Not all Chaotic Evil beings are stupid and/or insane. If you've ever played Baldur's Gate, you'd get to know quite well a certain villain who is Chaotic Evil, yet smart, competent and dangerous. He really strikes people more as a Bane type villain than as a Joker. Another example would be the Succubus, which is just as destructive as any Demon yet far more focused on subtle manners of ruining others and tainting their souls. You could have an Anti-Paladin convince people that their dreams will shatter and that looking out only for one's self is the true way to live life. Basically he'd spread Evil as more of a teaching rather than run around yelling out some random deity's name and sacrificing goats and virgins to said deity.
The Paladin might not demand you to uphold goodness and order, but an Anti-Paladin will surely try to tempt you to dark ends.
Put them up against an Anti-Paladin of Norgorber or Pazuzu. Those two are smart, insidious and very dangerous in their own right.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the anti-paladin is that they have a code they are required to follow on the level of the paladin. Once you give anything such a code, it doesn't really seem right to call them "non-lawful."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the code basically equates to "do whatever the hell you want", it doesn't sound so restricting.
Faiths of Corruption gave some guiding tenets for Anti-Paladins of the Golarian pantheon.
I'm currently playing an anti-paladin of Rovagug whose logic is best serve the "end of all things" he'll become undead (and as a result is being "converted" to Urgathoa).
Albrekt is a emotionally stunted psychotic, but its more his "oddness" and potential for terrible acts that make him scary. I'm playing him like a huge, evil child with a dash of Bill Sykes and Solomon Grundy thrown in... and so far the group like where I'm going...
In my current campaign, my big bad is an Anti-Paladin Lich. He is seeking to free life from its bounds and to allow individuals to pursue their desires unfettered.
It has been great, at the start of the campaign he was the PC's (all aligned good) hidden benefactor. Helping with their quests, providing aid. He did so because the enemies they were up against, while not good, made the world stable. They have been knocking them around, creating chaos, destruction and war. Once they found out who their benefactor was, he even got the PCs doubting themselves now.
Basically he is wreaking internal and external destruction. In his view, when he is ready to move the world will be to destroyed from infighting to stop him and those that could stand up (PCs) to him will be so weighed down by their "goodness" and indecision he will grant them the only freedom they can have. Death. One must reward one's loyal servants.
Of course throwing away loyal servants is wasteful, so they might end up helping in Undeath as well.
I am not a fan of the Anti-Paladin being Chaotic evil either, I would run them as Lawful-Evil if I even were to run an evil campaign.
The fact that Faiths of Corruption gives anti-paladins codes or guidelines for each god even makes less sense for Chaotic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Chaotic people can't possibly set rules for themselves or anything even remotely close...
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Straight from the PRD, we get a nice little paragraph that seems to kill the "Chaotic people can't have a code" theory.
I have a few Chaotic Good characters that take their oaths and promises very seriously. I don't really see Chaotic as meaning that every single thing you do is on a whim. Decisions and choices often have a logical path leading to it.
To me a Chaotic character is more beholden to themselves and their ideals rather than a leader or government. They may follow some one, but may disobey an order or break a law if they don't feel that there's a strong reason to follow it when it hampers them from doing something they want or think is right.
Oh look, it devolved into an alignment argument.
This is going to be so much fun, since nobody will be able to agree on anything~
Though debates drawn from alignments is one reason why one of my groups has done away with the alignment system altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I use at as a tool to help define their personality. I think that's what alignments are meant to be.
@Kayerloth: Thanks, I actually have a thread somewhere that has my view on each of the alignments. It's been a while so I don't know how closely it matches up with what I stated here.
MY view is that chaotic people have codes just like lawful or L-C axis neutral people. Heck, they have codes just like anyone. The difference is the substance and type of codes.
Lawful codes tend to be immutable. They are often (not always) created by external sources.
Chaotic codes tend to be individualized with no external inputs. They also tend to be mutable and will change due to circumstance.
Thus, the idea that a CE character has a code of conduct which is basically 'do whatever I can to screw with people and sow chaos' is not a problem.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I house ruled that Paladins can be any good alignment and anti-paladins can be any evil. I figured since Monks can be any Lawful and Barbarian any chaotic it just made sense. This doesn't mean the Paladin or Anti-Paladin doesn't have code of conduct though.
The two aspects of alignment basically work like this: What do you want to accomplish? How do you go about doing this?
So Evil people are interested in harming good people and supporting their own aims (thats maybe not 100% correct, but its close enough).
The Chaotic character goes about doing that by skirting the law, being deceitful, and opperating outside of the norm.
A Good character wants to destroy evil and protect good people.
A lawful character goes about doing that by following the law, working inside the set standards of society, and keeping his word.
You will notice that the good law and chaos do not require anything else. It is simply a matter of what you want to do (good or evil) and how you pursue that goal (lawful or chaotic).
So you could have a L/E character who wants to harm good people and push forward his own aims and does so by keeping his word, following the laws of society, and following the law. He opperates inside the law, but does so in an evil manner.
A C/E character wants to destroy good and forward his own aims by lying, skirting the law, and opperating outside of the norm.
In my opinion an Anti-paladin is in line with C/E. They lie, and trick people. They use their charisma to fool people into doing the wrong thing. They will wantonly leave a wake of destruction in their path.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, it still makes no sense to me or anyone i know who plays PF. I understand that he is supposed to be a complete antithesis to a paladin. But in batman speak, i always saw an anti-paladin more like Bane then like the Joker. Strength of his beliefs and stuff like that.
What do you think?
Antipaladins are generally fairly intelligent mockeries of Paladins, their traditions, and even their code. Why would a class with a "code" be Chaotic aligned? Well look at their code:
Code of Conduct: An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
His code is a mockery of the order of the Paladin code. It could be summarized as "The antipaladin must do this...unless he doesn't want to". He can do good if it is for selfish reasons (Paladins cannot do evil for good reasons), he is supposed to do X, Y, and Z whenever possible but not if it interferes with his goals (IE if it is convenient and he wants to do so). Hence the mockery. If anything it exists so that the Antipaladin spits in the face of the Paladin and can taunt him.
Associates: While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.
Here it notes that Antipaladins do not need atonement spells for working with good people, because once again it's a cute mockery of the Paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is also very important to remember that alignments are not about intelligence or sanity: Both the fiendishly clever mastermind controlling the entire city with his thugs and the bullies mindlessly performing the crimes fall under Lawful Evil. Both the berserker who is in "KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!" mode all the time and the twisted trickster who manipulates entire nations into war or his amusement are cases of Chaotic Evil.
When the code basically equates to "do whatever the hell you want", it doesn't sound so restricting.Well you've got the wrong idea of the Anti-Paladin's code. As one, you are specifically charged with undoing law and goodness. You can only aid good creatures if the end result is greater evil at the end. The Anti-Paladin code isn't so much about what you do, but the end results you obtain, and the chaos, death, and ruin you leave in your wake. In that sense it's the opposite of the Paladin as the code is all about Ends and could care less about Means.
That's exactly what I meant, in a sense. You're free to do whatever you want, so long as you are aware that you're going to cause chaos and depravity as a result. Indeed, this would make those subtle and insidious Anti-Paladins of Calistria even worse. They live by their own rules, and damn everyone else. They'll go to any length to get what they want, be it by seduction, violence, clever words and so on. Same would go for Urgathoa's and Norgorber's Anti-Paladins, though they vary a bit in tastes and demeanour.
Meh, I'm on the "Antipaladin should be LE (or else of any evil alignment)" side. I've always seen them as the tyrant overlords or tyrannical generals. Roles that fit poorly with CE.
Why limit the unholy warrior to the archetype of a pompous tyrant?
I think an Anti-Paladin should be as horrible as the Paladin is glorious.
It's like comparing Shelyn's beautiful paintings to Zon-Kuthon's fleshy "works of art", so to speak.
I tend to think of the Paladin and Antipaladin as the Fettered and Unfettered, respectively. One lives strongly by his ideals, draws strength from his convictions. The other has a strict devotion to a goal and is strong because NOTHING is truly out of bounds as a method to reach that goal.
And that's why I feel that CE isn't too bad for the Antipaladin. The idea that absolutely anything is permissible if it furthers his ends will tend to lead to potentially erratic behavior.
Look at some of the anti-paladin abilities. like the fact that they are immune to diseases but still carry them. They spread disease as a by-product of existing.
These are guys without honor, they roam from place to place leaving a wake of destruction behind them.
They could ride out and rule an army, and on a whim may decide to destroy it. They have no personal honor, they spit in the face of authority (afterall, who tells an anti-paladin what to do?).
They are agents of Chaos and Evil in every way that a Paladin is an agent of Law and Good.
I like it, they are the polar opposite of a paladin. They want to leave the world broken and ruined. They don't need the prestige or the glory of ruling over people. In fact the Anti-Paladin would rather leave a city a burning husk than see it ruled by anyone, including himself.
That is my take on Anti-Paladins.
I think an Anti-Paladin should be as horrible as the Paladin is glorious.
I see it exactly as an argument in favor of LE Antipaladins.
A tyrant overlord can be CE; it just means that he acts in an unpredictable way, making decisions based on his (usually evil) whims of the moment and lets his friends and subordinates basically run rampant over the population with no real limits on what they can do to the peasants, rather then the type of tyrant who creates a set of elaborate (evil) laws and strictly enforces them to their inevitable (evil) conclusion.
Creating/following laws for/of an area is the least of all the things I see as lawful, and no more than a possible extension of them.
Astral Wanderer:
Chaotic leaders lead by personal control. Lawful leaders delegate by creating laws and then having people enforcing them.
Lets apply that to CE and LE:
A LE ruler will make laws that promote his agenda with no regard as to how fair they are to the common folk. He will have his police force punish people who are lawbreakers. He may have even created the law as an excuse to punish 'lawbreakers'.
A CE ruler rules with fear of reprisals and will be random on what he punishes. He needs no excuses in order to kill and punish.
- Gauss