Kael wasnt too evil. He was loyal and disciplined...
What? Was he the most apathetic neutral character of all time then? Loyalty and discipline are totally traits that evil characters can have. Kael was willing to murder people without question, kidknap an infant, and then hand over said infant to a woman who he knew was going to sacrifice it. He was loyal to a mass murdering tyrant who used violence as a first solution (even going so far as to use her own daughter to slaughter innocents), had used black magic to encase an entire city in ice, effectively killing them, and had lead her own people into an age of poverty, hunger, and sickness. She was an egomaniac who was afraid of loosing her powers. Kael is like the very definition of evil.
|
Kael wasnt too evil. He was loyal and disciplined...What? Was he the most apathetic neutral character of all time then? Loyalty and discipline are totally traits that evil characters can have. Kael was willing to murder people without question, kidknap an infant, and then hand over said infant to a woman who he knew was going to sacrifice it. He was loyal to a mass murdering tyrant who used violence as a first solution (even going so far as to use her own daughter to slaughter innocents), had used black magic to encase an entire city in ice, effectively killing them, and had lead her own people into an age of poverty, hunger, and sickness. She was an egomaniac who was afraid of loosing her powers. Kael is like the very definition of evil.
Well then. I defer to your concise and logical thought. But only because I cant think of anything pithy in which to retort. ;)
Demon Knight? (fits the artwork)
N - ?
Harper?
I vote to subtract the 'anti' from the name and just call it a Paladin. Good Paladin's have class features that fit the archetype of being a champion of righteousness while evil paladin's have antithetical versions of those powers that fit being a champion of tyranny. We don't pretend that there is enough difference between the positive energy channeling clerics and the negative energy ones to call them different classes why should we do so for the anti-paladin. It isn't all that different.
+1
Random ideas for holy champions of various alignments;
LG - Paladin, Paragon
NG - Champion, Guardian, Hero, Defender
CG - Crusader, Vindicator, Avenger
LN - Arbiter, Stalwart
N - ?
CN - Libertine?
LE - Conqueror, Tyrant, Despot, Martinet
NE - Villain, Blackguard, Knave, Malefactor, Caitiff
CE - Reaver, Mauler
Interestingly enough, back in the Dragon Magazine, one of the Paizo boys actually wrote a two-issue article on Holy Champions of Alternate Alignments. I think it was one of the two James.
Regardless, I'd be very surprised if he did not have a hand in the creation of the Antipaladin Alternate Class and very interested to hear his thoughts on additional Holy Warriors.
"Anti-Paladin" is just too goofy and anachronistic a name to fit in a medieval fantasy. What would be better to call them?
1. thing to note. people don't refer to themseleves as classes. Classes are a gaming mechanic.
2. People have been clamoring for an Anti-Paladin class for three decades. the name ain't going away now that they actually have one.
You kidding? I refer to myself as a 1st level Commoner / 4th level Expert (educator) all the time! It's even on my profile.
I personally prefer to just call paladins, holy warriors. for that is what they are, holy warriors of their diety. I also view their codes of conduct diffrently. Their code of conduct is not based on their alignment but of their diety. for example you are a paladin of Asmodeus, one of your sins would be to break a contract you signed and agreed to. abusing and using loop-holes is not breaking it, but if you outright break a contract you sign, that is a sin in their eyes. After all, Asmodeus is the god of contracts and laws.
I have thought of implementing the so called nine path of failure. based off the fact their are 9 hells. Each level you fail brings you closer and closer to outright losing ablities. this means for example something minor which would be a rank 1 sin is only going to minorly harm you, but you would be encourged to atone right away if you were really devoted to your diety. 9th level sins are pretty much 'you are no longer a paladin' this allows for more flexiablity yet still keep the whole fact if you go against your oath you lose stuff.
what do others think of the 9 path concept?
"Anti-Paladin" is just too goofy and anachronistic a name to fit in a medieval fantasy. What would be better to call them?
I'm looking for something with verisimilitude. Something that I can imagine actually being uttered by a Medieval English-speaker. The two that are my favorite so far:
Blackguard: Actual medieval term for s violent criminal. But might possibly cause confusion with 3.5 prestige class.
Reaver or Reiver: Medieval term for a mounted raider or well-equipped robber.Other possibilities I've seen:
Shadow Knight
Dark Paladin
Death Knight
Doom ChampionWhat do you think?
I liked Blackguard the best, but I understand why it is not an official term. It is good for a home game though. Shadow Knight seems decent also.
|
|
"Anti-Paladin" is just too goofy and anachronistic a name to fit in a medieval fantasy. What would be better to call them?
I'm looking for something with verisimilitude. Something that I can imagine actually being uttered by a Medieval English-speaker.
Most Medieval folk are going to hope they never need a name for them as a class. If they meet one in their life time, that's too many. stick "THE" in front of his bad-guy name and you're set... THE Black Night, THE Blackgaurd, THE Rever, THE Doom Champion, etc.
|
Kael wasnt too evil. He was loyal and disciplined. When I think of Anti Pallys, I think of Kurgen, Katana, Kane (Highlander movies).On a side note, am I the only one who pictures General Kael from the movie 'Willow' when he thinks of this class? Sure, his class may have been fighter, but no character comes to mind who fits the theme as well as he does.<- Angry at Netflix for not having the movie Willow. :@
Even if any of the above are evil, none of them screams 'so evil that dark powers have blessed them with evil power because of it' that comes with anti-paladin. They all seem like garden-variety evil Fighters to me.
Getting powers from evil disciplines of faith would make Darth Vader more of an 'antipaladin' than these guys.
And as for clerics as knights, even as a teenager, playing 1st edition, the idea of a guy who can't use a lance or a sword, doesn't have a mount or any abilities or training related to mounts, and doesn't have any secular status or code or training related to knighthood, did not fit my concept of a 'knight.'
A fighter may not be a perfect 'knight,' but he can at least equip a lance and swing a sword, which makes him twice the 'knight' that any cleric would be.
Once D&D introduced the cavalier class in Unearthed Arcana, any pretense that a cleric was a 'knight' (which was never backed up mechanically or with much in the way of supporting flavor, such as knightly orders affiliated with various churches) was abandoned, IMO.
The Greyhawk orders of knighthood, such as the Knights of the Hart, Knights of the Shield, etc. were not church-run organizations, or squads of mounted clerics with longswords and lances, for instance.
How about:
Maladin,
Dastard,
Villinard,
Munchkin Magnet
or Susan?
|
And as for clerics as knights, even as a teenager, playing 1st edition, the idea of a guy who can't use a lance or a sword, doesn't have a mount or any abilities or training related to mounts, and doesn't have any secular status or code or training related to knighthood, did not fit my concept of a 'knight.'
Your concept of a knight is distorted by Hollywood (as is most people). Historically the vast majority of knights were unmounted, heavy infantry (and died in a Crusade). Only knights who were from noble families would have had horses and lances, as the cavalry was almost exclusively noblemen.
You're right that they should've been able to use swords, and I always let them when I was DMing.
I'm actually a bit surprised by this conversation, I thought everyone knew the cleric was inspired by the Teutonic Knights. They didn't even get spells at first level because they were supposed to be generic footsoldiers of the lord.
On topic, I call anti-paladins blackguards because blackguard is way cooler than anti-paladin. But I might call a group of blackguards The Anti-Paladins, especially if they were tasked with guarding a force of great evil that was essentially the Anti-Christ (in my own homebrew setting he'd be the "Anti-Rex") or Anti-Pope.
|
|
Shadowknight, man that brings back memories. Probably copyrighted though. The agonizing pain of a 60% exp penalty. Heh can we rename lizard man to Iksar as well?:P
Such a terrible class at launch, too. At 16th level, you gained the awe-inspiring ability to summon a 1st level skeleton! Woo!
And that harm touch, almost as sexy as lay on hands, except for being able to miss and being resistable and almost never doing full damage, making it only fractionally as useful as lay on hands...
The EQ2 version was fun, though, as was Dark Ages of Camelot's version, the Reaver (which basically had reversed versions of all the Paladin auras from that game, turning the heal allies aura into a damage foes aura, the increased damage aura into a decrease foes damage debuff aura, etc.).
.
Just looked in Best of Dragon II, and the 'level names' for the Antipaladin were;
1st - Caitiff
2nd - Miscreant
3rd - Malefactor
4th - Hellraiser
5th - Blackguard
6th - Scoundrel
7th - Dastard
8th - Villain
9th - Villain of the Deepest Dye
10th - Fiend
11th+ - Antipaladin
Blackguard, Caitiff and Malefactor are cool.
And that harm touch, almost as sexy as lay on hands, except for being able to miss and being resistable and almost never doing full damage, making it only fractionally as useful as lay on hands...
The EQ2 version was fun, though, as was Dark Ages of Camelot's version, the Reaver (which basically had reversed versions of all the Paladin auras from that game, turning the heal allies aura into a damage foes aura, the increased damage aura into a decrease foes damage debuff aura, etc.).
EQ1 Launch SK Harm Touch was rediculous actually. It was unresistable and did 50% monsters current hp.
I remember the 'zerg' rushes against the super Qeynos guards where you have 30 people roll up level 1 noobie SK's and just keep running in and Harm Touching them to try to kill them. Later on it was patched to make them resistable.
Fun days and memories!
|
|
And that harm touch, almost as sexy as lay on hands, except for being able to miss and being resistable and almost never doing full damage, making it only fractionally as useful as lay on hands...EQ1 Launch SK Harm Touch was rediculous actually. It was unresistable and did 50% monsters current hp.
[tangent] I guess I came in after it had been turned down a bunch! I was in all necro guild called Ebonlore for awhile, and shadowknights and rogues were allowed to join (although 90% of the membership were necromancers), but both were so lacking in class abilities that they were just basically tagalongs that we power-leveled with our necros.
I kind of love the new stuff they've given them in EQ2, like the escape stuff, making them pretty darn useful in groups. [/tangent]
That's one thing that I've noticed is fairly common with 'antipaladin' concepts (whether it be EQs shadowknight or DAoC's Reaver), is that the paladin class ends up being very group-friendly, and providing bonuses or buffs to their allies, while the 'antipaladin' is very selfish, and debuffs foes (which can be resisted, etc.), making it inherently less effective than the paladin (since buffs and heals always hit and are never resisted, and are multiplied by the number of allies you have, while debuffs and damaging auras can miss or be resisted, and never function as a force-multiplier).
It's thematic that the evil warrior's abilities are selfish, but it's kind of lopsided that evil 'holy warriors' are always going to be less effective than good 'holy warriors,' making the epic battle of good vs. evil being a struggle between two identical twin brothers, only one them is holding a baseball bat and the other one is tied to a chair... :)
Until you get into single combat, where you are superior.
|
|
Until you get into single combat, where you are superior.
In one on one combat, the paladins buffs and heals still trigger at full value on himself, while an 'antipaladins' debuffs or damage effects may or may not be resisted. Still, win to the buffer/healer, whose special abilities always work, even if he's only buffing/healing a single target.
It's the same with channel energy in Pathfinder. If you channel positive energy, you multiply the number of allies by the number you roll. If you channel negative energy, you multiply the number of foes by the number you roll, and then halve it for anyone who made their saving throw. Some will be lost to 'overhealing' those who didn't need as much as you rolled, but some may also be 'overkill' to those who didn't have as many hit points as you rolled.
Some toys are just flat-out mechanically better / more reliable / usable in more situations than others, and those toys are more likely to be in the hands of a paladin or good-aligned cleric than an antipaladin or evil-aligned cleric, making the concept of good being 'challenged' by evil something of a fallacy, as good has bigger guns.