Oh, it's not about a player's inability to convincingly portray an alignment while showing loyalty to party members. It's a hangup of my own, without question. I make no apologies for it, and I make no allowances for exceptions—in large measure because watching the triumph of evil, even in this format, is not something I enjoy. Therefore, I have no intention of running a game for an evil party, in which such an outcome is necessarily quite likely.
Might I run a one-shot? Perhaps. But I'll never, ever do so for an ongoing campaign.
"That kind of thing just ain't my bag, baby."
Back on topic.
Gauss wrote:
Jaelithe, not really. They should be pretty close to evenly matched although at some levels I would give the advantage to the Anti-Paladin due to the more offensive nature of his Touch of Corruption, Cruelties, and Auras.
Sure. I certainly think an anti-paladin's powers should be formidable ... perhaps even more formidable, in some ways, than that of his counterpart.
Quote:
Additionally, the Anti-Paladin removes the Paladin's immunity to fear.
I didn't know that.
Wow. That sets off my bullshìt detector, full force. To say in one book that a character class is "immune to fear," unequivocally by adding "either magical or otherwise," and then simply override that in another ... no. Just ... no. In my opinion it's completely nonsensical and inherently contradictory, and I would neither allow it in my game nor play a paladin in a campaign that allowed it. (Were I a player, I'd fall back on, "What does 'immune' mean? My write-up doesn't say 'normally,' it says, 'magical or otherwise,' and as far as I'm concerned, one can legitimately interpret 'or otherwise' as meaning 'without exception,' and trumping the anti-paladin's power. I'm goin' with that.") Basically, they've set him or her up to possibly cower before one of his greatest enemies. As Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade would say, "What a crock of shìt!" Immune is immune ... not "immune—until you need it most, of course." That's just one of those times that, clearly, a designer who dislikes paladins had too much say and should have had the idea slapped down—hard.
Then, again, I've always found the idea that a paladin is more vulnerable to evil incredibly irritating. His DR/evil should instead be DR/non-evil. It's against evil that all his powers should be at their apex. The prevailing rule-set is an outgrowth of the dualistic philosophy that good and evil are equal and opposed, which I abhor, even while I understand its purpose mechanically and dramatically. Of course, I've been playing so long that it still annoys me paladins don't radiate Protection from Evil anymore, and haven't since 1st Edition.
Quote:
Then again, Litany of Righteousness is overpowered and could finish the Anti-Paladin before he has a chance.
I just read through that. It's a pretty potent spell, if employed cannily. It could, indeed, turn the tide—assuming the paladin isn't already fleeing in terror at having failed a Will save ...
... against something to which he's immune.
What a joke.
