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.)
Of course, that's only a "Generic" Evil Paladin. A Paladin of a specific Evil god would have slight differences, catering to that god's portfolio, and perhaps the Paladin would be NE instead of LE, if the god was Chaotic enough.
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."
I am AWARE that beings who are merely Lawful Evil will twist the meaning of a law in order to wring the most benefit for themselves, or even for the sheer joy of tricking the other person into thinking that he's safe. I UNDERSTAND that ordinary Lawful Evil beings will stab you in the back if they are legally allowed to do so. But
you seem strangely resistant to the idea that Evil Paladins have their
own code to follow, which is on top of, in addition to, and takes precedence over,
all rules of roleplaying a standard Lawful Evil creature.
Don't tell me that Lawful Evil beings like Devils and Djinni will twist my words against me, or steal the Tablets of Fate, or whatnot. Those beings are not Evil Paladins, and therefore there are many things that they would be willing to do, which an Evil Paladin would not.
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.
But you know, I'm not sure that's the reason at all: Self-sacrifice is quite in the interests of gods like Ilmater, of course, but gods such as Lathander would most likely find the concept....a bit repellent, actually, and Lathander and Ilmater are both among Torm's and Tyr's closest allies. In my opinion, Lathander would be most likely to grant Paladin powers to those devotees who balance the positive aspects of being a midwife and running a gymnasium or youth center, with the negative aspects of zealously hunting down those who harm or enslave children, and Undead and all other perversions of the life cycle. If, indeed, people are elevated to Paladin status by their gods because of services rendered that are especially pleasing
to that god, then certain responsibilities classic to canon Paladins (such as selflessly aiding the unfortunate) might not come into play at all for Paladins of different faiths. Instead, those Paladins might be expected to perform other services--for instance, a Paladin of Bane might cater to his god's realm of tyranny by acting as a tax collector, exacting tribute (brutally, when necessary) from all citizens and delivering that, along with his own tithe, to his lord and/or church.
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.