So, this is a a question I thought about from the Fighter vs Pally thread.
In an average party, who would be better to bring along, a Pally or an Anti-Pally? While the Pally has good defence and helps shores up his allies defense, the anti-pally has a powerful offense and plays nicely with classes that debuff/CC hard (i.e. wizards and witchs).
Additionally, I think the Anti-Pally has a slightly more... open alignment requirements. Short of the entire party being a bunch of goody-too-shoes, the pally will often run into issues with the party tactics (HEY! Lets go and sneak up on the sleeping guards and kill them before they can cause us trouble later); whereas the Anti-Pally will have no such qualms or issues.
I personally prefer my players to be heroes. it's much more rewarding, at least for me, to "save the day" or "save the world" than it is to destroy it, and most of my players over the decades have agreed with that philosophy. I almost never see a group of mature players trying to do questionable things that a paladin wouldn't accept - usually the mature paladins are not so, uh, rigid, and the mature players aren't usually so, well, immature.
So, for most groups I've seen, most of the characters would object to killing sleeping guards in the first place (well, sleeping city guards, but maybe not sleeping orc guards at an orc fortress, but even a paladin might have no problems with that).
In these kinds of groups, paladins fit right in. Anti-paladins might not - not all my groups are composed only of good characters so some might accept an anti-paladin if he behaved himself well enough (e.g. he's not suffering from that all-too-common "all evil people must run around putting innocent babies on spikes" kind of immaturity). So, a more neutralish but still heroic group might run with an anti-paladin who could be played as evil temperament without having to flaunt his villainy with frequent over-the-top, childish naughtiness.
Of course, if the group is evil, a paladin will never do.
|
I'm not sure if I'd qualify "evil people must go around putting innocent babies on spikes" as necessarily immature, depending on the campaign. Quite a lot of people thoroughly enjoy evil games where the whole party takes the murderhobo meme up to eleven. Sadly, few would actually admit to enjoying this; me, I openly admit I'm cool with evil parties of cliche evil. Thing is, it's got to be in the right setting for it. Can't take HOLYCRAPBURNALLGOOD and drop it in a primarily good aligned campaign without your party killing you in your sleep.
|
So, a more neutralish but still heroic group might run with an anti-paladin who could be played as evil temperament without having to flaunt his villainy with frequent over-the-top, childish naughtiness.
Well, neutralish alignment but heroic while adding a non-heroic(to put it mildly) Anti-Paladin in the party is not something I can see working out well for anyone. Just my opinion.
Unless this was a case of 'I want to redeem myself' and if everyone is cool with the story aspect of that, rock on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if I'd qualify "evil people must go around putting innocent babies on spikes" as necessarily immature, depending on the campaign. Quite a lot of people thoroughly enjoy evil games where the whole party takes the murderhobo meme up to eleven. Sadly, few would actually admit to enjoying this; me, I openly admit I'm cool with evil parties of cliche evil. Thing is, it's got to be in the right setting for it. Can't take HOLYCRAPBURNALLGOOD and drop it in a primarily good aligned campaign without your party killing you in your sleep.
Sorry if I offended. I was, however, speaking of the truly immature approach, which might be good for a laugh, but not really that good for a RPG:
GM: On the way to the dungeon, you find yourself walking past a farm.
PC: Do I see anyone?
GM: Sure. There's a farmer plowing his field, his wife pulling weeds in their garden, a couple young kids playing tag in the field, and a baby crawling around its mother's feet.
PC: Cool. I go grab the baby and put it on a spike.
GM: Why? Why would you do that?
PC: Because I'm EVIL. While I'm at it, I put the whole family on spikes. Are there any more farms in sight?
I'm talking that kind of junk. I've seen it actually done. I don't think anyone would call that a mature perspective on playing evil. It's more like Looney Tunes meets Austin Powers meets Darth Vader meets a really nasty hallucinogen. If THAT's the kind of game we're talking about, then sure, bring a paladin for EXTRA hilarity.
Well, neutralish alignment but heroic while adding a non-heroic(to put it mildly) Anti-Paladin in the party is not something I can see working out well for anyone. Just my opinion.So, a more neutralish but still heroic group might run with an anti-paladin who could be played as evil temperament without having to flaunt his villainy with frequent over-the-top, childish naughtiness.
Anti-paladins don't have to be non-heroic, no matter how mildly it's put.
An anti-paladin with a long-term agenda to further the cause of his evil deity could very well fit in with a neutral group, and he might even contribute very seriously to their efforts to save the orphans and defend the town from evil monsters - maybe because he sees this town as a nice home base and one day would like to rule it (and not a "reign of terror" rulership, but just a strong leader figure who makes just laws and sticks to them regardless of whether the people like him for it or not).
I guess it all depends on the anti-paladin and his evil deity. Many of them are not overtly destructive, malicious, or outwardly evil. Heck, some of them think they're the good guys...
From a purely mechanical perspective, the Paladin is the stronger party member.
The paladin's smite works against far more creatures. Dragons, outsiders, and undead. Antipaladins get Dragons, outsiders and clerics/paladins. Not to mention there are a lot more evil creatures in the bestiaries.
The paladin's lay on hands ability is really the equivalent of having more HP than anyone else in the party. By middle levels, the paladin effectively has more HP than two barbarians of the same level. The antipaladin has a lame touch attack that doesn't do as much damage as his or her melee attacks, and needs other party members to heal him or her.
The auras of both classes only affect a small area around the character. It is much easier for a paladin's allies to stay in his or her aura than it is to keep several foes within range of the antipaladin's auras, since the allies are actually going to try to stay in range, while foes will actively scatter to avoid the aura. This only gets worse at middle and higher levels, when creatures with reach become more common. The antipaladin will start taking AOOs just to try to get close enough for the auras to work.
Aura of Justice, the paladin's superpower, affects allies who are within 10', which works well because the allies were already next to the paladin to take advantage of all the other auras.
Aura of of Vengeance, the antipaladin's version, also requires allies to be within 10', which doesn't work as well because the antipaladin is busy trying to get enemies within 10' instead. Poor synergy of powers.
Paladins gain immunity to charm spells. Antipaladin's don't. Even with adding charisma to saves, remember that wisdom is a dump stat for both classes. Mind control is a bad thing.
Can't it be both? Issues of alignment and codes aside, a paladin and an anti-paladin both bring quite a bit to the team. And what they bring doesn't overlap much.
|
|
Well, neutralish alignment but heroic while adding a non-heroic(to put it mildly) Anti-Paladin in the party is not something I can see working out well for anyone. Just my opinion.So, a more neutralish but still heroic group might run with an anti-paladin who could be played as evil temperament without having to flaunt his villainy with frequent over-the-top, childish naughtiness.
Anti-paladins don't have to be non-heroic, no matter how mildly it's put.
An anti-paladin with a long-term agenda to further the cause of his evil deity could very well fit in with a neutral group, and he might even contribute very seriously to their efforts to save the orphans and defend the town from evil monsters - maybe because he sees this town as a nice home base and one day would like to rule it (and not a "reign of terror" rulership, but just a strong leader figure who makes just laws and sticks to them regardless of whether the people like him for it or not).
I guess it all depends on the anti-paladin and his evil deity. Many of them are not overtly destructive, malicious, or outwardly evil. Heck, some of them think they're the good guys...
I tend to think of it in terms of duration. I agree that he/she would have no issues about, per your example of the town, saving it for his own agenda. Just not wanting to stay attached to said 'heroic' group any longer than necessary, i.e. when his goals are accomplished or furthered to the point the others are no longer useful.
Having either in a party would drive me to drink vodka by dipping bullets in said vodka then injecting them directly into my temple at high speed.
I say anti-pally. But then again, I prefer the evil guys over the do-gooders.
What? At least -someone- here has to be of evil alignment, we have too many heroes already.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't it be both? Issues of alignment and codes aside, a paladin and an anti-paladin both bring quite a bit to the team. And what they bring doesn't overlap much.
"He's a crusader for justice in service to Iomedae. She's a half-insane devotee of Lamashtu with a demon's baby on the way. Now, they're going to have to put aside their differences and find a way to make it work in what critics are calling 'the oddest couple since Doug and Kate in The Cutting Edge'. If the party is going to advance past second level, they'll have to break all the rules, and maybe even learn that opposites can attract."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having either in a party would drive me to drink vodka by dipping bullets in said vodka then injecting them directly into my temple at high speed.
What about having both in the party? And a true neutral druid who's all about balance(!) to round it.
I always liked anti-paladin better. That said, depends a lot on your friends and you and how you handle everything.
I am playing a chaotic neutral character in a party that once included a PC paladin and an NPC anti-paladin. I am actually quite glad that the anti-paladin is gone and the paladin is still around.
Having either in a party would drive me to drink vodka by dipping bullets in said vodka then injecting them directly into my temple at high speed.What about having both in the party? And a true neutral druid who's all about balance(!) to round it.
At that point, I sell tickets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At that point, I sell tickets.Having either in a party would drive me to drink vodka by dipping bullets in said vodka then injecting them directly into my temple at high speed.What about having both in the party? And a true neutral druid who's all about balance(!) to round it.
Ahh, I can see it now.
Druid-bro: "We should save the squirrels!"
Anti-bro: "What do the squirrels pay?"
Pal-bro: "Quit trying to solicit the squirrels for acorns!"
I really want to do a team-up, now, against something they would both oppose. Imagine Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon making a real push into the world.
I really want to do a team-up, now, against something they would both oppose. Imagine Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon making a real push into the world.
Now I wonder, would Seelah walk around with some anti-paladin if they had a foe in common? This could lead to some hilarious situations...
So, this is a a question I thought about from the Fighter vs Pally thread.
In an average party, who would be better to bring along, a Pally or an Anti-Pally? While the Pally has good defence and helps shores up his allies defense, the anti-pally has a powerful offense and plays nicely with classes that debuff/CC hard (i.e. wizards and witchs).
Additionally, I think the Anti-Pally has a slightly more... open alignment requirements. Short of the entire party being a bunch of goody-too-shoes, the pally will often run into issues with the party tactics (HEY! Lets go and sneak up on the sleeping guards and kill them before they can cause us trouble later); whereas the Anti-Pally will have no such qualms or issues.
70% of the issues with a Paladin's code of conduct are due to the GM adding issues to the code of conduct that aren't listed. The other 30% is because Paizo shot the dog when they removed the "grossly violates" their code of conduct. The 3.5 version gives the Paladin some leeway, which helps when your code contradicts itself.
That being said, I'd prefer to have both. A friend of mine and I are planning to roll a pair of paladins siblings (I playing the antipaladin, he playing the Paladin) for a game sometime in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god that would be an interesting party...
4 man Party:
Anti-Paladin
paladin
Druid of TN-ness
Spoony Bard recording everything.