Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Goldenbane 03-05-04, 10:52 PM	No offense to anyone...while I realize the "alternate alignment paladins" are purly optional, I'm a bit annoyed that it seems everyone wants to screw over good classes. Why can't good have its own unique class...the paladin? Evil has: Black Guard, Assassin, Euric Warlock (SP? Oriental adventures), Shadow Mage (SP? Forgotten Realms), Ninja Spy, a HOST of BoVD classes, ect. Good seems to only have the paladin and BoED, and now the paladin has been taken away. If paladins can optionally be allowed to be of any alignement, why can't ninjas and black guards? Is the optional paladins just a way of making the black guard more of a class instead of a prestige class? I always thought the black guard and paladin were opposed beings. I'm sorry if I'm opening a can of worms here, I know that the rules are optional, but I'm sort of disappointed that WotC and DnD fans in general want to play evil paladins...it seems stange to me that a holy and kind warrior would go about slaughtering innocents and spreading evil. Could a Black guard go out and summon demons to feed the hungry, and bring love into the world??
Skeptical Clown 03-05-04, 11:39 PM	All of the classes you mentioned, save the core paladin, are completely optional and DM discretion. Further, there's a whole book full of Good prestige classes that are far better thought out than the corresponding evil ones.
caeruleus 03-05-04, 11:53 PM	A couple of points. First, while some may want to play evil paladins, many would like evil paladins as villians for the PCs to fight. So wanting such a class doesn't mean that D&D players want to play evil. Second, a holy and kind warrior would not want to spread evil. But an evil paladin would not be holy and kind, s/he would be unholy and mean (to put it mildly). (As an interesting note, if I recall correctly, the term "paladin" refers to a champion of a cause rather than one specifically devoted to good.) Draco Caeruleus
Masterful_Norg 03-06-04, 02:28 AM	Paladin: 1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion. 2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.). 3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court. [French, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin paltnus, palatine. See palatine1.] \Pal"a*din\, n. [F., fr.It. paladino, fr. L. palatinus an officer of the palace. See Palatine.] A knight-errant; a distinguished champion; as, the paladins of Charlemagne. --Sir W. Scott. n : someone who fights for a cause [syn: champion, fighter, hero] Therefore, it seems that to have Palladins of other allignments does make sense. I always wondered why the their weren't any core classes with "evil" as a requirement.
Tenzhi 03-06-04, 03:04 AM	If Good is shiny, Evil has to be shinier. Evil wouldn't be nearly as insidious if it wasn't a more attractive choice (on the surface) than Good.
Hygric 03-06-04, 08:18 AM	From a purely numbers point of view, I have in a campaign I run 4 PC's, so they don't need too many prestife classes compared to the hundreds of NPC's over a campaign that may need them. So from a DM's point of view, I need a greater variety of evil PrC so that it don't become a rinse and repeat badguy situation. And I think that you may have an inacurate perception of the ratio as well, if the numbers were added up, I am sure that you would find a decent balance between PrC for different alignments. And as for evil paladins? Nah, not in my games. CG paladins however, that I like. :D
Salla 03-06-04, 09:03 AM	Originally posted by Masterful_Norg I always wondered why the their weren't any core classes with "evil" as a requirement. Because the standard game (aka core rules) presumes that characters will only be of good or neutral alignments. Evil campaigns are non-standard variants.
Naga_Slayer 03-06-04, 10:50 AM	That's why I liked Arcana Unearthed. It had the basic "Paladin" class, but you chose to champion different things. Like the Champion of Death, or Champion of Life, etc. I am in full support of varied alignment paladins. We now have 2 good and 2 evil from the WotC lines. All that's left is 2 Neutral Paladin variants to even things out.
His Majesty 03-06-04, 11:31 AM	Goldenbane's signature: Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day....SET a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. That's a Terry Pratchett quote (A nice one, BTW). Give the man some credit. I agree that there are not enough good PrCs, but evil champions / paladins make sense. They should exist.
Zubon 03-06-04, 03:07 PM	With thanks to Yekoj for THIS POST (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=183646), we see that there are roughly even numbers of good and evil prestige classes. At least, that's what he tells me, I don't feel like going through and counting just now. EVIL: ANY EVIL: Assassin, Blackguard, Yuan-ti Cultist, Eunuch Warlock, Cancer Mage, Disciple of Baalzebul, Disciple of Dispater, Disciple of Mammon, Disciple of Mephistopheles, Lifedrinker, Mortal Hunter, Soul Eater, Thrall of Graz’zt, Thrall of Juiblex, Thrall of Orcus, Ur-Priest, Vermin Lord, Warrior of Darkness, Talontar Blightlord, Thayan Slaver, Horned Harbinger, Wearer of Purple, Arachnomancer, Drow Judicator CE: Demonologist, Thall of Demogorgon, Arachne NE: Nightcloak LE: Diabolist, Entropist, Dreadmaster CE or NE: Ravager LE or NE: Disciple of Asmodeus, Ocular Adept LE, NE, or LN: Fist of Hextor, Blue/Green Dragon Samurai NE, CE, or CN: Black/Red/White Dragon Samurai, Eye of Gruumsh LE or LN: Inquisitor of the Drowning Goddess LE, NE, CE, or N: Sea Mother Whip Same as tribe: Tribal Protector NEUTRAL: NON-GOOD: Red Wizard, Master of Chains, Acolyte of the Skin, Pale Master, True Necromancer, Master Shrouds, Bane of Infidels, Blighter, Hexer, Master of Flies, Thayan Knight, Shadow Adept, Orc Warlord, Black Flame Zealot, Durthan, Telflammer Shadowlord NON-CHAOTIC & NON-GOOD: Ninja Spy, Yakuza NON-LAWFUL & NON-GOOD: Fang of Lolth NON-LAWFUL: Arcane Archer, Blood Magus, Dread Pirate, Thief-Acrobat, Gatecrasher, Frenzied Berserker, Rage Mage, Ronin, War Chanter, Bayushi Deceiver, Mystic Wanderer, Battlerager CHAOTIC: Temple Raider of Olidammara, Slaad Brooder, Auspician ANY NEUTRAL: Animal Lord, Nature’s Warrior, Void Disciple, Mantis Mercenary, Singh Rager, Elemental Archon N: Sybil, Goldeye, LE, CE, CG, LG, or N: Ghostwalker LN: Doomguide, LAWFUL: Dwarven Defender, Consecrated Harrier, Cavalier, Justiciar, Kensai, Tattooed Monk, Battle Maiden, Henshin Mystic, Iajutsu Master, Singh Rager, Daidoji Bodyguard, Imaskari Vengeance Taker, Agent Retriever, Union Sentinel NON-CHAOTIC: Hospitaler, Blade Dancer, Breachgnome, Epic Infiltrator NON-CHAOTIC & NON-EVIL: Warmaster, War Wizard of Cormyr NON-EVIL: Vigilante, Verdant Lord, Watch Detective, Hunter of the Dead, Shadow Scout, Witch Hunter, Hida Defender, Harper Scout, Guild Mage of Waterdeep, Harper Mage, Harper Priest, Aglarondan Griffon Rider, Master of the Yuirwood, Nentyar Hunter, Prime Underdark Guide GOOD: ANY GOOD: Sacred Exorcist, Skullclan Hunter, Moto Avenger, Annointed Knight, Apostle of Peace, Beloved of Valarian, Exalted Arcanist, Risen Martyr, Sentinel of Bharrai, Skylord, Swanmay, Sword of Righeteousness, Wonderworker, Knight Errant of Silverymoon CG: Holy Liberator, Champion of Gwynharwyf, Troubadour of Stars, Heartwarder, Silverstar NG: Lion of Talisid, Stalker of Kharash LG: Knight of the Chalice, Shintao Monk, Akodo Champion, Celestial Mystic, Defender of Sealtiel, Emissary of Barachiel, Fist of Raziel, Initiate of Pistis Sophia, Prophet of Raziel, Slayer of Domiel, Vassal of Bahamut NG or LG: Knight of the Middle Circle LG or LN (& part of lawful good religion): Church Inquisitor NG, CG, CN: Brass/Copper Dragon Samurai LG, NG, LN: Gold/Silver/Bronze Dragon Samurai, Hathran LG, LN, NG or N: Purple Dragon Knight LG or LN: Knight Protector
Velderan 03-06-04, 03:26 PM	It also depends on the scope and focus of your campaign, you could make an even number of good and evil prestige classes avaiable if you really wanted. I mean, most prestige classes logically assume an initiation, teacher, and/or strange experience to join, so it's not logical to include all of them in any campaign...there are only so many people. Besides, like you said, its a variant rule.
DungeonlessMaster 03-07-04, 12:42 PM	\Pal"a*din\, n. [F., fr.It. paladino, fr. L. palatinus an officer of the palace. See Palatine.] A knight-errant; a distinguished champion; as, the paladins of Charlemagne. --Sir W. Scott. I would just like to point out that to all the people who use the definition of a paladin refers to Charlemagne's paladin, or a Knight-errant. Even the officer of the palace definition refers to a character of a certain code and character. However, here is the inportant part ALL OF THESE DEFININITIONS ARE OF PEOPLE WHOSE CODES WHERE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THEM "GOOD" PEOPLE. Although there were individual knights who from our perspective may have been evil, knightly codes were vows to live righteous and godly lives. The paladins of Charlemagne are a french equivalent of king Arthur's court and a good example. From its very definition a paladine refers to a person who is good. That is its intent, evil paladin is an oxymoron. However, this does not mean that the game can't do without characters who are granted great power to do ill. From my personal perspective I think that these evil paladins turn the struggle between good and evil into a cericature of somthing much more grand. Evil and good need to be more than reflections of each other to mean anything. Consider what an "evil" paladin would spend his time doing if he had the same sort of demanding code as a paladin. A paladin defends the helpless whereever they may be. Does that mean that an evil paladin spends his time going to small, out of the way villages and murdering the local clergy? More important is how does a chaotic evil or even a lawful evil charcters code work? A paladin loses his powers if he violates his code. So what must a chaotic evil character do to violate his code? Commit a single act of kindness? This would make it impossible for this character to function at all. On the other hand why wouldn't he stab his power source in the back? He is evil. A lawful evil character would cringe at the idea of being under a code enforced by somebody else. He is used to making the rules work for him not really working with the rules. Still I see why people would like to add them to their games. They would make an interesting foe (although as an aside I think an evil fighter cleric is a greater challenge, the evil paladin will only get to smite a couple of times and it might not work on everybody in the party anyway, this means that his power is actually less than a fighter at combating a "party" of heros). I play a DL game and so no longer really have to deal with the paladins as such. The Knights in DL while still bound to all sorts of codes, are a lot more human in their sources of power. Their differances of operation are also easier to understand. In some way I would suggest looking at the knights of the crown as a way of building an alternate paladin.
Mutant for Hire 03-07-04, 01:16 PM	What if it was a Lawful Evil Emperor and Empire? I could easily see Lawful Evil Paladins then.
Wil_Hyral 03-07-04, 08:47 PM	Yeah, don't you guys hate it when WotC tries to balance things? Now, evil has a core class to work from. No, good didn't get jacked, even with the rule. Evil PrCs are just as available as good PrCs.
Goldenbane 03-08-04, 03:09 AM	I guess if my players begged to make an "evil paladin" I'd just take the rules presented in Unearthed Arcana, alter them a little...and call such a class "Black Guard" core class. IMO, it would be stupid for a DM to allow the prestige paladin AND the paladin core class, just as it would be stupid to allow evil paladins, and the black guard core class. The only reason I could see both existing at the same time would be if demihumans aren't allowed to be core paladins/evil paladins and had to go the way of the black guard or prestige paladin to become such. But without such a penalty, both the prestige paladin and black guard become useless as neither really offers anything to make characters want to become such, if they could just become the core class. (Yeah...some might say that taking the core classes might lead to EXP penalties, but I'd rather worry about just that then having to get all the prerequisit gunk that the prestige classes require.)
Salla 03-08-04, 12:44 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral Yeah, don't you guys hate it when WotC tries to balance things? Now, evil has a core class to work from. Yeah, but at least it's a variant rule, to stave off incoming whining wanna-be villain players. If it were actually core material, we'd be in trouble.
VigorMortis 03-08-04, 02:11 PM	So, you think Charlemagne and company were all good and noble, eh? In the 8th century, after three decades of brutal crusades by the Christian Franks, the surviving pagans of Saxony submitted to Frankish rule. The Frankish King Charlemagne then issued two edicts - the "Capitulare Paderbrunnense" (785) and the "Capitulare Saxonicum" (797) - that forbade the practicing of the traditional pagan religion, and required that every Saxon be baptized, abstain from meat at Lent, attend all church functions and pay tithes. The penalty for violating these theocratic laws was death for some, heavy fines for others. Clearly, Charlemagne's paladins were paladins of tyranny.
JohnSnow 03-08-04, 03:56 PM	Right, because clearly all the pagans were happy, tree-hugging spirit worshippers who never did anything to harm ANYONE until those mean old Christian Knights did all that oppressing. Besides, generally speaking, the term Paladin was only used in the French ROMANCES about Charlemagne's court. I decided to use definition 1, generally regarded as the "preferred definition" to use (unless there's a contextual reason for an alternative), which , if you recall was: 1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion. So...let's see... Paragon - noun 1. paragon, idol, perfection, beau ideal -- an ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept 2. ideal, paragon, nonpareil, saint, apotheosis, nonesuch, nonsuch -- model of excellence or perfection of a kind; one having no equal Chivalry - n. 1. chivalry, gallantry, politesse -- courtesy towards women 2. chivalry -- the medieval principles of knighthood I think, given we're talking about a pseudo-medieval world, definition 2 is the most appropriate here. Meaning that the best definition of Paladin is the "ideal instance" or "perfect embodiment" of "the medieval principles of knighthood." Here's one "code of chivalry" that I think speaks to this very well... Prowess: To seek excellence in all endeavors expected of a knight, martial and otherwise, seeking strength to be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal aggrandizement. Justice: Seek always the path of 'right', unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Recognize that the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by humanity and mercy. If the 'right' you see agrees with others, and you seek it out without bending to the temptation for expediency, then you will earn renown beyond measure. Loyalty: Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live by. There are many places where compromise is expected; loyalty is not amongst them. Defense: The ideal knight was sworn by oath to defend his liege lord and those who depended upon him. Seek always to defend your nation, your family, and those to whom you believe worthy of loyalty. Courage: Being a knight often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value. At the same time, a knight should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief. Faith: A knight must have faith in his beliefs, for faith roots him and gives hope against the despair that human failings create. Humility: Value first the contributions of others; do not boast of your own accomplishments, let others do this for you. Tell the deeds of others before your own, according them the renown rightfully earned through virtuous deeds. In this way the office of knighthood is well done and glorified, helping not only the gentle spoken of but also all who call themselves knights. Largesse: Be generous in so far as your resources allow; largesse used in this way counters gluttony. It also makes the path of mercy easier to discern when a difficult decision of justice is required. Nobility: Seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens. Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness. Franchise: Seek to emulate everything I have spoken of as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue. Feel free to decide for yourselves whether non-virtuous Paladins actually ARE Paladins...
Lord Schpungus 03-08-04, 04:33 PM	Stop co-opting the word 'paladin.' Unearthed Arcana redefined the word 'paladin' as a champion of a cause. Use it, don't, oh well. Right, because clearly all the pagans were happy, tree-hugging spirit worshippers who never did anything to harm ANYONE until those mean old Christian Knights did all that oppressing. And the Christians were just good-hearted saints who really are in the right because the judeo-crhistian god is the only one that does exist. The point is, nobody's perfect. Pagans were probably not all-wonderful and perfect, but clearly, they got the shaft in that deal.
Salla 03-08-04, 04:46 PM	Firstly ... while this is probably a colossal case of the pot calling the kettle black, we need to back off the religious stuff. WizOs don't like that kinda thing. :) Secondly, I concur with Lord Schpungus; the 'D&D Definition' of Paladin is now 'a champion of a cause', rather than any real-life definitions. (I also concur with his other statements, but that's another conversation altogether.)
JohnSnow 03-08-04, 05:15 PM	Backing off the real-world religion debate, which isn't really relevant. However, overt bashing of any religion is pretty offensive. It's true that "history depends on perspective," to an extent, but calling to mind the failures of one culture and ignoring the shortcomings of another is intellectually dishonest. So...back ON-TOPIC. Secondly, I concur with Lord Schpungus; the 'D&D Definition' of Paladin is now 'a champion of a cause', rather than any real-life definitions. Actually, the Unearthed Arcana VARIANT 'definition' of Paladin is now 'a champion of a cause.' It's a variant rule based on an alternative (i.e. secondary) meaning of the word "Paladin." Which makes it perfectly acceptable as a variant. However, the origin of the word ALSO, or maybe even by default, supports the notion of Paladin as an "ideal paragon of knightly VIRTUE." Note that reality doesn't enter into this definition, because when you're talking in terms of ideals, what people actually did (as opposed to what they claimed to BELIEVE - which is the basis of the ideal) in the "real world" isn't relevant. So, if you want to use a variant class based on an alternative (secondary) definition of the word "paladin," that's fine, but I'm certainly not the one "co-opting the word paladin." I'm just using it in its traditional, preferred, context. Of course, English does change (see my sig for my opinion of this...), but I think the default rule of "no evil paladins" is backed up by the word's current default definition in English. But as always, you play your game, and I'll play mine.
gradea 03-09-04, 03:18 PM	Originally posted by Goldenbane No offense to anyone...while I realize the "alternate alignment paladins" are purly optional, I'm a bit annoyed that it seems everyone wants to screw over good classes. Why can't good have its own unique class...the paladin? Evil has: Black Guard, Assassin, Euric Warlock (SP? Oriental adventures), Shadow Mage (SP? Forgotten Realms), Ninja Spy, a HOST of BoVD classes, ect. Good seems to only have the paladin and BoED, and now the paladin has been taken away. If paladins can optionally be allowed to be of any alignement, why can't ninjas and black guards? Is the optional paladins just a way of making the black guard more of a class instead of a prestige class? I always thought the black guard and paladin were opposed beings. I'm sorry if I'm opening a can of worms here, I know that the rules are optional, but I'm sort of disappointed that WotC and DnD fans in general want to play evil paladins...it seems stange to me that a holy and kind warrior would go about slaughtering innocents and spreading evil. Could a Black guard go out and summon demons to feed the hungry, and bring love into the world?? you can make alignemnt varient classes for anything with an alignment pre req, blackguards or paladins, simply by changing thier title and some abilities. is it really diffrent to make an evil class bassed off of a paladin then to make an entirly new class with minor evil magic and clerical powers, the ability to smite good, and some divine protection? and if you think that a class like that should be purly good just to stay unique, well, thats opinionated. i dont think picking an alignment should limit you statsiticly, just tacticly
drnuncheon 03-10-04, 05:27 PM	Originally posted by DungeonlessMaster Consider what an "evil" paladin would spend his time doing if he had the same sort of demanding code as a paladin. A paladin defends the helpless whereever they may be. Does that mean that an evil paladin spends his time going to small, out of the way villages and murdering the local clergy? More important is how does a chaotic evil or even a lawful evil charcters code work? A paladin loses his powers if he violates his code. So what must a chaotic evil character do to violate his code? Commit a single act of kindness? This would make it impossible for this character to function at all. On the other hand why wouldn't he stab his power source in the back? He is evil. A lawful evil character would cringe at the idea of being under a code enforced by somebody else. He is used to making the rules work for him not really working with the rules. I think you need to revise your opinions of evil - especially lawful evil. Many of your objections seem based on a very superficial view of things. To answer some of them: "So what must a chaotic evil character do to violate his code?" The chaotic evil character isn't going to have the same kind of strict code that a lawful good character has - that would be ridiculous. But he might lose his 'paladinhood' if he offended the powers that granted it (suffered an alignment change, etc). Remember, the paladin (should be) balanced even without the code - one of the important design principles of 3e was not to balance mechanical benefits with roleplaying drawbacks. "On the other hand why wouldn't he stab his power source in the back? He is evil." Because while he is evil, he is not stupid. Stabbing a god in the back is a recipe for a short life, unless you are another god or have the protection of same. Chaotic evil characters rule by fear, and there isn't much more fearsome than a god. "A lawful evil character would cringe at the idea of being under a code enforced by somebody else." Where do you get that idea? The Mafiosa "made man" who knows his place in the organization and obeys their codes is a perfect example of a Lawful Evil character. J
WhtKnt 03-10-04, 05:50 PM	Originally posted by caeruleus (As an interesting note, if I recall correctly, the term "paladin" refers to a champion of a cause rather than one specifically devoted to good.)Which is precisely why, IMC, the paladin class does not exist. It has been replaced by the champion, a prestige class devoted to a particular deity (one for each deity in the campaign). Yes, they are both good and evil. Good has its champions, why shouldn't evil? Staying on topic, I like the idea of the alternate paladins. While browsing through the book, I actually filled in the blanks (which is odd, because my campaign uses neither paladins nor alignments) and came up with: Paladin of Honor (LG) Paladin of Virtue (NG) Paladin of Freedom (CG) Paladin of Justice (LN) Paladin of Balance (N) Paladin of Discord (CN) Paladin of Tyranny (LE) Paladin of Malediction (NE) Paladin of Slaughter (CE) I questioned the idea of a paladin of balance, but eventually decided to toss it in there, just for completeness.
Millennium 03-11-04, 10:41 AM	Frankly, thealternate paladins are kind of horked anyway when it comes to codes of conduct. Whereas a standard paladin is LG -one of the most intolerant alignments, with only LN even coming close; LE is only intolerant if you get caught- the alternate paladins belong to alignments which, one way or another, have significantly more leeway, and their codes of conduct should match that. Seriously. Think about it; even evil characters commit what most people would call "good acts" every day, much more than good characters commit what would be called "evil acts". Major acts of good I can see possibly causing loss, but that would tend to fall into alignment change anyway. Strip Power: Any Paladin of Tyranny can permanently strip the powers of any other Paladin of Tyranny at will, as a full-round action. This causes no physical harm or ability damage to the target. This is typically used to unseat Paladins of Tyranny who have "gone soft" by committing major Good acts. However, only an unwise PoT uses this rashly, because stripping the powers of a Paladin of Tyranny is, in and of itself, a major Good act (because it decreases the power of Evil in a significant way). Anyone using this power had better be able to justify its use to other PoTs or he will likely find himself similarly stripped. This basically means that a PoT loses his powers if he gets caught committing major acts of Good, which is much more in line with the LE alignment. A Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct should, frankly, me more like that of the Holy Liberator from Defenders of the Faith. Namely, don't do bad stuff, and that's it. CG has no need for honor; just do good and you'll be fine. You might make a case for a PoF starting to force his views on others (a Lawful act if I've ever seen one), but that frankly falls into the purview of alignment change. As for the Paladin of Slaughter, what do they care about codes of conduct? Certainly a PoS should lose his powers for changing alignment, but other than that they should be able to do pretty much whatever they want; it fits the alignment much better.
VigorMortis 03-11-04, 06:29 PM	I wasn't religion bashing, mind you. I'm sure all the Christians reading this realize Charlemagne was an evil tyrant and that its not OK to murder people because they have a different religion, and that Charlemagne and co. were in no way representative of their faith... with the exception of JohnSnow, of course. At least, that's what I'm hoping. Looking throughout history and in real life, it seems to me Paladins of Tyranny would be the most common, and Paladins of Slaughter the most obvious, sorts... I think their existence interesting; they sully the good names of Paladins everywhere, but they are very distinct from Blackguards and Death Knights, to me.
zifnab2525 03-11-04, 07:04 PM	Stepping away from the real world in which things are not as clear cut or black-and-white as D&D and in which people do make mistakes without their classes getting taken away from them (man that would suck, I'm an ex-Lawyer now cause I violated my Lawful Evil alignment)... The thing that ticks me off most about the original Paladin was the fact that many dieties didn't seem like they were allowed to have them. You couldn't have Paladins of Boccob or Yondella or Grummish, at least not without stepping away from the God's own alignment, which I thought was silly. Why should by Paladin of Helm (a LN god) have to be LG? Why can by cleric of Pelor be anything from LG to CG to True Neutral, but my Paladin of Pelor must be carved in stone? How am I supposed to champion the Freedom and Stick-it-to-the-Man style of some of the Neutral and Chaotic dieties if my LG alignment says I have to follow everything by the book? And if Chaotic or Evil gods don't have Paladins, what does that mean about the faith in general? Do these gods just not care enough to have champions in their name or are they just not powerful or important enough to garner them? It just seems like they're saying LG is better than you. :p At least they got rid of that old 2nd Ed criterion of Paladins being Human. My god, I used to rant on that till my DM nearly strangled me.