|
I just looked at the anti-paladin pictured in the APG and imagined the sort of character who would wear that outfit with a straight face. Then I wondered if that was the sort of person who would think that peeing in a holy water font was both funny and an appropriate act of desecration. Then I followed the thought from there.That guy doesn't have a straight face, though. Look at him! He's stifling either a laugh or a fart. He's dressed like High King of Douchebags, and he knows it. But he doesn't care because he also knows that if you say anything about it to him, he's going to rearrange your face, and possibly your sphincter. That man bought his armor at Villains 'R' Us, and he absolutely does not give a damn about what you think. His name is Brad or Chaz, because all genuine douchebags are named Brad or Chaz, or maybe Brad Chazington III, heir to a long line of both Brads and Chazes. He stomps puppies, slaps orphans, and occasionally sets fire to nuns. If you asked him for the time of day, he'd beat you to death with an hourglass.
That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.
Jeremy Puckett
PS: This post is a parody and is not meant to make any judgment about people actually named Brad or Chaz or Brad Chazington. Good day.
I had two thoughts upon seeing the anti-Paladin picture
1 When did M'bison get into Pathfinder?
2 Chaotic evil clearly has one great dental plan.
Well, there is Blight Druid, who is like a Druid, except he like to DESTROY nature. And the Archivist Bard, who gets the ability to literally bore his enemies to sleep
Wow, I never would have guessed they'd actually do something like this.
|
Throws cans and tomatoes.
Codes are not exclusive to Lawful characters. A Chaotic Barbarian can be as set on respecting his personal code of honor as any Paladin. Maybe even moreso as he expects to be judged on his own personal value and accomplishments and not based on what title or status a society or hierarchy would put on him.
Obeying external codes not because you feel that they describe what you are but because other people and/or tradition say it is the proper thing to do is Lawful though.
Note that I mention tradition, and not official/written law. Based on my experience of Japan (which is very much a Lawful society IMO), for Lawful people, a recent law has no weight compared to an unspoken tradition though they will make every effort (short of ignoring tradition) to follow the letter of the law even if doing so distorts the spirit of the law beyond any recognition.
Still, I think that all extremes of Alignment (ie, no Neutral component) should be allowed their own zealous Holy Champion base class.
- LG has Paladin, whose archenemy is Evil
- CE has Anti-Paladin, whose archenemy is Good
I propose that
- LE should have a Holy Champion base class (Blackguard ?) whose archenemy would be Chaos
- CG should have a Holy Champion base class (Liberator ?) whose archenemy would be Law
Other alignments should not wish for a Holy Champion, as they already have Druids.
Woh Nerco. I will point out again that the "Code" of the anti-paladin is pretty much almost word for word the description of CE. I myself see no point in a "paladin" of every Al or an Anti-paladin of every Al. Paladins are LG so his counterpart should be CE.
I just smush all of the Paladin variants into one big class and let people of any alignment take it. There's all kinds of holy that don't fit in that little 3x3 grid.
Then what is the point of the cleric and the inquisitor? That is the role they already fill.
What, you don't see a difference between those three classes without the alignment restrictions?
RAW. Paladin = LG, Antipaladin = CE. There's a Holy Vindicator PrC for all the other Divine Stabbing needs.
I pretty much agree with this.
Well by way of disclosure, I tend to treat Paladins as part of the 'institution' and labour them with some functionary/administrative responsibility on behalf of Church and State when I GM stuff, so really thats only going to work in a 'Lawful' realm with the requisite harmonies.
Neutrals and Chaotics would probably have some contra views.
Of course that's just how I roll, and to each their own.
I just can't see the Neut/Chaos bent groups ever building up the infrastructure and mindsets required.
I reckon Chaotics could hold some great jobs, I'm just not sure they are keen on large institutional infrastructure and massive investments being spent on what is essentially a very niche facility.
And yeah Steve was Chaotic in some ways, but he was also a control freak with a crystal clear view of 'his way'... so technically he had a 'personal code', which around these boards means he was LG!
That said, I think he was a bit of an 'eccentric genius' (or nutcase) and Alignment vs Mental Illness is always a quandry.
What, you don't see a difference between those three classes without the alignment restrictions?
I do but some folks seem snot to. One is a champion for Good and justice. The embodiment of LG. The other two are Holy warriors of a god.
If you want a holy warrior of a god or of any Aliment. You already have two classes made to fill that role.
Since there are some people here from the Paleolithic Period, I figured I’d ask a question that’s been bugging me a while about the whole ‘gods n paladins’ thing; in particular when did it start?
I started D&D in the last years of 2nd Edition so I don’t know much about how paladins were then and how they differed in 3rd Edition on. In 3rd (and 3.5) Paladins were, in essence, emissaries to the cosmic theological force of Good and their relations to the gods was merely a matter of convenience (some extra divine support could hurt, and the god would get a powerful tool and symbol to add to its forces). A few years latter I found out that Forgotten Realms required paladins to have a deity, so I figured that’s where people got the ‘gods n paladin’ silliness…but upon reading more in pathfinder I cant believe that this was all a recent creation.
So the question is “Were paladin’s in earlier editions always tied to a divine patron, or is it really a recent (or campaign specific) deal?”
…And my answers to the OP would be yes to the first part, it is allowed (none of my DM’s have ever banned any Alignment from play), and somewhat to the second (we’ve modified it to be much more similar to the Blackguard of 3rd edition, and thus available to all evil alignments).
Since there are some people here from the Paleolithic Period, I figured I’d ask a question that’s been bugging me a while about the whole ‘gods n paladins’ thing; in particular when did it start?
Way back in 1st Ed (AD&D) they were always linked to a Deity figure. In second ed they broadened the scope to also tie Paladins more closely to more formalised Stately affairs (ie as well as clerical ties they also had ties to nobility/patrons etc).
The myth that is being perpetuated over and over is that the Paladin is the great destroyer of Evil with a zealots approach to the job. Nowhere is this stated in any of the manuals or abundance of quality material on Paladins, if anything they are about restraint and modelling good behaviour until pressed for combat, whereupon they are shining paragons of good sportsmanship and fair play.
For an excellent guide to the paladin as a class, may I recommend the Paladins Handbook from 2nd ed as a great source on Paladins codes and oaths, and a well detailed guide into the structures that facilitate them.
For an excellent guide to the paladin as a class, may I recommend the Paladins Handbook from 2nd ed as a great source on Paladins codes and oaths, and a well detailed guide into the structures that facilitate them.
This 100 times, this. That book is a very well-written piece of work that allows you to learn about the many facets of paladinhood, as well as the many roles they can follow - like being a holy crusader of a church, or a noble knight that upholds the highest states of honor. It even hints a bit at the idea(s) behind antipaladins.
Plus, if you're looking to play a paladin, or have one in your game, it gives you an number of magical "paladin swords" which work similarly to the Holy Avenger, only with slightly different abilities. It gives your paladins more options to choose from, and is yet another way to make them feel more unique from game to game. Strangely enough, all of them translate to Pathfinder very easily, especially since the introduction of conductive weapons.
I would let any evil alignment be an anti-paladin. Same as I would alowe any good alignment for a paladin. What I found funny when reading through the anti-paladin was that they have a code of conduct but are CE. The big arguement I heard about why paladins are lawful was because of their code of conduct but it seems anti-paladins can have a code and still be chaotic.
That's how I've been doing it for years...when I use alignment at all.
I am (oddly enough) a huge fan of the Paladin class.
I find it irksome when they are misrepresented as some kind of mindless killing machine fundamentalists.
I find it irksome when they are misrepresented as some kind of mindless killing machine fundamentalists.
Agreeing with you about Paladins feels weird. I don't like it. But yes, I hate Paladins that kill indiscriminately because detect evil told them so-- one of the reasons I loved the DragonStar setting was that the Empire was ruled by an alliance of chromatic and metallic dragons and their rival Paladin and Blackguard Orders were bound by civil law and the military hierarchy to cooperate.
When killing someone is the right thing to do, a Paladin shouldn't hesitate-- but that's not always the most appropriate response to every kind of evil.
I've only skimmed this thread (cause its lengthy), but I don't think (and can't believe) nobody has brought up the Unearthed Arcana variants in 3.5. It re-branded the paladin as an exemplar of each of a corner alignments, and had a paladin type for each. Lawful Good became the Paladin of Honor, Lawful Evil had Paladins of Tyranny, Chaotic Evil had Paladins of Slaughter, and Chaotic Good had Paladins of Freedom (which were my favorite because in part of their code, they were oath bound to beat the crap out of anyone who calls the guard/police.)
Also, I would add that I think all Paladins have a code, it's what makes them Paladins, just Chaotic Paladins have less rules and more feel. I could imagine a Lawful Paladin code involving elaborate rules for conduct in a temple of worship: what to dress, who to speak too, what to eat, while Chaotic Paladins codes would basically say "Hey, don't be a jerk in church."
Also, I would add that I think all Paladins have a code, it's what makes them Paladins, just Chaotic Paladins have less rules and more feel.
I kinda see Paladins a bit like Samurai.
A Samurai doesn't just have a 'code' that suits him, it is a very specific 'Code' that they must adhere to, as well as a societal structure in which they sit along with an oath of fealty - in the Paladins case to Church and State.
A young Warrior can have a code to which they adhere to religiously, but that doesn't mean they are Samurai; the Ninja also have strict 'codes' they must adhere to, but they aren't Samurai either.
LG makes sense for Paladins because they are a product of an ordered and structured society; an NG or CG society would be fairly unlikely to have the requisite structures in place to allow for such a 'specialised' socio-political role.
Holy Vindicators, Clerics, highly devout Warriors sure... but those aren't 'Paladins'.
|
|
What, you don't see a difference between those three classes without the alignment restrictions?I do but some folks seem snot to. One is a champion for Good and justice. The embodiment of LG. The other two are Holy warriors of a god.
If you want a holy warrior of a god or of any Aliment. You already have two classes made to fill that role.
That is quite true, including for LG holy warriors.
Why should only LG (and now CE) have Champions/Embodiments IN ADDITION TO Clerics and Inquisitors ?
Why are the 7 other alignments unable to get their own Champion base class ?
Why are the 7 other alignments unable to get their own Champion base class ?
Because a Paladin is not just 'an alignment champion', but also a political/cultural construct and requires a robust Lawful state to provide the backdrop for his existence - and that correct balance of ingredients isn't found in the alternate settings such as a CG or NG populace?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are the 7 other alignments unable to get their own Champion base class ?
Why should they? Paladins are not champions of LG alignment. NOr are Anti-paladins alignment champions. They are Lawful and Good but more Lawful and good then LG itself is. They are the embodiment of ideas more pure then LG. Most paladins can't live up to those standards much less other LG people.
The mistake you are making is you think they exist because of the alignment system. The alignment system is merely a reflection of the paladin. Strip out alignment and you know what that changes? Nothing, the paladin acts the very same.
Why are the 7 other alignments unable to get their own Champion base class ?
Why should they? Paladins are not champions of LG alignment. NOr are Anti-paladins alignment champions. They are Lawful and Good but more Lawful and good then LG itself is. They are the embodiment of ideas more pure then LG. Most paladins can't live up to those standards much less other LG people.
The mistake you are making is you think they exist because of the alignment system. The alignment system is merely a reflection of the paladin. Strip out alignment and you know what that changes? Nothing, the paladin acts the very same.
"I do but some folks seem snot to. One is a champion for Good and justice. The embodiment of LG. The other two are Holy warriors of a god."
That was you, tying the paladin to the alignment system, and opening up the question of why there can't also be a champion of Good and Freedom who embodies CG and gets paladin-like powers. Or, if there can be a champion of Evil and Destruction, the embodiment of Chaotic Evil, who gets paladin-like powers, there can't equally be a champion of Evil and tyranny, the embodiment of LE, who gets paladin-like powers.
That's how I handle it. There are LG and CG Paladins. Most of the CG ones are in the service of Cayden Cailean, but some also worship Saerenrae and Shelyn along with her Lawful Good Paladins, and Desna has a few CG Paladin Knight-Errants, focused on protecting travelers, safeguarding out-of-the-way shrines, and countering the forces of Lamashtu and the Old Ones. Likewise, there are LE and CE antipaladins, with Asmodeus and the Hellknights maintaining the largest force of the Lawful Evil ones.
Except a Paladin is not some kind of divine champion in service to the Church (or Deity), they are also in service to the land... or the State if you will.
So no, I still don't accept the rationale of the Paladins existence outside the L indicator.
Even an Anti-Paladin (CE) had to start as a Paladin in order to come into being.
CE is too restrictive assuming you follow the code to the letter also. You can do a good thing with bad intentions in the long run. It is one of the worst forms of evil since it is deceptive. I allow my anti-pallies to be NE. It might even allow an anti-pally to pretent to be a pally, but as written it is hard to pull off.
edit:That was badly written. I will try again.
You can do good things with the idea of deceiving people which would cause you to fall as an antipaladin(RAW). But to me that should not get you punished. A NE character/anti-pally would do such a thing, IMHO.
@ Raven , the Paladin is the embodiment of LG, but is so LG most LG being can't hope to live up to it. The paladin would be the very sam if you cut out the Al system as the paladins code and what is it is the base of what it means to be LG.
The aliment system is a reflection of a paladin in this case. Not the other way around.
@ Kutgan. No its not the Al system its the code. The thing LG is based upon. Paladins are not based upon LG. Lg is based upon them.
I can't understand how you could be a champion of NG, NG does not champion anything that is why they are Neutral. They are the middle ground, The same with CG. Your good and , well chaotic. You are not organized, you are not a knightly order in any form. You are random guys doing what you want because you want to do it. Hang order or a "cause" or leadership if it gets in the way.
Just what is so must do about CG? What is so special it calls into being "paladins' To champion it? Nothing. Not a thing. Anti-paladins at lest have a reason to be, something they embody.
LG and CE also have something very few other Al's have. A unity in what they are. LN, LE, NG, CG, CN, NE all are very broad. LG and CE are not broad, they are very narrow and very set. The top and bottem.
CE is too restrictive assuming you follow the code to the letter also. You can do a good thing with bad intentions in the long run. It is one of the worst forms of evil since it is deceptive. I allow my anti-pallies to be NE. It might even allow an anti-pally to pretent to be a pally, but as written it is hard to pull off.
But even then, the Anti-Paladin is not an agent of an Evil God, but rather a lost Paladin who has fallen from the path to become in league with the forces of the Abyss who now fuel their bloodlust.
And Anti-Paladin is not in service of an Evil Deity, that is nowhere in the class description.
I think there's a pretty hefty misundertanding about the Paladin class, and particularly the Antipaladin as well.
Except a Paladin is not some kind of divine champion in service to the Church (or Deity), they are also in service to the land... or the State if you will.
So no, I still don't accept the rationale of the Paladins existence outside the L indicator.
Even an Anti-Paladin (CE) had to start as a Paladin in order to come into being.
If that is the basis of your argument you can now disallow the CE since anti-pallies don't have to start as pallies.
It should be noted that not all antipaladins are fallen heroes. Some warriors are trained from a young age to assume the mantle of antipaladin, forged through pain and trauma into exemplars of evil. These cruel warriors know nothing of compassion or loyalty, but they can teach a great deal about pain and suffering.
Erm, I think you may be a bit lost here so I will clarify.
Anti-Paladins can only exist in a society that can produce Paladins.
A Paladin is a specific socio-politic construct that can only come about under certain conditions, namely a relatively advanced and stable well structured and ordered nation state with a solid inter-dependent relationship with the Church... a Paladin is in service to both Church and State, so there is immediately a lot of complications which pretty much required a clear cut codification of laws etc.
Simply put, they are a product of a Lawful society, and furthermore, they act as a shining example of good. That they serve a deity is important, but thats only one of the hats they have to wear.
The Anti-Paladin starts as a Paladin, but along that most precarious journey they fall and lose their way, as many have done before them, and many will after. In their case though, they made the next step and got in league with the forces of the Abyss, not Hell mind you, the Abyssal forces that are the main opponent of the LG society.
Now sure, the PRD is nice enough to point out there are a few exceptions, perhaps a group of Anti-Paladins have formed an order of their own and started building thier own tools of hate from scratch, but their genesis was found in Paladinhood.
There is a clear and distinct relationship between the Paladins and the Antipaladins (this is why they aren't called something else generic, as they are 100% tied to each other).
The Anti-Paladins are not divine champions of a CE (or any other E) deity. They are EXEMPLARS of EVIL.
So this is why the other alignments don't get their cookie.
Except a Paladin is not some kind of divine champion in service to the Church (or Deity), they are also in service to the land... or the State if you will.
So no, I still don't accept the rationale of the Paladins existence outside the L indicator.
Even an Anti-Paladin (CE) had to start as a Paladin in order to come into being.
Maybe they are in your game, but that is in absolutely no way the standard assumption. In fact, I would argue that a Paladin Order dedicated to the State is just begging for its members to fall as soon as an evil ruler comes around.
Erm, I think you may be a bit lost here so I will clarify.
Anti-Paladins can only exist in a society that can produce Paladins.
A Paladin is a specific socio-politic construct that can only come about under certain conditions, namely a relatively advanced and stable well structured and ordered nation state with a solid inter-dependent relationship with the Church... a Paladin is in service to both Church and State, so there is immediately a lot of complications which pretty much required a clear cut codification of laws etc.
Simply put, they are a product of a Lawful society, and furthermore, they act as a shining example of good. That they serve a deity is important, but thats only one of the hats they have to wear.
The Anti-Paladin starts as a Paladin, but along that most precarious journey they fall and lose their way, as many have done before them, and many will after. In their case though, they made the next step and got in league with the forces of the Abyss, not Hell mind you, the Abyssal forces that are the main opponent of the LG society.
Now sure, the PRD is nice enough to point out there are a few exceptions, perhaps a group of Anti-Paladins have formed an order of their own and started building thier own tools of hate from scratch, but their genesis was found in Paladinhood.
There is a clear and distinct relationship between the Paladins and the Antipaladins (this is why they aren't called something else generic, as they are 100% tied to each other).
The Anti-Paladins are not divine champions of a CE (or any other E) deity. They are EXEMPLARS of EVIL.
So this is why the other alignments don't get their cookie.
You said they had to start as paladins in your other post. That is incorrect and now you are assuming they have to be paladins around in order for there to be antipaladins. The way the PRD reads is that it is more likely for an antipaladin to be a paladin first, but nothing I read makes a paladin a neccesity even within the same society. According to the orcs of golarion books they(the orcs) have antipaladins, but paladins that are orcs are unheard of. The book even says the orcs will think you are lying if you mention such a thing as a paladin orc existing.
If you have quotes though I will read them.
The Anti-Paladins are not divine champions of a CE (or any other E) deity. They are EXEMPLARS of EVIL.So this is why the other alignments don't get their cookie.
Because only Chaotic Evil is really evil. Asmodeus? What a poseur! He couldn't exemplify evil his way out of a paper bag.
You said they had to start as paladins in your other post. That is incorrect and now you are assuming they have to be paladins around in order for there to be antipaladins. The way the PRD reads is that it is more likely for an antipaladin to be a paladin first, but nothing I read makes a paladin a neccesity even within the same...
And in the main it is true, they begin as Paladins and lose their way. It later goes on to say that there are other ways for them to come about, but the beginning statement makes it clear that this is the normal practice.
There's no inconsistency here.
Dunno about Orcs of Golarion, unfortunately its not a text I've seen anyone ever use in play. It is a campaign world specific text though, which limits its usefulness.
@Revan - it's not a peeing contest between who is the more evil deity, in fact the deities don't even come into it at all. It is merely a reflection of philospohy and the aims of the Anti-Paladin.
I guess I just never understood how you were supposed to justify that only certain deities (those that are lawful good) ever actually had Paladins in their service - or worse, how you could be the chosen champion of a deity that you disagree with on issues of morality (non-lawful good deity with any paladins and no house-ruling of alignment requirement.)
Which is a valid concern, because I agree that wouldn't make sense - and it doesn't make sense because the Paladin was never designed to be a champion of X deity, but rather a Champion of a particular type of specialised society.
This is why classes like Samurai/Paladin/Ninja are rather problematic; they have taken a very specific and idealised caste and turned it into a class, but without the backing framework that brought those castes into being the whole thing looks... odd.