IIRC, the criteria for Paladins falling were "loosened" in one of the last Virtue versions. Where are these criteria contained and is it easy to put it back to "any virtue loss at all causes falling"? If not, could you make it an option during installing to have Paladins fall immediately? This change is the main reason why I'm no longer updating Virtue, so it kinda keeps me from enjoying further improvements to the mod...I guess I could start introducing optional components for this, but are you likely to be satisfied when the atonement system is implemented, which places the strictness mid-way between the current and previous situations? (No, really. I will finish atonement one day.)
The possibility of having the strictness of the PC Paladin's god tied to the Difficulty slider just occurred to me.Unfortunately, I can see tying it to the difficulty slider being awkward to cater for when taking into account the ability to change the slider mid-game.
The number of people who want to play paladins but don't want to properly roleplay a LG alignment is pretty amazing ;).The problem is that there is no single view of precisely what a LG alignment really is. According to Virtue, if you rescue a noble from captivity, but you hesitate before actually untying the rope because, instead of saying "Thank you," the noble is being insolent and demanding, you should Fall irredeemably.
...the penalties might be more sever for something on a wider scale of 200 or 2000. Killing an innocent? Wooops 50 or 500 off your karma account.Oh yeah, most penalties would grow in proportion with the inflated scale--you're not going to decapitate your own teammate from behind and still lose only 2 points of Virtue out of 2000. But what an expanded scale would allow is more shades of severity--allowing leeway to do things like leave Lady Elgea tied up for an extra minute or two, or tell Lady Delcia Caan that she needs to be more respectful, without actually Falling.
How hard is it for a god to change alignment anyway, since paladins are not samurai? Samurai are based on following their leaders without questioning them.I don't know if any gods ever changed alignment, but they certainly aren't all Good. What about Paladins of Helm? They certainly exist, but how would they react if their Neutral god asks them to do something Evil every once in a while? True, Paladins are not Samurai, but they do share a number of striking similarities, and Paladins must follow the commands of their Order as well as their god. (Would a Paladin of Torm feel bound to obey a command of Tyr, or some such?)
The question is if evil gods can have paladins at all.I don't see why not, (un)holy warriors who follow their deity's teachings with all the zeal of any Priest. Why the heck would a Paladin of Cyric be forced to be Lawful Good? The alignment of the Paladin should match the alignment of the god, being Lawful if the god is Lawful or Neutral, and Neutral if the god is Chaotic.
Most of the time good and evil were very relative terms I guess.Yeah--suppose, for example, a landowner for some reason decides to close off access to his mill, meaning the peasants can no longer turn their grain into flour. The landowner has a perfect right to do this, it's his mill, but it really screws the people. Should a Paladin be Lawful or Good in this instance? Etc.
Or great Six is one of THOSE people,Ummm....what? ???
I got this off a website and its a good guide line for a paladins code.Yeah, that all is quite good, and interesting to boot. Gives lots of background. But it's obviously written by (and more important, for) someone of Good alignment, so the real question here is if there's an alternate version, written by and for paladins of Neutral or Evil alignment, should any exist....and if not, why not. I need to research the Blackguard kit.
One of those people, refers to those who think there should be paladins of all alignments.Not quite all alignments; I mentioned that there should be no such thing as a Chaotic Paladin. All Paladins should be one step more Lawful (if possible) than their chosen god. I just don't see why being Good should be a requisite for holy warriors. Surely an Evil Paladin would function much the same in Zhentil Keep as a Good Paladin would in Waterdeep. Just because they're Evil doesn't mean they roam the streets, burning down homes and killing people in their sleep. It makes no sense for Neutral and Evil gods to have Clerics, but not Paladins. For that matter, I've never understood why Rangers have to be of Good alignment either--if anything, the only alignment restriction on Rangers should be that they cannot be Lawful.
Part of being a paladin is geting all these nifty powers but having to follow a strict code. How could an evil paladin have a strict code of conduct.Depends on what god they follow. For example, Bhaal was Lawful Evil. According to my files, Bhaal's profile was "death, especially violent or ritual death," so a Paladin of Bhaal could function much as a public executioner, removing from the system anyone who interferes with the smooth workings of society. A Paladin of Talos might work in a hospital or homeless shelter, protecting those whose lives had been destroyed by some random ocurrence--provided they would dedicate their faith to Talos--and casually allow a fire to consume the homes of nonbelievers. Some Evil gods, like Cyric, would most likely choose not to have Paladins at all, seeing as how Cyric's portfolio includes things like lies and illusion. Evil Paladins would still follow a strict code of ethics--it would simply be a code geared toward Evil ends.
A paladin is NOT lawful just for following laws. A Paladin is lawful because he must follow a strict code of conduct.
Part of being a paladin is geting all these nifty powers but having to follow a strict code. How could an evil paladin have a strict code of conduct.
...
Soililng paladins by having versons for all alignments is a mistake. Remember Paladins are lawful because of there code, not for following laws. Thier code promotes good thus they are lawful
...
Evil can't support a strict code of conduct.
But paladin is more than lawful-good. Assuming its lawful-evil counter part, how would that work? Paladin sees a person in need, he helps, lawful-evil paladin - .... just doesn't help? Not much of a "code". Kills that person? too chaotic... I just don't see it. For me the opposite of paladin (ie. blackguard) would had to abandon also the lawful part, otherwise it's a hybrid, unfeasible...A paladin is NOT lawful just for following laws. A Paladin is lawful because he must follow a strict code of conduct.Part of being a paladin is geting all these nifty powers but having to follow a strict code. How could an evil paladin have a strict code of conduct.
...
Soililng paladins by having versons for all alignments is a mistake. Remember Paladins are lawful because of there code, not for following laws. Thier code promotes good thus they are lawful
...
Evil can't support a strict code of conduct.
So you're saying you can't have any characters of Lawful Evil alignment?
The essense of being a paladin IS GOOD, reguardless of helm. ONCE again the definition of a paladin is a HOLY warrior of virtue. Champions of a noble casue. This is the THIRD timing I'm saying this.And the third time that I'm refuting it. I am fully aware of what your book says, there is no need to repeat it, I am simply stating that I feel your book is wrong. To presume that only Good-aligned people can be intensely devoted to their faith is both arrogant and illogical.
If you notice Adjantis from BG1 a Paladin of helm is STILL lawful good.Yes. According to my documentation, Helm can have followers of any Good or Neutral alignment (which seems odd to me, it should be any non-Chaotic), so giving Ajantis an alignment that agrees with canon Paladin rules was the politic way to go. That does not, however, prove that Paladins of Helm must be Lawful Good.
Also check helm's dogma. It includes, protect the weak, poor, injured and young. Do not sacrfice them for others or yourself.Mine just says that his portfolio is "guardians, protectors, protection." This could mean shielding a sick woman from the blows of a tyrant, or it could mean keeping a group of starving villagers away from the wagons of food being sent to feed an army.
The Forgotten realms actuallys breaks the standard rules about paladins and their gods.Precisely. If it's wrong, fix it--which is exactly what I think I'm arguing for here. You disagree with me, as you have every right to do.
As being evil involves being selfish, destructive and other wise cruel. Reguardless of the dark deity.Not necessarily....Auril is Neutral Evil, and she's the goddess of cold and winter. Sure, blizzards kill animals and destroy crops, but if you die because of her, it's more likely to be because you were stupid enough to wander around outside when you shouldn't have been, rather than from any cruelty on her part. Freezing to death is actually one of the least painful ways to go.
Its easy to follow a code put forth by bhaal. Its no harder then one of his clerics.And yet you're trying to say that there could be Lawful Evil Clerics of Bhaal, but not Lawful Evil Paladins. Uh-huh. Pardon me, but I don't recall seeing the limitation "Must have code of conduct that is really difficult to follow" in the Job Description of being a Paladin.
Evil deities are UNHOLY, lack virtue and never have a noble cause. (reguardless of what they or there followers think)Quite the contrary, what their followers think is of primary importance. Whether it's holy zeal or unholy zeal, it's a connection with the divine, and that makes you a holy warrior. Whether it fits a Good person's definition of "noble" or not is what's irrelevant.
An evil paladin is not a paragon of chivalry, they aren't heroic. And they aren't noble.Now that I think of it, the Sith are an excellent analogy to Evil Paladins. Darth Vader does kill his own followers, but not because they're weak; he does it only after they make some significant failure. He is humble and submissive before his master. He fights only those who could pose a significant threat to him. We have repeatedly seen him spare his attacker's life. When he uses torture, he does so to gain information, rather than for pleasure. He truly believes that what he is doing is the right thing.
The title of paladin is reserved for noble warriors of virtue. .... Evil has its champions but they are NEVER called paladins and they never have as strict of an alignment or code.I don't really care what they're called, but they should still be based off the main Paladin class: Warrior stats, reduced weapon specialization, spells and abilities granted by their deity.
Exactly any code for a lawful evil character would be easy to follow.For a Lawful Evil being, yes. If you're all for hatred, strife, and tyranny, then being a follower of Bane should come naturally to you--which is the reason that anybody would become a Paladin, because it's what they believe in.
A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He is loath to break promises, and is therefore very cautious about giving his word unless a bargain is clearly in his favour. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They feel these personal morals put them above unprincipled villains.And you're telling me that that doesn't sound like an Evil Paladin?
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
The champions of evil aren't lawful because being evil doesn't require any rules.That's funny, because you just stated 10 of them.
Now that I think of it, the Sith are an excellent analogy to Evil Paladins.
Lawful Evil characters exploit any loop hole, in a contract or there word that benfits them.True, for those characters who are merely Lawful Evil, as opposed to Evil Paladins. Allow me to illustrate the difference in 'strictness' of which you are so fond. Evil Paladins must follow all rules of being Lawful Evil, as well as the following:
The base of lawful evil like all evil is self satisfaction. For thier own gain. You can't have an evil code thats not greedy. What kind of evil code isn't centered on yourself. I'm saying the code doesn't work when reveresed for evil characters.I'm hoping I just changed your opinion on that.
There is no champion warrior class of neutrality in any offical material i've read. Closest thing being a druid.Yeah, I'm also sensing a lack of motivation among most Neutral gods. A Paladin of Tempus makes a heck of a lot of sense (a lot more than someone like Branwen calling herself a "warrior priestess"), but what cause would they fight for? To destroy all efforts at achieving peace? Of course, this phenomenon is hardly unique to the Neutral gods--can you imagine a Paladin of Lliira? :D ("If you don't start having fun in the next 5 minutes, I'm shoving you into the dunk tank!")
Helm is lawful neutral but he doesn't allow his clerics to be lawful evil, As lawful evil beings exploit the law for thier own ends and thus anger helm.I get the feeling that Evil Clerics of Helm would forgo all dishonest parts of their alignment in token of their faith. They could still be Evil, just work against the forces of Chaos.
Now an evil holy warrior who can kill from a distance and has an innate Lightning Bolt ability would be pretty cool, but he wouldn't be an evil paladin, he'd be an evil holy warrior.What, precisely, would be the difference? If his non-martial skills are granted as blessings from his god, I fail to see any great distiction, so long as he used those divine powers in accordance with the laws of his deity--which indeed he would have to, if he wanted to keep them. There's no rule that says Sith Lightning can't be used to fry a guy trying to kill your friend, or that you can't use the Force Grip on a coward trying to flee from a duel.
I mean, a murderer isn't an evil hero, is he?No, but that's not a result of a person's abilities, rather a result of how he chooses to use them.
And believe it or not, evil holy warriors do exist in pnp D&D, in various incarnations.Good. All I'm asking is that those incarnations be made into something that is essentially an Evil counterpart to the standard Paladin, or at least allow existing Paladins to roleplay duties and alignments corresponding to other gods.
There's no rule that says Sith Lightning can't be used to fry a guy trying to kill your friend, or that you can't use the Force Grip on a coward trying to flee from a duel.First a normal jedi would not known how to do it. Sith were originally an alien race with knowledge of the force far surpassing any of the humans. The Jedi who possed this knowledge and were later on called the sith do not hand it around freely, setting aside computer game "interpretations". Also many Jedi (e.g. Yoda) consider such things a "misuse and abuse" of the force. So those things would be exlusively used by the sith, why they might use them for the reasons mentioned, they'd also use them for a hundred others. BTW sorry if I missed something this discussion gets mixed-up, if you're keen on evil "paladins" why don't you make such a kit and we'll see how it works?
What, precisely, would be the difference?There would be more of a difference between an evil unholy warrior nd a paladin than there is between a paladin and a ranger. If you're going to call the evil unholy warrior an "evil paladin", you might as well call a ranger a "nature loving paladin", refer to a mage as a "cleric with arcane spells", etc.
Paladins are champions of good. .... But the class its self is the chamion of good. .... lawful evil doesn't follow the spirit, they only follow the wording. Following the spirit of the law is for neutral or good beings. .... What kind of villian doesn't uses trickery? traps? or poison? .... Bane himself stole a tablet of fate, obviously lawful evil guys steal.Lord Kain. Will you PLEASE, just ONCE, try to accept that the very essence of making a mod involves a change to the game. I honestly do not care what your manuals say--all D&D references are actually nothing more than guidelines, subject to the DM's interpretation. I honestly do not care how many times you toot your little trumpet saying, "Paladins are Lawful Good! Paladins are Lawful Good!" I am not talking about what is. I am talking about what should be. Try to comprehend this:
Six part of the base of your argument is that paladins are as devoted to gods as clerics. That is a false statement. the Forgottenrealms does alot of funky things with paladins they don't do in other settings.My take on Paladins, of all alignments, is as follows: Like Clerics of their faith, they fervently pray to and zealously follow the teachings of their chosen god. If they perform actions displeasing to their god, or otherwise break or lose faith, their ability to cast spells and perform certain other feats is withdrawn from them. Unlike Clerics, however, Paladins swear a different set of oaths and are bound by a different set of restrictions: They are far more skilled in the arts of war, and can use a larger variety of weapons without offending their deity, but they can never become the true conduits of divine will that Clerics can be, and they must live up to a set of principles ordained by both their alignment and their god. These principles are often far stricter than even the most spartan lifestyle of any non-Paladin, and are designed to make the Paladin into a model member of society, and a credit to his religion, whatever society and religion those might be.
The paladin IS NOT a champion of his deity, the chosen of {insert god name here} are the champions of a deity.I don't care what they're called--Evil Paladins, Dark Paladins, Vassals of Bahamut, Talons of Tiamat, Blackguards, Baneguards, Trueswords of Arvoreen, Sith--as long as they exist in-game, and function in a manner similar to existing Paladins, like I described above.
My point was that, while any person capable of using those skills could use them in an underhanded manner, an honorable Sith Lord would feel it his duty to use them in a fair and just way, such as to smite an enemy attacking someone who was unable to defend themselves. Jedi consider such things a perversion of the Force? Good Clerics won't cast Unholy Word.There's no rule that says Sith Lightning can't be used to fry a guy trying to kill your friend, or that you can't use the Force Grip on a coward trying to flee from a duel.First a normal jedi would not known how to do it. Also many Jedi (e.g. Yoda) consider such things a "misuse and abuse" of the force. So those things would be exlusively used by the sith, why they might use them for the reasons mentioned, they'd also use them for a hundred others.
There would be more of a difference between an evil unholy warrior nd a paladin than there is between a paladin and a ranger. If you're going to call the evil unholy warrior an "evil paladin", you might as well call a ranger a "nature loving paladin", refer to a mage as a "cleric with arcane spells", etc.I both agree and disagree. There is no similarity between a Mage and Cleric, they gain and cast their spells in completely different manners--though I can see how a Cleric (and, by extension, a Paladin) of Mystra would gain access to Wizard spells, which would appear on their Priest scroll.
nightmare I ask you refer to holy as good and neutral divine and unholy as evil divine.
Why the lumping together of Good and Neutral?
Six the point YOU MISS, is that paladins gain these special powers because of special restrictions.While I obviously see the justice in this as far as game balance is concerned, it makes no roleplaying sense whatsoever. My character might have the "special restriction" of being lactose intolerant, but that doesn't mean he magically gains any "special powers" as a result.
Doesn't matter if you have codes for various alignments. A player can gain the same kind of bonus no matter there alignment. They can just pick an evil paladin if they can't roleplay lawful good. If you can just have a paladin for good or evil alignments. It becomes easy to roleplay a paladin. If you can't roleplay lawful good right, just be an evil one. Many can play a ranger, but not so many can roleplay the paladin correctly, they'd normally do something that would make a paladin fall. Now if your paladin can gain the same basic array of powers wether he is good or evil. You have a problem. The class is no longer special anyone can now play a paladin. I don't like your supposed changed because I think it takes away from what makes a paladin special they are so rare because so few can live up to the code. Having options in your alignment makes them easier to play, less special.Distilling all of that to find the germ of what I think you said, you seem to be objecting to the idea of an Evil Paladin doing whatever the heck he wants to, and never Falling. Which makes me wonder: Did you miss the part where I outlined the restrictions on roleplaying an Evil Paladin (which were a good deal more stringent than the guidelines of being merely Lawful Evil that you posted)? How about when I mentioned how an Evil Paladin would Fall if he performed any significant action solely out of the goodness of his heart? It's quite true that Virtue has nowhere near the complexity required to keep track of how different Virtue events would affect Paladins of different alignments (at least, not yet), but if this were a PnP game with a human DM, an Evil Paladin would be just as difficult to roleplay as any Good one.
Paladins have to be human for the save reason dwarves can't be wizards or elves can't be druids (half-elves can) Its a mechanic because they never gave humans racial bonus. Thus the restricted things from other races.Once again you cling to the letter of the D&D sourcebooks, apparently with no regard for their spirit. You have already shown us that you can quote the rules in the manual--now perhaps you'd be so good as to justify them?
Distilling all of that to find the germ of what I think you said, you seem to be objecting to the idea of an Evil Paladin doing whatever the heck he wants to, and never Falling. Which makes me wonder: Did you miss the part where I outlined the restrictions on roleplaying an Evil Paladin (which were a good deal more stringent than the guidelines of being merely Lawful Evil that you posted)? How about when I mentioned how an Evil Paladin would Fall if he performed any significant action solely out of the goodness of his heart? It's quite true that Virtue has nowhere near the complexity required to keep track of how different Virtue events would affect Paladins of different alignments (at least, not yet), but if this were a PnP game with a human DM, an Evil Paladin would be just as difficult to roleplay as any Good one.
Yes. Evil people CAN still be just as legal, aboveboard, and honorable as Good ones. Yes they can. The difference is in their motivations for doing so.
Yes. Evil people CAN still be just as legal, aboveboard, and honorable as Good ones. Yes they can. The difference is in their motivations for doing so.
[qoute]
The problem with the villains who are legal and above the board and honorable. IS they tend not to be slain by heroes but to be converted to the side of good.
Also I never agreed with the race class restrictions.
My first 3.0 character was a lawful good elven necromancer, just to see howmany 2nd edition rules I could break at once.
Distilling all of that to find the germ of what I think you said, you seem to be objecting to the idea of an Evil Paladin doing whatever the heck he wants to, and never Falling. Which makes me wonder: Did you miss the part where I outlined the restrictions on roleplaying an Evil Paladin (which were a good deal more stringent than the guidelines of being merely Lawful Evil that you posted)? How about when I mentioned how an Evil Paladin would Fall if he performed any significant action solely out of the goodness of his heart? It's quite true that Virtue has nowhere near the complexity required to keep track of how different Virtue events would affect Paladins of different alignments (at least, not yet), but if this were a PnP game with a human DM, an Evil Paladin would be just as difficult to roleplay as any Good one.
Yes. Evil people CAN still be just as legal, aboveboard, and honorable as Good ones. Yes they can. The difference is in their motivations for doing so.
Yes. Evil people CAN still be just as legal, aboveboard, and honorable as Good ones. Yes they can. The difference is in their motivations for doing so.The problem with the villains who are legal and above the board and honorable. IS they tend not to be slain by heroes but to be converted to the side of good. Those type of characters have a to much good in them to be the evil "paladin"
This discussion is still higly theoretical, again: SixOfSpades why don't you do that kit and we'll see how it works in practise?I did, up above. Just like an existing Paladin, but everything is swapped, alignment-wise: They must be Lawful Evil, they get Detect Good and Protection from Good instead of DEvil and ProtEvil, they cast Unholy Blight instead of Holy Smite, they can use Unholy Reavers instead of Holy Avengers, and where Good Paladins will Fall if they take a Virtue penalty, Evil Paladins will Fall if they take a Virtue gain. (A gain that takes them above a Virtue of 2, that is, since otherwise they would be unable to complete many major quests. Virtue gains not intrinsic to any quests, however, simply small acts of charity like saving the slaves in Ust Natha, would be instant Falls for an Evil Paladin.)
You asked why only humans can be paladins and I answered, don't actually agree with race class restriction.You didn't exactly answer my question, you simply restated the rule, which we are all already familiar with. But I'm glad to see you actually disagreeing with the rulebooks on something.
Six you miss the spirit of lawful evil, the spirit of lawful evil is to follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. So your code is easy to get around.Not if properly enforced, whether by a savvy human DM, a version of Virtue that's engineered to cater for all types of Paladins, or the player himself.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned how your code doesn't quite work right? where I pointed some holes in it.No, I didn't miss it, I simply disregarded it because you obviously weren't listening to what I was saying, and therefore your analysis was faulty. For instance, when you said,
Problem, lawful evil doesn't follow the spirit, they only follow the wording. Following the spirit of the law is for neutral or good beings. THE really fun in playing lawful evil, is breaking your word with out actually breaking it,that meant that you saw fit to ignore the part where I stated how an Evil Paladin "must honor and obey the rules of all Evil societies, in both letter and spirit, most importantly the laws of the sect of their own god. They may never break their word to anyone. They may intentionally mislead only creatures who are known to be of Good alignment or serve a Good god."
Paladins gain there divine power through there personal sacrifice. Evil doesn't make personal sacrifices, they sacrifice others.There you go again with the "I give up this thing, therefore I'm magically entitled to something in return" spiel. Maybe one day you'll explain it. It is likely that Paladins' divine powers are granted because they are so devoted to their deity that they intentionally show they are willing to endure suffering in their god's service--but if that's the reason, you have so far failed to mention it. And if it is the reason, there's nothing at all in there about how the Paladin must be Good--a Paladin of Loviator, flagellating himself to demonstrate his zeal, would fit the rationale perfectly.
its easy to come up with selfish motiviation. If nothing else its to fool people into thinking your good.This is very true. It's not as if people needed any more reasons to roleplay Neutral Evil. Appropriate safeguards must in place to keep Evil Paladins from pretending to be Good. (Although they would still take the Fallen Paladins quest.)
The problem with the villains who are legal and above the board and honorable. IS they tend not to be slain by heroes but to be converted to the side of good.More like "converted to the side of neutrality, usually because they can see which way the wind is blowing by that time, since the good guys win in most stories anyway." And even if that were true, is that any reason that they shouldn't have existed in the first place? To go back to using Darth Vader as an example, yes, in his final moments he turned a little Chaotic by killing the Emperor (even though I hear it's expected of the Sith to try to kill their masters). Yes, in his final moments he turned a little Good by not allowing the Emperor to kill Luke. Yes, it is likely that he would not have done these things if Luke had not urged him to abandon the Dark Side of the Force. But are those reasons enough to argue that Vader shouldn't have existed at all? Besides, he didn't actually turn Good; his motivation was that of family, which is actually very Neutral. And it's been a long time since I've seen it, but if I recall correctly, Vader never mentioned any intention of turning his back on the Empire; he might simply have saved Luke so that they, as Vader had offered before, could "rule this Galaxy as father and son." That's hardly a return to Good.
that meant that you saw fit to ignore the part where I stated how an Evil Paladin "must honor and obey the rules of all Evil societies, in both letter and spirit, most importantly the laws of the sect of their own god. They may never break their word to anyone. They may intentionally mislead only creatures who are known to be of Good alignment or serve a Good god."
The big problem with this is that while paladins are supposed to be even more LG than other LG characters, your proposed unholy warriors would be *less* LE than other LE characters.Really? Damn, that's precisely what I was trying to avoid. Can you give a more precise example, and/or constructive suggestions?
Lord Kain pretty much answered the question for me. The code of conduct you presented certainly makes these guys more Lawful than your typical LE character, but it's the Good/Evil axis which is the problem. They seem almost halfway between LE and LN.Okay--my dilemma is that for every step I take in trying to make them really, really strict and non-Chaotic, that reads as a step toward Neutrality. Let me demonstrate.
No spirit of the law at all? I have little to no knowledge of countries like Thay, but even so, I find that rather difficult to believe. If your superior gives you an order (e.g., "Go kill this person"), it's in your best interest to do not just what he said, but also what he meant ("Go kill this person, today, as opposed to next week or whenever you feel like it"), even if only to avoid the whuppin' that you would get when he found out that you didn't do what you knew damn well he wanted you to do.Quote from: SixOfSpades1] They must honor and obey the rules of all Evil societies, in both letter and spirit, most importantly the laws of the sect of their own god.This still runs counter to being lawful evil. Lawful evil societies still only respect the letter of the law. There is no spirit of the law in a lawful evil societiy.
This restriction is so like #1 (one deals with laws stated by the Paladin himself, the other with laws of a society, with the same bias toward Evil and against Good) that I find it puzzling that you should like one but not the other.Quote from: SixOfSpades2] They may never break their word to anyone. They may intentionally mislead only creatures who are known to be of Good alignment or serve a Good god. Outright lies are forbidden at all times.This is actually quite nice, It would force a player to keep being clever, (never actually giving his word or leaving a gaping loop hole in the contract)
The Poison I can see as an issue mostly relevant to the Good-Evil axis, but the idea of essentially lying to your enemy strikes me more as a Law-Chaos thing. I'm open to being convinced, however. I should also point out that from the very beginning, the wording I chose is that Evil Paladins may not kill using these tactics.Quote from: SixOfSpades3] They may not kill through means of stealth, trickery, traps, or poison.Evil loves stealth, trickery, traps and poison. The champion of evil should use all of these things.
Would it help if I included an 'Evil over Good' bias in here as well, similar to #1 and #2?Quote from: SixOfSpades4] Must work to gain the maximum advantage (to his god, lord, or society) out of any deal, stopping short of actual cheating or intentionally hiding pertinent information from other parties. The Paladin is under no obligation to reveal such information, however.This is a more Lawful Neutral guide line. The lawful evil villian is supposed to cheat the other parties in the deal.
Since the only Evil part of this rule is not allowing the enemy to surrender, yeah, I can see how this is too oriented toward Law as opposed to Evil. Maybe if he was only required to fight in single combat if requested or challenged to do so, or if the enemy was known to be non-Good in alignment, or something. Or maybe the Evil Paladin could be urged to challenge the enemy leader to single combat at all times--but is not allowed to discourage his companions from turning invisible and Backstabbing the other guy in the middle of the duel.Quote from: SixOfSpades5] Must fight honorably whenever possible: One-on-one duels, preferably with the opponent allowed to choose between ranged and melee combat. The Paladin is, however, encouraged to deny any request for mercy, provided he was ever in any actual danger.The evil paladin should use any tactic they see fit. Some might be "honorible" and like the 1 on 1 duel. Especially as the dark paladin would be facing several heroes at once.
Good call.Quote from: SixOfSpades6] Must support and defend those in need, provided those in turn honestly pledge fealty to the Paladin's god, lord, or society.You need to add or pay him a great deal.
Again, I'm seeing crime more as a factor on the Law-Chaos axis than Good-Evil. How about "all items or wealth suspected of being stolen must immediately be donated to the Paladin's church?"Quote from: SixOfSpades7] May not accept anything suspected of being stolen, nor knowingly derive any benefit from any crime.Lawful evil guys steal, lawful evil socities steal, Evil steals alot. The lawful evil villian just shouldn't get caught
"I'll agree to go to this girl's castle with you and check out the odds, but if you allow said castle to end up in the hands of anybody as concerned with the "poor and unfortunate" as that hopelessly misguided bit of skirt, I swear I'll run you through, whether we're members of the same party or not."Quote from: SixOfSpades8] May never intentionally wrong a friend or ally unless a full and fair warning is issued well in advance.Define "advance"
Your evil paladin code doesn't help them on the path of evil just law.Okay. Feel free to make suggestions to change the code to make it more Evil.
A good paladins code is ment to keep them on the path of good.
Nearly everyone on Faerun is devoted to a god of somekind. We also disagree on how closly a paladin is tied to thier god. Your saying they are just as tied to the gods as clerics. I'm saying there not.By that, I'm assuming that you mean, their devotion to their god is less than a Cleric's. That's clear enough; a Cleric gets 7 levels of spells with 9+ spellslots per level, while a Paladin only gets 4 levels and 3 spellslots of each. That's the tradeoff that the Paladin makes to get Warrior combat stats. Or, to put it differently, Paladins are just as devoted as Clerics, just in another way: Clerics strive to understand their god and let him act through them, while Paladins are content to serve their god and act as his enforcers.
If you reduce a paladin to a simple geshant of fighter and cleric. It becomes easy to play. Just pick a god thats easy for you to roleplay under.I'm assuming "geshant" means "combination." I should point out that where certain overpowered Paladin-specific items are not concerned, a Fighter/Cleric is more powerful than a Paladin any day of the week. That's why I think introducing Evil Paladins is a great way to encourage more roleplay, instead of just forcing players to make Evil Fighter/Clerics. What's wrong with choosing a god that fits your style, such as Tymora? Whether or not it's easy to play is a matter caused by an individual kit, not whether there can be Paladins of Evil gods in the first place.
The blackguard has evil versions of many of the paladins good abilites. However a blackguard is not immune to disease or fear like a normal paladin. They can't use lay on hands, unless they are also a fallen paladin in which case there's is self only.All of this would work quite well for an Evil Paladin. I'm tempted to say they should get some other kind of immunity to compensate for not being immune to disease, but it happens so rarely in-game that it's about as useful as being immune to Intoxication. In place of Lay On Hands, they should get a variation of Vampiric Touch: A touch-range spell that saps 1 hitpoint per Paladin's level, and adds it to the Paladin's hp.
A blackguard can use posion with out risk of posioning themself, they can also do some bonus sneak attack damage like a rouge but no where near as good. There spellcasting is also a bit below a paladin's level. .... But a blackguard has no code and can be any evil alignment.See, that's what I don't want: Evil Paladins should have a very sharply defined code and should be 1 step more Lawful than their god. Including Blackguards is fine, but Evil Paladins should be an option as well.
the anti-paladin shouldn't be quite as powerful as the Good one, because they should be free to be evil in any fashion.Again I must insist that I really don't want the overall power to be a function of alignment. Surely this would be better handled by increasing the Evil Paladin's roleplaying restrictions, as opposed to taking away his abilities.
A major problem for the kit in baldur's gate is coding issues trying to maintain the seperate fallen coding for the standard paladin and the evil kit. Other people who've attempted the anti-paladin made it a fighter kit, with a must be human and evil resitriction.If the engine simply cannot handle a Paladin that Falls at high values of Rep/Virtue instead of low ones, that indeed would be a problem. But if so, I feel confident that someone like SimDing0 or Andyr or Ghreyfain would have mentioned it by now. Personally, I consider Weimer's Anti-Paladin kit to be more of a bad joke than anything meant to be taken seriously--or, god forbid, used as a positive example.
Class: Fighter kit BlackguardUnfortunately, while your intentions were good, your design for a Blackguard kit shares many of the same errors that Weimer built into the Anti-Paladin: Your Disadvantages section merely states that the Blackguard is denied a whole bunch of things that Fighters do not get anyway. So, essentially, they suffer the "limitations" of being Evil and having to stay that way, and in return they get to cast Detect Good, Protection from Good, Unholy Blight, and Invisibility, and they can Turn Undead and Backstab--in full armor, too. You can just imagine how munchkin a high-level Blackguard->Mage would be. That's why I strongly prefer that Evil Paladins be based off the Paladin class: Gains levels slowly, weapon specialization capped at 2 stars, Turn Undead, an alignment-specific assortment of Cleric spells, the inability to Dual-class. [ADD:] Oh, and the -2 bonus to Saving Throws. [/ADD]
Race: Human (for now)
Alignment: Any Evil
ADVANTAGES:
- Special Ability of Detect Good 1x/day per level
- Special Ability of Protection from Good 1x/day per level
- Can cast the 3rd-level spell "Unholy Blight" 1xday per four levels
- Can cast invisbilty 1x/day
- Can backstab for x2 damage at level 15.
- May use weapons reserved for Evil Fighters and Paladins, such as Unholy Reavers
- No penalty for losing Virtue.
DISADVANTAGES:
- Does not gain ability to Detect Evil
- Does not gain ability of Protection from Evil
- Can not turn undead or cast spells beyond the ones granted above.
- Can not lay on hands.
- May not use weapons reserved for Good Paladins, such as Holy Avengers
- Turn Undead ability can Charm Undead instead of destroying them
- Will lose status if Virtue rises above 6.
Honestly I was quite sure we were talking about the nature of paladins in D&D in general, not just in BG terms.Each influences the other, to my mind. After all, ideally the only difference between the two is that one is played on a tabletop, and the other is played on a desktop. :)
Being selfless and pure of heart should grant more reward then being selfish and taint of heart.
...
Also evil doesn't get to have all the nice things good does. The reward for being evil is quicker path to power because you step on others to reach the top. There should be a greater reward for those willing to devote themselves to others.
In essense, good is supposed to be superior to evil. Evils greatest victories in D&D have always been againts another evil.
But evil gods won't grant powers to a one who has a code out side thier dogma. They are far selfish for that.
Playing an evil character can be fun and all, but playing the hero should have rewards that being evil can't have.
E.g. in 3e good clerics can convert spells to healing evil ones to wounding ones. Substitution of healing spells by wounding ones would to my mind fit better an Evil paladin, who after all is a warrior.I did substitute something else: A version of Vampiric Touch. It heals only half as much damage as Lay On Hands does (and heals only the Paladin), but it also does that much damage to a target creature. I'll call it Blood Siphon or something.
Also lay-on-hands is granted paladin by his god, it's a sign of the paladin being "chosen". This doesn't suit evil counterpart at all, either he should be deprived of it or it should be substituted by something else.
You still don't address the issue that its much easier to be evil then to be good.If your only goal is to kill every creature and collect every item, then yes, it's laughably easy to be Chaotic Evil. But if proper restrictions are put in place, to ensure that accepting a Good quest (such as saving Imnesvale) without an appropriately Evil reason (and, to my knowledge, there isn't one) will cause an Evil Paladin to Fall, then that ceases to be a problem. Can there be an Evil reason to kill the Shadow Dragon? I strongly doubt it. Therefore an Evil Paladin would have to Fall if he wants the Crom Faeyr. Etc.
Being selfless and pure of heart should grant more reward then being selfish and taint of heart. And being selfless should grant rewards denied to those who are being selfish. In essense, good is supposed to be superior to evil. Also evil doesn't get to have all the nice things good does. There should be a greater reward for those willing to devote themselves to others. The "dark paladin" shouldn't have the same messure of power as the good one, they make up for it in the under handed tactics they can employ that a paladin can not. Playing an evil character can be fun and all, but playing the hero should have rewards that being evil can't have.Oh really. Where is all that written? ::)
If your only goal is to kill every creature and collect every item, then yes, it's laughably easy to be Chaotic Evil. But if proper restrictions are put in place, to ensure that accepting a Good quest (such as saving Imnesvale) without an appropriately Evil reason (and, to my knowledge, there isn't one) will cause an Evil Paladin to Fall, then that ceases to be a problem. Can there be an Evil reason to kill the Shadow Dragon? I strongly doubt it. Therefore an Evil Paladin would have to Fall if he wants the Crom Faeyr. Etc.
Oh really. Where is all that written?
Evil reason to slay shadow dragon——— I want the treasure, evil reason to save the village———— I want the reward, so I can go to spellhold and kill IrenicusI am perfectly willing to be patient and understanding with you, since it's pretty evident that English isn't your first language. But what you just described is a Neutral Evil action, the essence of greed. Roleplayed properly, a Lawful Evil character wouldn't kill the Dragon (they might kill the Shade Lord, but not the Dragon), and an Evil Paladin wouldn't even take the quest in the first place. Do not attempt to stretch the statement of "It's easy to roleplay Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil" into "It's easy to roleplay an Evil Paladin." You don't see me pretending that existing Paladins are played just like your average Chaotic Good, do you?
Being evil is easier, there are plently of reasons for one evil guy to stab another evil guy.
Sorry, I was being facetious. What I meant was, "Oh really. Since when has Ao been looking down from the heavens and giving all the high stats, powerful spells, and neat items only to people of Good alignment? I must have missed the part of every class's description that clearly states that being Evil only awards you half the Experience Points from every kill. Not to mention this inviolable rule that 'Good is supposed to be superior to Evil.' I must have been asleep or something when Ao announced that."Oh really. Where is all that written?OH so you want me to back up everything I say with stuff from rule books. I thought you wanted roleplaying reasons.
I've givin you roleplaying reasons, you just ignored them or assumed i lifted them out of a rulebook because its a restriction.Not really, you just keep saying "No Paladin will ever be anything but Lawful Good" with little to no plausible justification, then you move on to "Evil people always do whatever they want," repeatedly ignoring my statements that Evil Paladins have standards of behavior far stricter than even the most Lawful Evil, and then you claim that "A Paladin's power derives from the sacrifices that they make," as if that made any real sense.
A Paladin's power is more then granted by a deity, their purity and virtue is also a source.Case in point. Lord Kain, will you please define the concept of "virtue" for me? Chances are, every attribute you name will have positive connotation to people of Good alignment....and therefore will have a counterpart that will be positive to those of Evil alignment, which means Evil Paladins would have their own interpretation of the idea of "virtue" that is every bit as valid as yours. Can you honestly think that Evil societies don't have morals? No protocols, no standards of acceptable and unacceptable acts? That's as narrowminded as Christians believing that Muslims are just godless brutes, who care for nothing other than sitting in their tents, counting their camels, beating their women and killing infidels.
My evil characters can always find an evil motivation for things. Why free the slaves, well it obvious why a good person does but why evil? well he doesn't profit form these slavers and he could profit from there death, they have gold and equipment to sell. Best of all you might be rewarded for killing them because you took out an ilegal organization.Yeah--and a Paladin can easily take out the Order of the Radiant Heart, and then go stand outside to wait for the Zhentarim to come and give him a big reward for doing so. And wait....and wait....and wait.
A good paladin will fall if he willingly does evil in the name of good, we can all agree on that. (I hope) A reverse of that is an evil a paladin will fall lf he does good in the name of evil. Problem as evil is still selfish, a selfish person still may perform good actions for selfish reasons. Thus I say a reverse of the code is not possible. I say it is unrealistic to tray and create a working code for an evil paladin.Well, the issue of whether a Good Paladin would Fall as a result of doing Renal's quest isn't exactly settled (or is it? I need to catch up on that), but for the purposes of discussion, let's say you're right, a Good Paladin will always Fall if he knowingly performs an Evil action for a Good cause. But you seem to have already assumed that the inverse of that statement, that an Evil Paladin will Fall if he does Good for an Evil reason, must be false. I'm sorry, but that's hardly a foregone conclusion, I for one disagree. Why should an Evil god continue to grant his divine power to a Paladin who singlehandedly raises the money to build a new wing on an orphan asylum, just so he could get the chance to meet the woman who runs it, and kill her? Sure, killing her would be very pleasing to the Evil god, but surely he could have accomplished this without going through all that Goody-two-shoes song and dance? He's a waste of time, better drop him from the ranks of your Paladins.
So an evil paladin should not have a code and be allowed to be any evil alignment. Thus they gain slightly less powers.Close: I feel a Blackguard should not have a code and be allowed to be any Evil alignment, and gain less powerful abilities. An Evil Paladin, however, should be precisely that.
"You know what really happens when a Paladin destroys an organization of his own alignment? He Falls, that's what."All right, let me be more specific. If a Paladin commits a significant action, such as destroying an organization of his own god, or one serving an ally of his own god, he will Fall. Take Loviator, the goddess of torture and suffering, and Talona, the goddess of poison and disease. Both are Evil (Loviator is LE while Talona is CE), yet according to my records, they are enemies (most likely because each wants to absorb the other's portfolio). Therefore, while a Paladin of Loviator could theoretically carve up a Temple of Talona without expecting negative consequences, doing the same thing to devotees of Malar, who is an ally of Loviator, would certainly cause a Fall. Now, I'll use Cyric as a substitute for this Cult of the Dragon you mention, so that we've still got a god in the picture. Cyric has no allies whatsoever in any pantheon, so a Paladin of Cyric could theoretically kill whoever he wants to....but, as I've mentioned before, Cyric's portfolio includes lies, deception, and illusion, so he probably wouldn't want Paladins in the first place. Iyachtu Xvim might, as tyranny and hatred are both in-character for Evil Paladins, and Xvim doesn't have any allies either, but then, Xvim is only a Lesser Power, as far as being a god goes, so his Paladins would logically be either weak, or few in number.
OK that only makes sense for a good align paladin. EVIL is not allied with each other, many evil organizations are enemies with each other. The Cult of the Dragon is qutie evil and is enemies with well damn near everyone.
YOUR so called standards for evil paladins don't make sense. IF they must always be evil in all actions to the same degree a paladin is good. They'd wind up destorying themsleves not directly but their actions would quickly end up coming back to bite them in the ass.That's difficult to say without a specific example. Could you give us one, please?
Sure the Shade Lord and the Shadow Dragon are also evil, but they are not my allies why the nine hell should I CARE or my deitiy.Doesn't the simple fact that they're on your half of the whole Good-Evil dichotomy mean that they get the benefit of the doubt? Sure, the Harpers and the Temple of Helm aren't allies either, but they're both Neutral, and I've never heard of any friction between [/i]them[/i]. Killing an Evil Dragon is an inescapably Good act, so unless your Evil deity has some beef against Dragons, that's a definite Fall.
Your code assumes the dark paladin would serve on the same level as a fantatic NPC. Who would play that, if the evil paladin must follow that code in letter and in spirit. That would bite, who'd play that.Hence the people who got upset when they discovered that installing Virtue would mean that their Inquisitor could no longer root out Mae'Var's den of Evil Thieves.
... They lose most of the flavor of playing evil. Their code could quite easily force them into a situation where they must pick between becoming fallen or doing something stupid and geting killed shortly afterwards.Again, that's tough to call unless we have a specific scenario we can talk about. Oh, and in a dilemma, where erring on either side might cause the (Good) Paladin to do Evil, the Paladin will always do nothing rather than work against his code, even unknowingly. I believe Rule #1 is: Do No Harm.
The smart lawful evil villians pretend to be good. Your guy can't be sneaky like other evil characters, now he would be hounded by countless heroes because everyone would know his nature and he can't hide it because it would likly break his evil code by pretending to be good.Yup. If we're going to go strictly by the book here, any Good (and almost certainly Evil) Paladin would Fall as soon as he uttered the words, "I am Veldrin, from the city of Ched Nasad."
A small consideration...Personally I don't like the fact that a specific class (in this case Paladin) should be always "mirrored" on the other side of the fence (in this case Evil)...I never liked this kind of approach. I believe that two opposite ethical and moral concept should eventually bring to the development of specific classes if we want to matain a strong differentiation of identities.Actually a mirror of a paladin would be a chaotic-evil warrior with no code, just destruction. :pirate "Evil paladin" is a twisted concept, more akin to a fallen paladin by moral standards.
It has no sense for me to see an Anti-Paladin fighting for Evil. It's pretty ludicrous...The "generic" classes have a real reason to be present in both factions (fighters, clerics, mages, rogues ecc. ecc.) due to their extremely "open" interpretation but when a new class is created with specific qualities then I no longer see a reason for having it represented on each side.
I conclude then by saying that in this specific, a Anti-paladin figure is a nonsense. Much better to create a class, perhaps similar, but which is not a mockery of a preexisting class which should uphold Good... :pirate
The Law-Chaos axis has no impact on how Good or Evil you are.Hmm, I've never bought the independent axis view point, rather perceived it as 9 separate aligments. Looking at things like chaotic-neutral and true neutral always brought me to this conclusion.
Personally I don't like the fact that a specific class (in this case Paladin) should be always "mirrored" on the other side of the fence (in this case Evil)...I never liked this kind of approach. .... It has no sense for me to see an Anti-Paladin fighting for Evil.Ah, but, referring to the list of things that Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in an RPG ( http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=banter;action=display;num=1121487866;start=0#0 ), I think number 64 is relevant: My paladin's battle cry is not "Good for the Good God". Evil Paladins do not fight to support Evil; they fight to support the cause and desires of their Evil god. They are not meant to be (or, at least, I do not mean them to be), as you put it, "a mockery of an existing class," but rather a sort of halfway point between Fighter and Cleric, which as you say, have a real reason to be present in both factions.
Isn't fighter/cleric half way between fighter and a cleric? ;DYes, but of course in a different way. It's ironic that the class (combination) that has fewer restrictions on behavior and can be any alignment is the one that is more skilled as a Priest.
I'd like to rather have a new kind of champion (example: Uruk-hai might be considered the Champions of Evil in MERP - perhaps something similar could fit the situation) than a class that has the same tenant (but to Evil) and the same limitations (must be Human) and characteristics of a Paladin.Well, I'm with Lord Kain on that the stereotypical harbingers of Evil are more commonly pure warrior-types than religious-types: Religion implies morals and culture, and therefore the person can be dealt with on at least some levels, but the barbarian warrior-type is just going to spear you as you cling to the altar. Therefore, I would peg the Blackguard as being a Fighter kit (although one description of it, I believe it was in 3rd Edition, described the class as gaining spell levels in the same pattern as a Paladin...strange), and leave the Paladin kits to those to whom religious devotion is actually a major part of their background.
i have an issue of Dragon you might appreciate if you haven't already. #106 iirc? seven more paladin-types (the CE anti-paladin article was several years earlier) covering the rest of the alignment grid. interesting (if occasionally munchkin) work.What's especially interesting here is just what he meant by "paladin-types." Is that types of Paladins, or just warriors that are like Paladins? Either way, it should help round out the class, and add more roleplaying value once any munchkins are forcibly removed.
A Lawful Evil one might be specialised to combat Demons, while a Chaotic Evil one's training might be primarily in combat against Devils.I'd be very hesitant to let a Paladin become Chaotic simply over the Baatezu/Tanar'ri dichotomy. I'd rather simply assign the EFF files for THAC0/Damage bonuses based on alignment:
Why bonus against devils?Simply due to their similarities to demons, an enemy which a Cavalier would have studied.
This implies that the folks at G3 know a lot more about the engine than the folks at PP, but hey, who's counting?Au contraire, I'm fully aware of the limitation. I also think I know a way to work around it. :)
That won't work terribly well, since there's no way to completely remove the original reputation display from the record screen. What I'm considering is having all paladins fall at the beginning of the game (since this conveniently hides any potential spamming of the info window) and then re-applying their abilities using AddKit (the kits used would actually be fighter kits, since paladin kits don't correctly add abilities if you're fallen). I'd then have the ability to switch players to a special "Fallen Paladin" kit when neccessary.
If you AddKit() a Fighter kit will it cause issues with the Paladin quickbar?You nest the AddKit() action between two commands to change to and from the fighter class, ie.