I'd take that answer.... except we have Seltyiel. And a few antiheroes besides.
Is it so wrong to give Bob the Antipaladin a backstory? He looks so fun in his profile shot! I bet he's like Eddie Murphy's evil alter-ego in "The Nutty Professor" -- evil as all hell, but raising the roof everywhere he goes!
I hope that there will be an iconic antipaladin some day. I mean, every other class has an iconic, so...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why an antipaladin has to be a screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth evil any more than a paladin has to be a holier-than-thou, chaste, unrelatable monolith of good. Surely something approaching an interesting, multidimensional character can be achieved.
b-but once you start playing an INTELLIGENT (see: not suicidally omnicidal) villain, suddenly you're lawful evil (and therefore fall as an antipaladin). *DM whine DM whine*
it's so hard convincing people that you can be CE and not 'murder everyone everywhere all the time no exceptions under pain of falling/death'. plans are not lawful-exclusive. self-control (for at least self-preservation's sake) is not lawful-exclusive.
the inverse is also true for paladins (well, that and most DM's near-fetishistic compulsion to force a paladin to fall)
honestly the whole 'must be LG/CE' restriction for them is retarded (because DMs will abuse that to make the alignment unplayable). you should either go by deity alignment or good axis vs evil axis for (anti)paladin requirements. this would also quell the calls for paladins of freedom or actually fitting antipaladins of asmodeus (lookin at you way of the wicked)
I don't see why an antipaladin has to be a screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth evil any more than a paladin has to be a holier-than-thou, chaste, unrelatable monolith of good. Surely something approaching an interesting, multidimensional character can be achieved.
Antipaladins of Calistria can be multidimensional, certainly. APs of Gorum and Rovagug are pretty much locked in to doing horrible things to everyone they see.
The old 1st edition Deities and Demigods statted Elric of Melnibone as chaotic evil. He tries to be good, but when a fight starts, he leaves few survivors on either side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. We actually don't have an iconic paladin. At least, the one we illustrated in the APG was never intended to be an iconic.He's pretty much the Nameless Iconic by default. :) He'd be kind of hard to become part of the family, as the Iconics are supposed to get along and it looks like Seelah pretty much sent him to his just rewards.
Seelah sent him to New Jersey?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His name is Larry. Larry the Antipaladin.
Background: Larry always thought evil was cool. So one day this demon shows up and says "Hey, wanna be an antipaladin?" And Larry said "Sure." So Larry became an antipaladin, and was all evil and stuff.
Admittedly, the background needs some work.
Seelah sent him to New Jersey?Nope. We actually don't have an iconic paladin. At least, the one we illustrated in the APG was never intended to be an iconic.He's pretty much the Nameless Iconic by default. :) He'd be kind of hard to become part of the family, as the Iconics are supposed to get along and it looks like Seelah pretty much sent him to his just rewards.
He landed in a place the gods forgot.
Seelah facing off against the Iconic Antipaladin would make for a cool short story.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's so hard convincing people that you can be CE and not 'murder everyone everywhere all the time no exceptions under pain of falling/death'. plans are not lawful-exclusive. self-control (for at least self-preservation's sake) is not lawful-exclusive.
the inverse is also true for paladins (well, that and most DM's near-fetishistic compulsion to force a paladin to fall)
Alignment, whether CE or LG, *should* (IMO) be a flavor that informs your character's role-playing, motivations and actions, not a straightjacket that makes them unplayable zombie robots.
If it's considered 'impossible' to play a CE (or LG) character in a particular scenario, or as part of a group, that's not a shining endorsement of the concept of alignment, so much as a solid example of why it should either be dropped entirely from the game, or at least stressed differently, so that it's a vessel for good roleplaying and creativity, and not something that explicitly forbids good roleplaying in favor of cookie-cutter deterministic behaviors.
Franchise Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.
|
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still sad the iconic antipaladin never got a backstory.
And you can't tell me he isn't the iconic with the amount of pictures he's been in at this point.
Where is the justice for the antipaladin!
There is no such justice. That's why he turned to evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.
Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy. To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class. This is also supported by the fact that Urgraz appears in a supplemental source (if not downright arcane), rather than in the core line alongside a bunch of other not-iconic-posers (created for the admittedly legitimate purpose of having pregenerated Evil Characters). As you should know, giving said illustrations a backstory is simply a marketing gimmick to generate interest in the product. It is more than a little late to redefine the gimmick.
Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.
Not from a Core Race, and hasn't showed up much in the RPG line.
Edit:
Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy. To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class. This is also supported by the fact that Urgraz appears in a supplemental source (if not downright arcane), rather than in the core line alongside a bunch of other not-iconic-posers (created for the admittedly legitimate purpose of having pregenerated Evil Characters). As you should know, giving said illustrations a backstory is simply a marketing gimmick to generate interest in the product. It is more than a little late to redefine the gimmick.
And this.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy.
Well, I'd take the position that it's Paizo that gets to decide who qualifies to be an Iconic and who doesn't, and, IIRC, one of the qualifications was 'must have a picture drawn by Wayne Reynolds,' which Urgraz has, and 'Bob, Kicker of Pigs' does not.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"He has gone by many an alias over the years, though if you encounter him once, you will never forget him, try as you might.
"He is a devout follower of Father Skinsaw, the Rough Beast, demons, qlippoth, whatever he's sure will disgust you the most.
"He is quick to blame parents who never loved him; quasits who tricked him in his youth; cultists who harmed him daily; cursed weapons and armour he could not discard; anything, but his own twisted sense of humour.
"He is easy to track, but difficult to catch. He has a way of tricking people into thinking he can be redeemed, of tricking himself into believing that laws and even basic decency do not apply to him alone.
"But he has no-one he can trust, while I have friends and allies. What he did to you was unforgivable, and all I could heal were the wounds he left in your body. I hope you can take solace in the fact that I will personally fling him into the Inheritor's light, and he will harm no-one else thereafter."
(My attempt at a "Meet the APG Antipaladin". How was my Seelah impression?)
|
Franchise Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy. To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class. This is also supported by the fact that Urgraz appears in a supplemental source (if not downright arcane), rather than in the core line alongside a bunch of other not-iconic-posers (created for the admittedly legitimate purpose of having pregenerated Evil Characters). As you should know, giving said illustrations a backstory is simply a marketing gimmick to generate interest in the product. It is more than a little late to redefine the gimmick.
Whatever, dude. Your "well, actually" arguments aren't going to fly here. We paid Wayne Reynolds a lot of money to design six evil iconics. Urgraz is one of them. You can run logical laps around yourself all you want, but it's not going to change anything. "To be a Pathfinder Iconic" originally meant that the character appeared on the cover of one of the first 12 volumes of Pathfinder Adventure Path, long before we had released even the Pathfinder RPG Beta. Turns out, we get to decide who's an iconic and who isn't.
|
Franchise Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this apply only to the first appearance, or can any picture by Reynolds qualify? If the latter is true, have you checked every picture of APG guy for the illustrator (I remember he appears one in OA as subject to Riding Possession from the mesmerist)?Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy.Well, I'd take the position that it's Paizo that gets to decide who qualifies to be an Iconic and who doesn't, and, IIRC, one of the qualifications was 'must have a picture drawn by Wayne Reynolds,' which Urgraz has, and 'Bob, Kicker of Pigs' does not.
We typically do not hire Wayne to do random interior illustrations. He's frankly too expensive, and his style is so intrinsically tied to our brand identity that he does covers almost exclusively. So no, there has not been a Wayne Reynolds illustration of that dude, but even then, being drawn by WAR doesn't make someone automatically an iconic. Us commissioning the art as an iconic does.
|
Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy. To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class. This is also supported by the fact that Urgraz appears in a supplemental source (if not downright arcane), rather than in the core line alongside a bunch of other not-iconic-posers (created for the admittedly legitimate purpose of having pregenerated Evil Characters). As you should know, giving said illustrations a backstory is simply a marketing gimmick to generate interest in the product. It is more than a little late to redefine the gimmick.
Whatever, dude. Your "well, actually" arguments aren't going to fly here. We paid Wayne Reynolds a lot of money to design six evil iconics. Urgraz is one of them. You can run logical laps around yourself all you want, but it's not going to change anything. "To be a Pathfinder Iconic" originally meant that the character appeared on the cover of one of the first 12 volumes of Pathfinder Adventure Path, long before we had released even the Pathfinder RPG Beta. Turns out, we get to decide who's an iconic and who isn't. Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.
While it may have been impolite the way Cantriped put it, I can't say I don't agree with the sentiment, for what it's worth; if nothing else, it winds up feeling...untidy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it may have been impolite the way Cantriped put it, I can't say I don't agree with the sentiment, for what it's worth; if nothing else, it winds up feeling...untidy.
You can absolutely agree with the sentiment that he doesn't feel like an iconic, but all of Cantriped's points are wrong.
The CRB iconics were printed in APs and Modules long before the CRB so there goes the argument that they have to be printed in the source book for that class and the core line.
And his reasoning for it being nothing more than a "marketing gimmick" literally applies to every iconic so I'm not really sure that's relevant in any way.
Really his post has 0 substance and is just a bunch of insults because the iconic antipaladin wasn't printed how he liked.
Whatever, dude. Your "well, actually" arguments aren't going to fly here. We paid Wayne Reynolds a lot of money to design six evil iconics. Urgraz is one of them. You can run logical laps around yourself all you want, but it's not going to change anything. "To be a Pathfinder Iconic" originally meant that the character appeared on the cover of one of the first 12 volumes of Pathfinder Adventure Path, long before we had released even the Pathfinder RPG Beta. Turns out, we get to decide who's an iconic and who isn't.Since this thread came out, we did introduce a party of evil iconics, to coincide with the release of the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path. The official iconic antipaladin is Urgraz.Urgraz doesn't qualify to be an Iconic, and trying to call him the Iconic Antipaladin is just plain lazy. To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class. This is also supported by the fact that Urgraz appears in a supplemental source (if not downright arcane), rather than in the core line alongside a bunch of other not-iconic-posers (created for the admittedly legitimate purpose of having pregenerated Evil Characters). As you should know, giving said illustrations a backstory is simply a marketing gimmick to generate interest in the product. It is more than a little late to redefine the gimmick.
Still break the Core Races rule, and some think the APG one is just cooler.
|
Franchise Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still break the Core Races rule, and some think the APG one is just cooler.
While I can't argue with taste, I am curious where this "Core Races rule" was ever outlined. I have looked through the all the rules references I can find, and there's nothing anywhere that says what an iconic is, other than message board posts from Paizo staff. But if there's anything this thread has taught me, it's that Paizo staff can't be trusted as authorities on who is and isn't an iconic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
It's far more tangible than a matter of "feels like". This is the important part:
To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class.
One may take issue with the word "must", but there can be no disputing that in every single other case to date, this has become the clear and consistent pattern, visible in every pertinent book, blog post, et cetera. Break the pattern this far in, and of course people are going to be puzzled.
I agree it's not a big deal (I've long thought the whole concept of "Iconics" have been taken a bit too far), but frankly, I only stepped in here because I understood Cantriped's core premise, and I thought the reaction from others was unwarranted and unkind.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one rule. What Paizo says is an Iconic, is.
Anything else is just the natural tendency for people to ascribe meaning to patterns, even if the pattern was not meant to mean that in the first place.
The antipaladin picture is iconic, but it's not the Iconic.
Soooo.... I realize it's a bit off-thread, but there an iconic tengu swashbuckler or shigenjo?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's far more tangible than a matter of "feels like". This is the important part:
To be a Pathfinder Iconic, your illustration must appear in the sourcebook describing the class as an example of a member of that class.One may take issue with the word "must", but there can be no disputing that in every single other case to date, this has become the clear and consistent pattern, visible in every pertinent book, blog post, et cetera. Break the pattern this far in, and of course people are going to be puzzled.
I agree it's not a big deal (I've long thought the whole concept of "Iconics" have been taken a bit too far), but frankly, I only stepped in here because I understood Cantriped's core premise, and I thought the reaction from others was unwarranted and unkind.
Every single other case except when each of the CRB iconics were originally introduced. So nah, not an absolute pattern with no exceptions. It actually fits in perfectly with how the iconics were originally introduced.
And come on man. Cantripped's reaction was to write an entire paragraph of insults towards Mark/Paizo in general because he didn't like how the iconic antipaladin was handled. His core premise didn't hold up in the least for any of the reasons he gave. Let's not act like he was the victim here. Several people simply didn't agree with him. I only see people being unkind in return for him blatantly insulting people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything else is just the natural tendency for people to ascribe meaning to patterns, even if the pattern was not meant to mean that in the first place.
Speaking as someone who's always been on the far end of "slow to see/skeptical of supposed patterns", we're not talking about finding shapes in clouds or whatever; this is something that's been dead-reliable for every other 20-level class Pathfinder has published to date - and almost (if not quite, but that's saying a lot, regardless) as consistent for the entire run of 3.0/3.5. Cantriped didn't make this up, nor did I - and while they certainly seem to have done more with it than Wizards of the Coast did, neither did Paizo.
This is getting creepy and nuts (a statement the irony of which is not lost on me), and I'm starting to feel like there's something else going on here. Cantriped made a reasonable observation, and met with an unreasonable response, whereas I stepped in strictly because I've seen online gang-ups many times before, and I really don't like it (and while I guess I don't really speak Southern, "y'all" strikes me as an odd word to refer to 2 people when they are in contrast to and outnumbered by everyone else "in the room").
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how cantripped is being "ganged up on". It's not being ganged up on just because a lot of people in a thread disagree with you in their posts. It just means you have the minority opinion of those involved in the conversation on that matter.
Additionally, he did just post a paragraph full of insults, so even if you vehemently believe he's being ganged up on, you can certainly see why.
As a sidenote, speaking as someone from the South, y'all is pretty commonly used to address any amount of people greater than one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as someone who's always been on the far end of "slow to see/skeptical of supposed patterns", we're not talking about finding shapes in clouds or whatever;
No, we're not. We're talking about a clear, obvious pattern that nonetheless does not actually mean what is being ascribed to it, no matter how much it makes sense.
I personally named him Sir pig-kicker.
|
|
GAAAAGH double-dinosaur ninja!!!
Every single other case except when each of the CRB iconics were originally introduced. So nah, not an absolute pattern with no exceptions. It actually fits in perfectly with how the iconics were originally introduced.
Something's wrong here. Which of the Core Rulebook iconics broke that pattern? Seems to me that they, very specifically, set and maintained the mold for Paizo's "Iconic" treatment.
And come on man. Cantripped's reaction was to write an entire paragraph of insults towards Mark/Paizo in general because he didn't like how the iconic antipaladin was handled. His core premise didn't hold up in the least for any of the reasons he gave. Let's not act like he was the victim here. Several people simply didn't agree with him. I only see people being unkind in return for him blatantly insulting people.
I acknowledged he was being impolite, and singled out the core premise that does hold up. I tried to be conciliatory, because I saw both points of view.
Cantripped's rudeness was unnecessary - but rudeness is mostly subjective (one person's "disagreeing" is another's "blatantly insulting", and vice versa), and what's for certain is that gang-disciplining is much, much worse.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Speaking as someone from the South, y'all is pretty commonly used to address any amount of people greater than one.
I'll take your word for that, then.
No, we're not. We're talking about a clear, obvious pattern that nonetheless does not actually mean what is being ascribed to it, no matter how much it makes sense.
Fair enough; but my understanding is that "conventions" routinely arise without explicit initial declarations, and once they've been around for a while - not even necessarily for very long - people begin to expect adherence to these conventions, and that that's okay...and I say that because I'm in the minority of people who actually don't like it that way, and owe my awareness of it to having gotten "bitten" by it more than once.
It's okay for Paizo to deviate; it was also okay for readers to have an expectation based on reliable prior indications. What nobody should do is take immediate offense when either prerogative is expressed.
I personally named him Sir pig-kicker.
He certainly looks the part, I'll admit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GAAAAGH double-dinosaur ninja!!!
Sorry about that lol
Every single other case except when each of the CRB iconics were originally introduced. So nah, not an absolute pattern with no exceptions. It actually fits in perfectly with how the iconics were originally introduced.Something's wrong here. Which of the Core Rulebook iconics broke that pattern? Seems to me that they, very specifically, set and maintained the mold for Paizo's "Iconic" treatment.
All of the iconics for the CRB classes were introduced in Adventure Paths rather than the Core Rule Book.
|
|
All of the iconics for the CRB classes were introduced in Adventure Paths rather than the Core Rule Book.
Alright, that helps explain the divide - but for those of us who have the books but not the APs (and I'm certain that is many, many people), especially if we saw the trend since its beginnings at the start of 3rd Edition, to boot, the trend has otherwise been entirely consistent on the Paizo/Pathfinder end.
That said, that would mean that "Golarion's Eleven" made their debut before Pathfinder was a distinct thing from 3.5, whereas the Pathfinder Antipaladin was published squarely afterward and is significantly further removed from its 3.5 Blackguard predecessor (looking a great deal more like the Antipaladin from Four Winds' Paths of Power, which would have been published in the slender interim between the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide), so that messes with the comparison a bit.