I'm gonna +1 "Reaver"
Alternately, if every god can have someone of this class serving them, then I volunteer the term "Champion." Champion of Sarenrae, Champion of Rovagug, etc
But let me explore your point further: let's take Demon Lord A (DL for short), and Anti-Paladin A (AP for short). When the DL decides he wants better minions, he decides to create his first AP, and says "Do bad stuff in my name and you'll get power!" AP says "Okay!" Now, AP gets strong enough to take on the DL. Is the AP going to deny his in-born behavior of insurrection (that is encouraged by his DL), lose his powers for doing so and the DL will get AP B to do his bidding instead, or will he vanquish his lord, secure his position of power and authority like he was trained and instructed to do by the same DL whom he slain?
He'd likely attempt to kill his lord to gain greater power IF he thought he was tough enough. Though killing a Demon Lord is no small matter. If he didn't think he could do it he'd continue to do the Demon Lord's bidding and searching for ways to become more powerful on the side until he COULD take him, and set himself up as a new Demon Lord.
But what's wrong with this? It's perfectly fitting with the alignment and stated goal of the Anti-Paladin. Loyalty is nonexistent except where it benefits both parties.
That's what makes them ANTI Paladins, and it's why it's so fitting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too have never liked the name anti-paladin, it sounds more like an individual, you know "Woe to you for I am the anti-paladin".
Other name possibilities anything with black, shadow you know cool sounding stuff, Can you imagine if this characters getting introduced at a ball. "Now comes Darksol the Painbringer,blackguard warlord of the order of the forsaken"
I am completely on board for paladins/champions of all the alignments, might even make me interested in playing one.
Darksol: I don't get why you call "chaotic evil" "chaotic stupid/stupid evil", because how stupid you play it is up to you. Your argument seems to be "well it's a chaotic stupid character so it'll act stupid" which may be true for a specific character but nothing forces you to play it that way.
There are many chaotic evil intelligent monsters that can make elaborate schemes. Chaotic evil doesn't mean you're a bad plotter. If you've played Baldur's Gate, remember Sarevok. He's chaotic evil.
Yeah, I agree that Chaotic Evil is neccessarily stupid, but Lawful Evil makes for longer lasting villians, since they can build an empire with staying power. With Chaotic Evil, once someone kills the leader, it's all over.
Lawful Evil henchmen are more loyal to their master, even if it's not for the best reasons. The belief in order creates this. With Chaotic Evil, the best there is is might and enthralling people. With Lawful Evil, it's the inner workings of the system that give it staying power, and work for longer lasting villians. Lawful evils stick together because they have a system that works to their advantage; With Chaotics, it's simply the bigger power and/or the bigger charmer.
Darksol: I don't get why you call "chaotic evil" "chaotic stupid/stupid evil", because how stupid you play it is up to you. Your argument seems to be "well it's a chaotic stupid character so it'll act stupid" which may be true for a specific character but nothing forces you to play it that way.
There are many chaotic evil intelligent monsters that can make elaborate schemes. Chaotic evil doesn't mean you're a bad plotter. If you've played Baldur's Gate, remember Sarevok. He's chaotic evil.
I actually did that so Rynjin understood that my definition of Stupid Evil is the same as his Chaotic Stupid term. The issue with alignment is that if you don't really play the alignment, you aren't really that alignment. Is a Paladin who never cares about Justice REALLY a LG alignment? Is that Anti-Paladin who is cold and calculating but loves pretty rainbows REALLY a CE alignment? That's the problem you run into when you throw the definitions of an alignment out the door.
And that's what I am getting at; alone, Chaotic Evils can create diabolical plans to enslave the world to their knees. But they're cannibalistic to say the least. Throwing more into the fish bowl is just going to equate to the marine life eating each other to maintain their own survival.
That's how Chaotic Evil works, and why we call it Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blame Demons:
"Crap, Those angel jerks now have Superheroes to help them"
"What are they called?"
"Paladins"
"Lets have our own superheroes then. But what too call them......"
"Well being the personification of sloth, how about anti paladins"
I actually did that so Rynjin understood that my definition of Stupid Evil is the same as his Chaotic Stupid term. The issue with alignment is that if you don't really play the alignment, you aren't really that alignment. Is a Paladin who never cares about Justice REALLY a LG alignment? Is that Anti-Paladin who is cold and calculating but loves pretty rainbows REALLY a CE alignment? That's the problem you run into when you throw the definitions of an alignment out the door.Darksol: I don't get why you call "chaotic evil" "chaotic stupid/stupid evil", because how stupid you play it is up to you. Your argument seems to be "well it's a chaotic stupid character so it'll act stupid" which may be true for a specific character but nothing forces you to play it that way.
There are many chaotic evil intelligent monsters that can make elaborate schemes. Chaotic evil doesn't mean you're a bad plotter. If you've played Baldur's Gate, remember Sarevok. He's chaotic evil.
I don't see much in neither the alignment section nor the anti-paladin that in any way prevents or restricts his ability to be cold, calculating and loving of rainbows.
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.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
The ONLY thing here that interferes with being cold and calculating is "his plans are haphazard", but guess what? Alignments aren't charicatures - you do not have to have every single described tendency to have that alignment. Otherwise there would only really be nine different personalities at all in the game.
Because remember: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.
For example, chaotic good is described like this:
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Despite this, alignment as it has been interpreted throughout D&D has had many examples of characters that tell people what to do. Robbin Hood told people what to do all the time, how else are you going to rob someone? Back in 3.5 there was like a list of characters from other sources that where different alignments, and you know who where in chaotic good? Characters like Malcolm Reynolds, who constantly threatens and intimidates people.
Also, characters that have been explicitly released by the same guys who do D&D and have explicitly been chaotic evil have been smart and plotting. Sarevok in Baldur's Gate or Errtu from the Legend of Drizzt series have both been everything but "chaotic stupid", both have been patient and Sarevok was an excellent plotter (Errtu is also good as a plotter, but not as defined by it). In addition, many of the drow in the Legend of Drizzt where good plotters, and by the time labeled as chaotic evil and referred by it through the series. Nowadays drow are evil, but if that's because their personality has changed or they have reconsidered the alignment of them originally (I agree that drow have more of a neutral evil feel than a chaotic in some circumstances) I don't know. But still, Errtu is a good plotter and is a being made of pure chaotic evil!
So, when the CRB says "alignment is not a straightjacket and encompasses many different personality types", when the guys that made up the alignment system has referred to characters as an alignment when they had some traits that where not in the alignment description and when they've released CE people that aren't stupid, is it more likely that they're all wrong or that you are reading aligments a bit too strict?
With your Sarevok analogy, he is the strongest of his pecking order. Someone equally competent of his same alignment will at least have a tendency to fight for dominance (because not doing so would be obviously stupid).
This is exactly what I am talking about, and it says right in the alignment: the only thing keeping such minions in check is force/threat of force, and once such bonds break, they will serve their own evil ends, or assassinate the guy who oppressed them and take over.
Even if we expand this "alignments aren't a straight jacket" into fruition, you're not changing the fact that the concept is a damned if you do/don't situation. The creature is damned if he does serve this greater evil, since he will be just cannon fodder (a stupid way to go). He's then damned if he doesn't serve him because he will end up going right into CE stereotypical behavior (which falls into Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil territory, something the alignment doesn't always fit into).
It's a fish bowl, and the marine life are all a bunch of cannibals. Some are little catfish; others are whales or sharks. The biggest and baddest fish has complete control over the other fish. But once we get a fish that can tango with the big bad already in place, he's stupid not to take over, and yet falls under stupid stereotypes when he does.
While I like blackguard, it does make me think of the dastardly villain from a bodice ripper.
As for antipaladin, I think it neatly follows the medieval logic of having antipopes and an antichrist. Then again I've often run a medieval fantasy game where I just go ahead and use the whole hierarchy of medieval Christendom because it's an easier fit with the black-and-white morality paladins prefer rather than fantasy polytheism. (Though I do also tend to gray it up a bit too. The Knights of Malta were very upset when their beloved Pope Guido Medici died and the new pope started peace talks with the Saracens. And that doesn't even get into the time the party met Pope Joan....)
Darksol you're making several wrong assumptions.
1) Anti-paladin does not mean your against paladins but rather you are against the ideals they represent.
2) Demon lord A would let his minion get as powerful as he is.
3) Defeating Demon lord A automatically means you get his powers.
4) Demon lord A doesn't recognize the value of his minions and must waste them as cannon fodder.
5) The reason a minion shows loyalty is because he receives power for it. If he failed to show loyalty his demon lord would take back the power.
Chaotic Evil does not equal stupid. Also being chaotic does not mean you don't think of yourself as not having a moral code. It just means that every situation is evaluated individually and you are not necessarily required to come to the same course of action is similar situations. Just because you are dedicated to spreading chaos and evil doesn't mean you can't spare peoples lives. Think of the chaos generated when the refugees from one city flee to a nearby city and overtax its resources or start other conflicts.
Ilja, I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread.
Darksol you're making several wrong assumptions.
1) Anti-paladin does not mean your against paladins but rather you are against the ideals they represent.
2) Demon lord A would let his minion get as powerful as he is.
3) Defeating Demon lord A automatically means you get his powers.
4) Demon lord A doesn't recognize the value of his minions and must waste them as cannon fodder.
5) The reason a minion shows loyalty is because he receives power for it. If he failed to show loyalty his demon lord would take back the power.
Chaotic Evil does not equal stupid. Also being chaotic does not mean you don't think of yourself as not having a moral code. It just means that every situation is evaluated individually and you are not necessarily required to come to the same course of action is similar situations. Just because you are dedicated to spreading chaos and evil doesn't mean you can't spare peoples lives. Think of the chaos generated when the refugees from one city flee to a nearby city and overtax its resources or start other conflicts.Ilja, I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread.
As a literal definition, I'm right. Disregarding that, Antipaladins are against more than just Paladins or their ideals, and the name should encompass these other broad, character-defining concepts, other than focus on the most obvious one.
I assume you mean "wouldn't" with the 2nd point, and yes, he'd be stupid to let his minion reach an equal level of status/power, knowing the minion would attempt to take his position (because who wouldn't want to be the next and best big bad? Probably a guy stupid enough to sit in the dregs taking orders from some stronger-than-you A******).
The Demon Lord would be smart to either terminate a creature early before it causes a problem (I.e. insurrection), or simply pawn it off to one of his "rivals" and have them suffer their problems. Keeping such a problem along that leads to your demise (or the demise of other, more useful followers) is stupid. Hence why cannon fodder is nice to have, and is easy to make.
And I understand that point; hence why I expanded to the point to where if the guy shows enough "loyalty" and gets enough power, he becomes a threat the Demon Lord would be considered stupid not to eliminate it.
The thing with this alignment is that you need to take every bit of characteristic with a grain of salt, and that's to say the least. It's Evil, so if it chooses to spare lives, it's for their grand regime. It's Chaotic, so if it chooses to make a deal or anything, not having insurance only let's them have the freedom to walk over you. If anything, you'd be dumb to think that they WOULDN'T manipulate you or try to scam you all the time, because they'd be stupid NOT to take these options when they have the chance (and have no negative recourse, or even self-positive recourse) for doing so.
This is exactly what I am talking about, and it says right in the alignment: the only thing keeping such minions in check is force/threat of force, and once such bonds break, they will serve their own evil ends, or assassinate the guy who oppressed them and take over.
Yes, if they think they will actually benefit from it. Being a chaotic evil mercenary doesn't mean you have to betray your employer once you've gotten paid just for the lulz/evulz of it, it means you have no qualms about betraying her if you think it will get you into a better positon. If you think you have more to gain or less to lose by not doing it (for example, loss of pay later on), you won't do it.
A minion of Sarevok with any amount of intelligence and power would certainly plot to take over if it's chaotic evil. That doesn't mean it has to attack Sarevok in a stupid way - it will do what it thinks is most likely to get itself into power.
you're not changing the fact that the concept is a damned if you do/don't situation. The creature is damned if he does serve this greater evil, since he will be just cannon fodder (a stupid way to go).
How will he be cannon fodder unless ordered to? Of course a chaotic evil character wouldn't obey suicidal orders for some sake of honor or similar. A chaotic evil overlord can very well know that it's minion might try to overtake it's power. That might be an issue or it might not. Consider:
Errtu's aid to the wizard who has Crenshinibon. Errtu is chaotic evil (a greater demon!) yet has no issues aiding the wizard in exchange for Crenshinibon when the wizard dies. The wizard may or may not be chaotic evil, but it doesn't matter because Errtu knows he can destroy the wizard easily, and that the wizard will have no reason to go after Errtu when there's easier and tastier fish (like icewind dale) to fry.
Being chaotic evil doesn't mean you're unable to see your odds of a certain situation, nor does it mean you're unable to weigh pro's and con's.
I set up differing 'orders' for the few gods in my game that 'call' their own warrior. One is primarily LN, 5 are really LG, one is more G than L, a truly bastardized CG along with an Elf one and 2 are LE with completely different focus and tweaks. None are referred to as Paladins.
This is exactly what I am talking about, and it says right in the alignment: the only thing keeping such minions in check is force/threat of force, and once such bonds break, they will serve their own evil ends, or assassinate the guy who oppressed them and take over.Yes, if they think they will actually benefit from it. Being a chaotic evil mercenary doesn't mean you have to betray your employer once you've gotten paid just for the lulz/evulz of it, it means you have no qualms about betraying her if you think it will get you into a better positon. If you think you have more to gain or less to lose by not doing it (for example, loss of pay later on), you won't do it.
A minion of Sarevok with any amount of intelligence and power would certainly plot to take over if it's chaotic evil. That doesn't mean it has to attack Sarevok in a stupid way - it will do what it thinks is most likely to get itself into power.
you're not changing the fact that the concept is a damned if you do/don't situation. The creature is damned if he does serve this greater evil, since he will be just cannon fodder (a stupid way to go).How will he be cannon fodder unless ordered to? Of course a chaotic evil character wouldn't obey suicidal orders for some sake of honor or similar. A chaotic evil overlord can very well know that it's minion might try to overtake it's power. That might be an issue or it might not. Consider:
** spoiler omitted **Being chaotic evil doesn't mean you're unable to see your odds of a certain situation, nor...
I didn't say that: I said the situations are damned if you do/don't serve somebody. Let's take the mercenary example further. If I'm the Anti-Paladin who is serving the "merchant" for my Demon Lord, I'd be stupid to serve somebody whom will one day force my hand to die (cannon fodder in my previous example being a figurative political term for the Demon Lord sending away a "problem" to a rival), so it'd be smart that he doesn't serve the guy for too long. Similarly, if the Anti-Paladin decides not to serve him (anymore), and goes to somebody else for power with no consequence to the Anti-Paladin, he's denying himself a valuable power source, which is a stupid choice for the obvious reasons, so it'd be smart that he kills the merchant and utilizes the resources on that disposal (assuming he is capable of doing so).
Honestly, it's the laws of nature at their most brutal level to say the least.
I didn't say that: I said the situations are damned if you do/don't serve somebody. Let's take the mercenary example further. If I'm the Anti-Paladin who is serving the "merchant" for my Demon Lord, I'd be stupid to serve somebody whom will one day force my hand to die
Why would the demon lord treat me as cannon fodder? I'm a very useful force on this plane and can do a lot of evil for the demon lord, but it isn't threatened by me one bit as I don't have nearly enough power to hurt it. The demon knows this, the antipaladin knows this. Also, I don't see why you have to bring the demon lord into this at all - the antipaladin could simply serve a merchant as a mercenary on it's own, it doesn't need a demon lord at all. Of course, it wants to spread evil, so it's probably not some bakery shop it strikes a deal with.
It's not a damned if you do/damned if you don't more than life in general is.
Your argument kinda sounds like "well antipaladins have to be stupid because it's the smart thing to do" and I just don't get that. The anti-paladin will do what she deems will bring her most benefit, short-term or long-term. Just like any other chaotic evil character. Just like any chaotic character generally, just that those that aren't evil generally have other goals and some limits on what they're willing to do to get to those goals.
If chaotic characters are chaotic stupid, and lawful characters are lawful stupid, can't we call neutral character apathic stupid and then just say the whole world is really really dumb?
Because one day you WILL become that force to be reckoned with, and the Demon Lord/Mercenary would be stupid not to keep such a force in check to say the least. Similarly, the Anti-Paladin would be stupid to sit there and co-pilot with something that will plot against him so they may retain their current status of power (in fear that the Anti-Paladin may attempt to wrest it for his own good, which is the benefit of all evil).
This is why I say damned if you do/don't. The Anti-Paladin is stupid for serving someone for too long (as he grows, he becomes a threat that may one day cause whom he serves their demise) because he'll eventually attempt to obtain the power his master has; not doing so is dumb on the Anti-Paladin's part, denying a power source that would greatly fuel his evil regime(, and not getting rid of the problem is stupid on the master's part).
It's not that I am saying it's making the decisions I'm saying it makes is stupid, it's the opposite; my point is that the predication of the Anti-Paladin serving this "greater evil" becomes stupid at a couple points for multiple (Anti-Paladin level) reasons, (and the greater evil not taking precautions against such behavior is stupid of itself for similar reasoning).
It's easier to say the world is full of stupidity because simplicity is a level of stupidity (which is positive in most, but not all cases). Similarly, unnecessary levels of complexity follows the same levels of stupidity (except in almost always a negative case). This ordeal with the Anti-Paladin alignment can only follow the former (or the latter levels, depending upon their current power) levels of comprehension because their behavior 99% of the time shuns possibilities of any middle ground between such things, and it's stupid of them to expect anything more than that from other sources like them (that think and act similarly to them, since they all work toward the same goal with identical concepts in mind).
Look, even a 20th level Paladin is a non-threat to a Demon Lord.
You act as if it's some inevitability that the Anti-Paladin will reach a certain power level and then spontaneously combust because his patron is afraid of him.
It's quite a silly line of argument, really.
Demon Lords, like gods, aren't even STATTED in Pathfinder (3PP doesn't count). What that means in game terms is "Any fight with this thing ends in you lose. No exceptions. It is god-like in abilities and you are a mortal, no matter how powerful."
There is no threat to the Demon Lord at any point in the Anti-Paladin's existence. It is all win for the AP to keep serving the Demon Lord because he gets so much out of it, and gives up nothing.
Look, even a 20th level Paladin is a non-threat to a Demon Lord.
You act as if it's some inevitability that the Anti-Paladin will reach a certain power level and then spontaneously combust because his patron is afraid of him.
It's quite a silly line of argument, really.
Demon Lords, like gods, aren't even STATTED in Pathfinder (3PP doesn't count). What that means in game terms is "Any fight with this thing ends in you lose. No exceptions. It is god-like in abilities and you are a mortal, no matter how powerful."
There is no threat to the Demon Lord at any point in the Anti-Paladin's existence. It is all win for the AP to keep serving the Demon Lord because he gets so much out of it, and gives up nothing.
Not exactly. In the example of my previous post, I simply said "master," whether it be the merchant example, or some other evil being promising power.
With the assumption that he will not fail and his rise to power has no limits, the same as the Demon Lord seems to have, it's not a ridiculous argument at all.
I wouldn't treat it any more different than a Thieve's Guild, where the Rogue serves a Boss. Eventually that boss is going to want to make this rogue have an "accident" when he starts getting too good at his job, threatening competency with him.
The only difference is the content of what comprises the "organization".
With the assumption that he will not fail and his rise to power has no limits, the same as the Demon Lord seems to have, it's not a ridiculous argument at all.
Except this assumption has exactly 0 basis in the rules. It is an invalid assumption.
I wouldn't treat it any more different than a Thieve's Guild, where the Rogue serves a Boss. Eventually that boss is going to want to make this rogue have an "accident" when he starts getting too good at his job, threatening competency with him.
But in this case the "Boss" is Norgorber and no matter how hard the Rogue tries he can't take that.
The situation itself will obviously have its differences. The concept is what's important. With Alignment, there comes a threshold where following a course of action or ignoring a course of action leads to stupidity and/or change of alignment.
With Chaotic Evil, this more often than not comes from serving a big bad for too long, and will lead to getting iced due to competency and becoming a force to be reckoned with, versus serving a big bad for too short, icing said big bad, and missing out on more sweet power. The threshold comes with serving the big bad for the power he gives you for your service while also looking for your own self-preservative interests in the events the big bad decides to ice you off for his own interests.
The same concept is provided here. Not all Anti-Paladins end up serving some God-like Demon Lord, so such an assumption you provide won't always apply. In these other cases, my points still hold value.
(On a much more related note, I noticed this derailed into an alignment discussion, not an "Anti-Paladin's Name should be X/Stay the same" discussion this thread was supposed to be about. I will ask that we drop the alignment discussion so as to remain on-topic. Feel free to make a separate thread to continue the discussion, but don't expand on it anymore here.)
At the very least they must serve a Balor, because it makes no logical sense that a lesser Demon could give so much power to someone.
But you're right, this thread has been derailed by your dogged insistence on misunderstanding the alignment to justify the name change you want.
Nothing makes this unique to antipaladins really, it applies equally to all evil characters, so I'll just call them that from now on. Nothing in the antipaladin code or abilities make them more "stupid" or prone to acting stupid, apart maybe from the slight restrictions in working directly with good characters.
Also, we can easily sub the characters for any members of a CE race, and even when using stupid races like orcs as example, they won't act AS stupid as you claim the antipaladin will.
Because one day you WILL become that force to be reckoned with
Most character in-world won't reach level 10 until their deaths. Heck, most probably won't reach level 5. Would an orc warlord kill/dispose of all the orcs just because they're CE and might someday try to kill it? No, it will make the safeguards it can, not trust the other orcs and if one shows promise it might actually in reality become a threat it might remove the threat. For a demon lord, that's probably when the antipaladin is somewhere around level 20 and has become pals with a few of it's glabrezu servants. Then it's time to get nervous. When the CE character is level 8 and have just conquered a small town, the CE character will think of herself as an awesome force of evil that conquered a whole town while the demon lord will think of her as a useful tool that killed off so many innocents. The CE character won't think "well if I slay like a hundred dragons I get really powerful, and then I might be able to kill of the demon lord" and the demon lord won't think "well if she slays a hundred dragons she gets really powerful and may try to take my power so I should kill her now".
Similarly, the Anti-Paladin would be stupid to sit there and co-pilot with something that will plot against him
There's no reason for the CE character to think the demon lord - IF SHE EVEN DEALS WITH A DEMON LORD (important note cause there's nothing forcing her to do that) - would try to kill her, since she is nowhere close in power to even get to the demon lord's plane of existence. If she's level 20 or so maybe she won't deal with the demon lord if she suspects it might try to kill her, but it's not more dangerous for her to deal with it than any other character. A CE demon lord is dangerous regardless, yet many player characters - even good ones - deal with demons on a regular basis through calling and summoning.
This is why I say damned if you do/don't. The Anti-Paladin is stupid for serving someone for too long (as he grows, he becomes a threat that may one day cause whom he serves their demise)
So when that day grows close she ends the deal. This is no different for an CE character than any other character dealing with a chaotic evil being, and how do you think that works in, say, real life? I think many people in power (not all of course, but there's quite a few) are chaotic evil, showing little contempt for lives and laws as long as they can get away with it. Company owners that have union leaders in third world countries assassinated would be one example. Does that mean no-one deals with them, or that they try to kill/dispose of all their servants? Nope.
because he'll eventually attempt to obtain the power his master has; not doing so is dumb on the Anti-Paladin's part, denying a power source that would greatly fuel his evil regime
There might very well be easier ways to get power than trying to get rid of a demon lord that probably knows you well, knows your weak spots etc. If it's a good idea it's a good idea, if not there's no reason to do it. Going up against a demon lord may spread less evil, grant less power and be more dangerous than allying with the demon lord and going up against some archangel or a country.
It's not that I am saying it's making the decisions I'm saying it makes is stupid, it's the opposite; my point is that the predication of the Anti-Paladin serving this "greater evil" becomes stupid at a couple points for multiple (Anti-Paladin level) reasons, (and the greater evil not taking precautions against such behavior is stupid of itself for similar reasoning).
1. The CE character doesn't have to _serve_ a greater evil. It might do so if it wishes, it might go on it's own. It might serve in it's own way.
2. Nothing says the greater evil won't take precautions if it thinks the CE will try to take it's power.
Also, antipaladins don't get their power from demons AFAIK. Nothing in their description indicates that.
As far as I know, only clerics, oracles and witches are described as getting their powers from some outside entity, while druids and rangers are described as getting powers from some abstract "nature" while paladins, antipaladins and similar classes really don't have it described but by tradition (well, back in 3e at least, whatever relevance that has) get the power from their ideals and faith (not necessarily religious faith).
Also, antipaladins don't get their power from demons AFAIK. Nothing in their description indicates that.
Ahem.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiends
Upon reaching 5th level, an antipaladin receives a boon from his dark patrons.
The Paladin has similar wording. They both explicitly receive powers from Divine and Fiendish sources.
Ilja, I will simply say that I read and understood your arguments, and that some of the points you made were some of the options I (attempted to) cite as to what they can (and should) do in said situations. It seems like it came off wrong and I'd like to get back to the topic of this thread.
With that said, I really like the name of Reaver as a replacement...
I like Knight of Tyranny for a Lawful Evil Paladin, and Knight of Iniquity for a Neutral Evil (psycho) Paladin type.. .
Reaver . .. doesn't appeal to me, but that's just me.
"Reaver" to me sounds like metal band formed by middle school students which may have later turned pro but still has that pretentious juvenile sound to it -- ie. dangerous sounding but not an actual bad word that would upset mom.
As for the whole business of antipaladins having their fiendish patrons squash them into paste if they get too big for their britches...why? If they don't like them as antipaladins, just turn them into some high level demon and have done with it. But seriously, any demon lord worthy of the name is not going to be worried about a 20th level antipaladin not just because of power but because of the obvious weakness of an antipaladin--their power depends on their patron. Offend your patron and they yank their patronage.
And it's not like the forces of goodness are waiting for antipaladins to lose their powers so they can offer them trade-ins for paladinhood either.
I've always personally had the opinion there should be a baseline class, called either Paladin or Champion that by default, doesn't have any alignment requirements, and has alignment-generic abilities(Smite Enemy, Detect Threat, etc), then have alignment-restricted archetypes that replace them with more alignment-focused powers(Smite Enemy is replaced with Smite/Detect Evil for Good Paladins Smite/Detect Good for Evil Paladins, and..idk, Detect Coconuts and Smite Fish for Chaotic Stupid Paladins I guess).
But then again, I've never been a fan of alignment restrictions by default, so take my opinion on the matter with a grain of salt.
Dreadnought
That's what I call them. Like the old battleships. Conveys power, steely resolve, and overwhelming strength. Plus, it has "dread" in the name.
Also, antipaladins don't get their power from demons AFAIK. Nothing in their description indicates that.Ahem.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiendsUpon reaching 5th level, an antipaladin receives a boon from his dark patrons.The Paladin has similar wording. They both explicitly receive powers from Divine and Fiendish sources.
Making a pact with fiend =/= having fiend as it's power source. Just like the US doesn't have France as it's power source just because they have a few treaties and pacts (or a whole lot rather).
Recieveing a boon from a dark patron =/= having fiend as it's power source/as it's master. Patron is an incredibly vague term that could refer to a demon, or a devil (nothing prevents LE from using CE's as tools), or a god, or an evil cleric. And boon can be a gift, not necessarily lended power.
So no, they don't explicitly recieve power from a fiendish source (though that in itself isn't enough to let someone have power over you - after all, a fighter receives power from the local blacksmith yet she doesn't need to serve the blacksmith more than just paying up and it's done), it says paladins get a single power as a boon from some kind of "dark patron" which doesn't have to do with fiends at all.
Paladins get their bond from their connection to a god, that is true, and they are actually stated as serving gods. None of the other powers are stated to be given from there though. A paladin might lose powers by going against her god(s) because she doesn't respect legitimate authority, but an antipaladin has no such limitation.
Compare this to clerics:
Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods.
(and more throughout the text)
and:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
There is a huge difference in the wording here, where clerics are stated as the servants of deities that lose their powers if they disobey them while antipaladins are stated to get a single power from some kind of "dark patron" with nothing whatsoever indicating they lose that power by going against their patron.
I like the name Anti-Paladin because it lets me joke about the bad things that happen when Paladins and Anti-Paladins collide.
...*hides*
Also, antipaladins don't get their power from demons AFAIK. Nothing in their description indicates that.Ahem.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiendsUpon reaching 5th level, an antipaladin receives a boon from his dark patrons.The Paladin has similar wording. They both explicitly receive powers from Divine and Fiendish sources.Making a pact with fiend =/= having fiend as it's power source. Just like the US doesn't have France as it's power source just because they have a few treaties and pacts (or a whole lot rather).
Recieveing a boon from a dark patron =/= having fiend as it's power source/as it's master. Patron is an incredibly vague term that could refer to a demon, or a devil (nothing prevents LE from using CE's as tools), or a god, or an evil cleric. And boon can be a gift, not necessarily lended power.
So no, they don't explicitly recieve power from a fiendish source (though that in itself isn't enough to let someone have power over you - after all, a fighter receives power from the local blacksmith yet she doesn't need to serve the blacksmith more than just paying up and it's done), it says paladins get a single power as a boon from some kind of "dark patron" which doesn't have to do with fiends at all.
Paladins get their bond from their connection to a god, that is true, and they are actually stated as serving gods. None of the other powers are stated to be given from there though. A paladin might lose powers by going against her god(s) because she doesn't respect legitimate authority, but an antipaladin has no such limitation.
Compare this to clerics:
Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms...
While there may be nothing explicit about dark powers being able to pull the plug on an antipaladin who has ticked them off, it's strongly implicit and certainly the way most GMs would run things. If the particulars of the antipaladin's pact are handwaved, the terms are nebulous until such time as the GM needs to clarify them. Whether the antipaladin's powers are turned off like cable service or repossessed like a company car depends on the way the GM wants to run the metaphysics, but it is still the GM's call as to what the metaphysics are, not the player's.
Besides, if you could become an antipaladin, recant, and run off with your powers intact to take up another class we'd see a lot more chaotic good Robin Hood figures with a level dip in antipaladin. Don't see many of those? That's probably because most GMs rule that it doesn't work that way, making it a bad build.
Also, antipaladins don't get their power from demons AFAIK. Nothing in their description indicates that.Ahem.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiendsUpon reaching 5th level, an antipaladin receives a boon from his dark patrons.The Paladin has similar wording. They both explicitly receive powers from Divine and Fiendish sources.Making a pact with fiend =/= having fiend as it's power source. Just like the US doesn't have France as it's power source just because they have a few treaties and pacts (or a whole lot rather).
Recieveing a boon from a dark patron =/= having fiend as it's power source/as it's master. Patron is an incredibly vague term that could refer to a demon, or a devil (nothing prevents LE from using CE's as tools), or a god, or an evil cleric. And boon can be a gift, not necessarily lended power.
So no, they don't explicitly recieve power from a fiendish source (though that in itself isn't enough to let someone have power over you - after all, a fighter receives power from the local blacksmith yet she doesn't need to serve the blacksmith more than just paying up and it's done), it says paladins get a single power as a boon from some kind of "dark patron" which doesn't have to do with fiends at all.
I would just like to point out a few things.
1.) You mentioned Witches as one of the classes that explicitly receives power from an outside source.
These sources are called Patrons, by the by.
2.) Yes, it could refer to a Demon/Devil/Daemon (collectively referred to as Fiends, as it says in the description). Though perhaps it could be an evil god he made his pact with, that changes very little of what I said.
He is still beholden to that source. The proof is in the obvious fact that he can fall and lose said powers if he goes against the will of that patron.
You said "Nothing in their description indicates they get powers from Demons" and "Only Clerics, Oracles, and Witches get their power from an outside entity" and then turn right around and contradict yourself by saying they get powers from Demons AND other things.
While there may be nothing explicit about dark powers being able to pull the plug on an antipaladin who has ticked them off, it's strongly implicit and certainly the way most GMs would run things. If the particulars of the antipaladin's pact are handwaved, the terms are nebulous until such time as the GM needs to clarify them. Whether the antipaladin's powers are turned off like cable service or repossessed like a company car depends on the way the GM wants to run the metaphysics, but it is still the GM's call as to what the metaphysics are, not the player's.
"Pact" doesn't imply that that's the way they get power. "Make pacts with fiends" could just as easily mean that it deals with fiends.
"pact (pkt)
n.
1. A formal agreement, such as one between nations; a treaty.
2. A compact; a bargain."
That the character allies itself with demons is a pretty big evil thing to do, which is why it's mentioned. That whole paragraph doesn't mention anything about the ap's power, just lists evil things it does.
Besides, if you could become an antipaladin, recant, and run off with your powers intact to take up another class we'd see a lot more chaotic good Robin Hood figures with a level dip in antipaladin. Don't see many of those? That's probably because most GMs rule that it doesn't work that way, making it a bad build.
They have the code of conduct - if they break that they lose their power. I'm not arguing they don't have to follow that - I'm saying nothing implies the code of conduct is set or run by some outer power.
I would just like to point out a few things.1.) You mentioned Witches as one of the classes that explicitly receives power from an outside source.
These sources are called Patrons, by the by.
Yes. I... don't see how that contradicts anything here really. I mean, the witch is described like this:
Generally feared and misunderstood, the witch draws her magic from a pact made with an otherworldly power. Communing with that source, using her familiar as a conduit, the witch gains not only a host of spells, but a number of strange abilities known as hexes.
which is pretty explicit in that about all of her power comes from the powers. And the witch can't have her powers stripped by that being either, just like the antipaladin can't really (not directly, though it can work to set the antipaladin up to fall).
2.) Yes, it could refer to a Demon/Devil/Daemon (collectively referred to as Fiends, as it says in the description). Though perhaps it could be an evil god he made his pact with, that changes very little of what I said.
Or a shoggoth, or the evil stepmother for all we know.
He is still beholden to that source. The proof is in the obvious fact that he can fall and lose said powers if he goes against the will of that patron.
Care to quote some rules on that? Because the ex-cleric section says:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features
while the antipaladin section says:
A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features
and the code of conduct says:
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.
Nothing about the code of conduct in any way implies the source of the code is the patron that gives the boon, nor that the patron can in any way remove that boon (though it could of course try to put the antipaladin into a lose/lose situation).
You can't prove the powers are granted by the patron 'because if they disobey them they fall' and then claim that the patron can cause them to fall because 'they grant the powers'. That's circular logic.
So what you're implying is that an Anti-Paladin can just spontaneously sprout these powers from the ether and not have them granted by an outside source?
As a divine caster?
If you can find me something that backs that up, I'll believe it.
Until then, his powers come from somewhere.
And if his powers come from somewhere, they are the person who can shut them off.
And they would therefore be the people who enforce the Code.
So what you're implying is that an Anti-Paladin can just spontaneously sprout these powers from the ether and not have them granted by an outside source?
I'm implying that the rules don't say they're granted from an outside source (except the companion/bond, which only says it is a boon, not that it can be "taken back"). More specifically, it doesn't say her power is granted by a specific outside _entity_ which is the relevant part in this circumstance. Compare with the ranger or druid - the ranger/druid doesn't have to follow a nature-deity's order and the nature deity it might worship doesn't generally have the ability to make the ranger/druid fall, it's dedication to nature is what is required (in the case of druids; rangers simply cannot fall and are not required anything to get their divine spells), not a dedication to a specific entity.
From what we can see in the rules, anti-paladin seems to be similar.
I'm not saying they _can't_ be granted from an outside entity, I'm saying nothing in the rules says they _have_ to be.
And why do I have the burden of proof suddenly? I'm claiming the rules are silent on the issue and don't require something, you're claiming they do - the burden of proof is on you.
Until then, his powers come from somewhere.
And if his powers come from somewhere, they are the person who can shut them off.
So where do ranger powers come from, or druid powers? And who can shut them down?
Also, this is what the "divine spells" section say:
"Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells."
Note the marked difference "or" between deities and divine forces - cleary deities aren't considered divine forces. It would be reasonable to assume "divine forces" refers to "clerics of concepts" or whatever they're called. Note that divine forces is what powers paladins, and that likewise rangers and druids are powered by undefined "force of nature".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP : the title is misleading. What you truly find ridiculous is not the name so much as the idea that the antipaladin is CE.
While many people feel that antipaladin should be allowed to be of other evil alignments (especially LE), you insist that they cannot ever be CE because of the Chaotic part.
Several posters have gone to great lengths to explain why they feel your definition of Chaotic (and especially Chaotic Evil) is too restrictive and why they are perfectly okay with CE antipaladins.
Obviously, you remain unmoved, as is your right.
However, the title is still misleading.
Dreadnought sounds more like a Fighter-type; It reminds me of the Warmain from Arcana Evolved.
To the OP : the title is misleading. What you truly find ridiculous is not the name so much as the idea that the antipaladin is CE.
While many people feel that antipaladin should be allowed to be of other evil alignments (especially LE), you insist that they cannot ever be CE because of the Chaotic part.
Several posters have gone to great lengths to explain why they feel your definition of Chaotic (and especially Chaotic Evil) is too restrictive and why they are perfectly okay with CE antipaladins.
Obviously, you remain unmoved, as is your right.
However, the title is still misleading.
Well, I do find the name absurd. My perspective on CE changed some, though I see the same concept remains.
The title isn't misleading so much as it is that the thread derailed into an alignment discussion with the Anti-Paladin being a pivot of which it began. I already asked that if we were going to continue the alignment discussion that it is created in another thread.
Back on topic: Dreadnought is a good one, though it seems more fitting for an Anti-Paladin Pirate than anything.
I would have suggested Exarch, but it seems too priestly for it to work.
Antipaladin is paradoxical because it is supposed to be the opposite (anti) and yet has the thing it's supposed to be opposite of in its own name (paladin). So, it is defined as a paladin and the antithesis of a paladin.