out of his apprentice job mucking the stables and cleaning up after Sir Blaise of Malebrionte's trusty parade steed.
A fallen cleric just becomes a twisted version of what he once was. He now serves evil but he is still a twisted cleric. or even they may just change jobs not evil but just a different flavor now but still very much a cleric.
'Fallen' cleric? As in a cleric of a good god that changes his mind and turns to an evil god? Yeah, I guess, but the *vast* majority of evil clerics start out as evil clerics. Evil gods in a fantasy world are still *gods,* no more invalid as choices of worship than good gods.
Would a Cleric of Asmodeus who 'fell' and started worshipping Iomedae also be considered a 'twisted version of what he once was?'
A fallen paladin is nothing , he has lost his power and his glory, his shame and his lose will haunt him and be known to all. There may be one type to become overly twisted if ya want a blackguard but ones that are not evil and just cant walk that line are unmade, they are shamed by the lack of faith or conviction. they do not just switch to a different AL they fall and are undone.
And a 'fallen' blackguard who betrays his code and his vows to dark forces has devils hunting him down to drag his soul screaming to hell for eternal torment, so it sounds like evil is a *hell* (pun intended) of a lot pickier than good.
But we already knew that, because evil requires their champions to prove themselves for multiple levels of Fighter and / or Cleric before allowing them to become the elite, the special, the prestigious, Blackguards.
Yanno, that whole level of commitment, dedication and struggle to *earn* their position that Paladins *don't* have to do...
Those who walk the path of the paladin are not mere holy warriors, they are held to a standard others would chafe under and making that line less of a challenge, less of a benchmark and standard to be held against makes them lesser
It's a lot of flowery speech, but 3E supports none of this. Sorcerers are more 'special' than Paladins, in 3E, because they've got that whole 'could be descended from dragons' thing going on.
Their standards are *less* than what is required to become a Blackguard (or an Assassin, for that matter!). Their commitment and dedication? Walking a hard road to prove themselves worthy? Non-existent. All they have to do is choose at 1st level to become a Paladin instead of a Fighter or Rogue.
Prestige classes have to prove themselves and be earned and qualified for. Paladin just has to be written on the sheet.
In 1st and (to a lesser extent) 2nd edition, this was the case. Only humans could be Paladins, they had to have insane stats (17 Charisma!), and they paid more experience per level than Fighters.In 3rd edition, *any* race can have Paladins, they can have 10s and 11s in all their stats and they pay the same experience as Fighters and Rogues to go up in level.
*IF* 3rd edition wanted to make them special and uncommon and all elite, they could have made them a Prestige Class, and not a common, un-special, non-prestige class that any pimply-faced wannabe can take straight out of his apprentice job mucking the stables and cleaning up after Sir Blaise of Malebrionte's trusty parade steed.
Sigh ya miss the point they are special same as a druid. DIffent class I guess druid should be a PRC as well.aND Barb, sorc and bard as they all can be prc's to fighter,wizard and cleric.
And no not anyone can be a paladin in game you need to strive for it or be called. Forget the crunch and role play.
'Fallen' cleric? As in a cleric of a good god that changes his mind and turns to an evil god? Yeah, I guess, but the *vast* majority of evil clerics start out as evil clerics. Evil gods in a fantasy world are still *gods,* no more invalid as choices of worship than good gods.Would a Cleric of Asmodeus who 'fell' and started worshipping Iomedae also be considered a 'twisted version of what he once was?'
Any cleric that switches faiths has fallen. yet they really lose nothing just change some spells and new holy symbol no biggie.
It's a lot of flowery speech, but 3E supports none of this. Sorcerers are more 'special' than Paladins, in 3E, because they've got that whole 'could be descended from dragons' thing going on.
Their standards are *less* than what is required to become a Blackguard (or an Assassin, for that matter!). Their commitment and dedication? Walking a hard road to prove themselves worthy? Non-existent. All they have to do is choose at 1st level to become a Paladin instead of a Fighter or Rogue.
Prestige classes have to prove themselves and be earned and qualified for. Paladin just has to be written on the sheet.
.
And yes they have a hard road and commitment he becomes LN=not a paladin, NG not a paladin, anything but LG not a paladin. On top of that he has a code and the rules of his god.
A cleric does not have to meet anything to become a cleric yet a paladin has far more rules and higher chance of falling then a cleric
so yes they are special or should every class have to meet requirements as 2e did? since thats your argument as why they should b a prc.
A blackgaurd is a debased fallen paladin one who fell to evil and has become twisted , so yeah PRC
|
|
A blackgaurd is a debased fallen paladin one who fell to evil and has become twisted, so yeah PRC
No. They *can* be fallen ex-Paladins.
They can also be Fighters (or Fighter/Clerics, or higher level straight Clerics), who earned the favor of darker powers and were rewarded for their devotion.
Everything you said about Paladins walking a hard road and being specially chosen applies many times *more* to Blackguards.
If a Blackguard was a class that you could take at 1st level, *then* a Paladin would be just as special as a Blackguard. If a Paladin was a PrC that one had to earn, after qualification and testing and such, then it would be just as special as a Blackguard. But in 3rd edition, this is not the case.
And that's the argument here. A Paladin *should* be just as special as a Blackguard, either by making the Paladin a PrC that not anyone in the world can qualify for, *or* by making the Blackguard a core class that also has it's squires and trainees and Sir Not-Yet-Ready-For-Prime-Times, just like the Paladin does.
|
|
In 1st and (to a lesser extent) 2nd edition, this was the case. Only humans could be Paladins, they had to have insane stats (17 Charisma!), and they paid more experience per level than Fighters.
In 3rd edition, *any* race can have Paladins, they can have 10s and 11s in all their stats and they pay the same experience as Fighters and Rogues to go up in level.
*IF* 3rd edition wanted to make them special and uncommon and all elite, they could have made them a Prestige Class, and not a common, un-special, non-prestige class that any pimply-faced wannabe can take straight out of his apprentice job mucking the stables and cleaning up after Sir Blaise of Malebrionte's trusty parade steed.
unfortunately i have to agree in this point
in old editions beinga paladin was something, you were special (1 palyed once with one and had a player play one) Str 9, Wis 15, Cha 17, and the code was more restrictive (only max 10 magic item, and you had to give everything you didn't need to fight the good fight to the church (10% title)actually a friend made avery interesting Prestige class, i am trying to convince the DM to let my cleric (she behaves a lot more like a paladin than the paladin) take it, this is it Paladin PrC
I do agree with ya a LE blackgaurd has its place as a base class. I do not think it should be a knock off paladin with the names filled off.
It needs to stand on its own and be something not just a anti-paladin.
I also dont think it belongs in core as it's an evil based class and just does not fit many games and would be banned outright because it is evil.
No other base class is pure evil and not even paladins are banned from most games.
But I wouldnt mind seeing one later own or even in the NPC section really just not as a base class because that tells players it's ok to want to play this in any game.
Some games will not be good for some classes but I dont have to ban any from the get go. And haveing one in the core staring at you in the book that tempts ya but you never get to play is not a good thing.
what your both missing is in 1st and 2nd all classes had requirements to play em. and limited races.
3e killed that. It effect every class not just the paladin
|
|
what your both missing is in 1st and 2nd all classes had requirements to play em. and limited races.
3e killed that. It effect every class not just the paladin
yes but most classes have 9 in main atribute
the highest one after the paladin was the bard with 15 in charismathe paladin was the only on with 4 minimum atributes and a lot more restrictions
tomorrow i bring such data
i have my 2e book here and the caster still have it really i recalled that after i posted.
Fighter=str9
Paladin= s/12 c/9 wis/13 cha/17...human only
Ranger=s/13,dex/13,con/14, wis/14....human elf half elf only
wizard=int/9....human elf half elf only
illusioist=dex/16...human gnome only
cleric..wis 9
druid=wis/12,cha15....human half elf only
thief=dex 9
bard=dex/12,int/13, cha/15....human half elf only
so yeah the paladin was the hardiest we all knew that but really all clsses but wizard,cleric,thief and fighter were restricted.
thats
class with just a 9=4
classes with 1 requirement but higher then 9=1
classes with 2 requirements=1
classes with 3 requirements=1
classes with 4 requirements=2
classes restricted by race=6
So saying it should be a PRC based on it used to be restricted then all but them 4 should be as well.
Making one of every AL cheapens the paladin and makes it less special. They are not meant to be common or of every type. They are meant to stand out to be the uncorrectable champion of his convictions.
But perhaps a holy warrior, name it the Templar or Champion or Crusader, would have different set of powers w/o some of the alignment restrictions. Perhaps take away some spellcasting give healing and some other powers etc
It doesn't have to cheapen the Paladin, but can give you some of the flavor of that "holy warrior" for other deities
holy warriors do, they have domains. Cleric are holy warriors ya need to accept that. Try the holy warrior cleric from the PFCS, it works well for that feel your looking for I would bet.
It said they was based off the knight templars in my 2e pb. I kinda figed everyone read that but it seems not as more then just you dont see them as that way. I just reread my 3.5 phb it mentions crusaders but never spells it out. Thats a flaw in the entry if ya ask me, I mush perfread older editions that told you and gave you examples of such classes.
However it is still the military arm of the church. So there for holy warriors and crusaders.
|
|
holy warriors do, they have domains. Cleric are holy warriors ya need to accept that. Try the holy warrior cleric from the PFCS, it works well for that feel your looking for I would bet.
It said they was based off the knight templars in my 2e pb. I kinda figed everyone read that but it seems not as more then just you dont see them as that way. I just reread my 3.5 phb it mentions crusaders but never spells it out. Thats a flaw in the entry if ya ask me, I mush perfread older editions that told you and gave you examples of such classes.
However it is still the military arm of the church. So there for holy warriors and crusaders.
i agree in such notions, that is why i feel so strongly about both paladin and cleric... the cleric is what i usually play (also rogue, then paladin) because i have been a fan of the Templars for too many years so playing something similar to one just makes me feel good, also different goods let me experiment with different characters, from the trickster that multiclass with rogue, or the onewho strives to bring down undeads in name of pharasma mixed with wizard (the intent was something simialr to True Necromancer and was intended for Kelemvor)
the paladin its just the champion of justice and everything is good, a shining example to follow in battle and outside it... that is why i get mad when i see paladisn played as jerks or just like inquisitors.
and thanks for posting the requirements, long time not seen forgot the ranger also asked 4 stats, ok not as high, but still