I was going to play a elven paladin of the raven queen.
I explained to him that mostly I would act in a good fashion (killing undead, hunting down those that kill others for no reason, etc.) but he got upset telling me that paladins could only be lawful good...
My concept didn't seem that bad to me I am not using obscure loopholes or optimizing to make him uber strong. I just think it is a bit harsh to shoot down a players concept just because you don't morally agree with it (I think it is wrong for people to steal but I allow people to rogues with the concept of a member of the thieves guild)
Is there anyway to convince him?
It clear he like the idea of paladin being a champion of justice it was in the prevous edition, you proberly be best tying to point out the the paladin class best suits the kind of character your trying to create and be quiet happy to call it something else.
It sounds to me like he's stuck on the 3e interpretation of the paladin. Paladins are supposed to be exemplars of the virtues their god sets forth. If they worship and evil god, then they should be evil. If they worship a good god....you get the picture.
My recommendation is to ask the DM what his hangups are about it.
I don't know how you are going to convince him to let you play what you want, but you should show him that it desn't say anywhere that paladins have to be lawful good and that this rule has changed in 4e.
I might have to play a different class because I don't like to be forced to play my character his way, unless it is destructive to his plot then I understand.
Oh and I showed him the text on the paladin that said they had their gods alignment and he basically ignored it
I don't think the original poster referenced being evil though. I thought he mentioned the Raven Queen as his characters god. Isn't she unaligned?
Yes, sounds like your DM is hung up on the old definition of paladin. I'd suggest asking him, one more time, pointing out that the book states that a paladin's alignment must match his patron's, and ask how he suggests you handle it. If he's totally set against the idea, try playing, say, an unaligned Warlord, and see how things fly.
those are just some points you could use.
That said if the DM wants to house rule something it is his world to modify as he sees fit and you as one person in the grand universe will have a hard time changing it. The Battle cleric would have a similar feel to it (both pray and fight for their gods)
If this hoses your concept, I'd go with a cleric instead. Not as beefy, to be sure, but still Divine and still with the Queen; spend the feats to get your Plate Armor and Shield proficiency to tank up a bit more, perhaps a multiclass feat or two to Paladin.
One was the total pacifist, who would allow himself to be killed rather then kill on orc because the orc might have children. Another was similar but would kill alway evil creatures on sight but wouldn't kill anything else. Another would kill party members for minor evil deeds. Then where were then ones who would kill any thing that MIGHT be evil.
Finally there was the most hypocritical one of all.. Mr Switch... Mr switch would normally be so good as to as to make angels sing and so dumb as to make minotaurs look like rocket scientists. However when his evil-o-meter pinged he would turn into beast of murder, killing anything that stood in his way on the path to reach the source of his evil. His battle was most often Good for the Good God!! Law for the Law Throne!!
I'm personally glad for the change. You see before this paladins came in several troublesome types.
One was the total pacifist, who would allow himself to be killed rather then kill on orc because the orc might have children. Another was similar but would kill alway evil creatures on sight but wouldn't kill anything else. Another would kill party members for minor evil deeds. Then where were then ones who would kill any thing that MIGHT be evil.
Finally there was the most hypocritical one of all.. Mr Switch... Mr switch would normally be so good as to as to make angels sing and so dumb as to make minotaurs look like rocket scientists. However when his evil-o-meter pinged he would turn into beast of murder, killing anything that stood in his way on the path to reach the source of his evil. His battle was most often Good for the Good God!! Law for the Law Throne!!
And people wondered why I banned Paladins.
For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with your concept. Remember, too, that the Raven Queen commands her, um, flock is to be watchful for the minions of Orcus and to put them down where ever they may arise.
The Raven Queen herself, as an Unaligned (i.e., Neutral) deity, is dispassionate about her portfolio. Death comes to all living things. I rather see her like Death from On a Pale Horse or The Sandman: This is her job, and she does it well, but without relish for death itself. Her opposition to Orcus is based not in his alignment, but in his attempts to throw her down and take her position as Lord of the Dead. I think it's safe to say that the nature of death cults in the world would change dramatically should a Demon Lord ascend to true godhood...
**shudder**
Also, if he doesn't like that, fight fire with fire, he says paladins are are ALWAYS lawfull good, point out to him the Freedom Paladin that works out to Unalined in 4e.
I have not read paladins, but this problem has peeked my interest. Show hin this quote found on Page 90 "Paladins an Deities."
Quote fomr the Book
...Paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve as well as an [u]alignment[/u].You must choose an [u]alingment[/u] identical to the [u]alingment[/u] of you patron deity; a [u]paladin of a good deity must bo good, A paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, a paladin of a unaligned diety must be unaligned, a paladain of a evil deity must be evil,[/u] and [u]a paladin of a Chaotic evil paladin must be chaotic evil....[/u]
It goes on to say that that there are no evil or chaotic evil paladins, but they serve evil deitys like they would if they were a paladin with a paladins poweres.
However, I do not see anywere that says the Raven Queen is evil or chaotic evil, seeing as she is unaligned (my character has her as a deity too, so I should know). That means that you a Unaligned, cannot go against that, and must not go agains that. They way you DM is thinking like other people said before me is that this is 3e. Also, some other people did not already say this, so I will, they way you DM is thinking, makes it sound that there are only Paladins of Bahamut or Moradin, which if you ask me is kinda odd seeing as there are many other deitys in this book and not one paladin uses them as there diety (based on you DM's opinion.)
Sorry to make this go on and on and on, but I wanted to give you enough evidence to say "This is how it is, and this is how im playing if yu dont like it, you should read the rules more."
Hope this Helps,
-Francis Drake (Character Name)
P.S.: Print this out, and give it to you DM. If you DM says this is not enough evidence, well, Make sure he reads this.
Dear DM of this players game:
READ THE BLOODY CURRENT RULES BEFORE YOU DM ANYTHING ELSE!!! You are living in the past, and cannot move to the futrue unless you move on, and this will help alout if you read the bloody current rules and exept this is wrong. Trust me, I had to change ALOT and gve up ALOT to move to 4e, but it was worth everything.
Hum... Kalashtar paladin of their Light spirituality... could be interesting. Fantasy Jedi?
Paladins are now a class of champions of a force, god, religion, philosophy...
Hum... Kalashtar paladin of their Light spirituality... could be interesting. Fantasy Jedi?
A jedi is already fantasy, so maybe it would be a Fantasy Fantasy Jedi? o.o
And secondly, I thought blackguard had an awesome concept, but hard to manage. What is that Hide 5 requirement doing in there anyway? I have no idea. Also, prestige classes that come with spells don't really work for most classes.
I am also biased against something that encourages people to make plans on how to get their paladins to fall so they can make effective blackguards.
Make it clear to the DM that this is not in the rules, by asking him why in his setting only Lawful good people can become paladins. Do the gods in his setting not normally have warrior champions? Do paladins in his setting only follow one of his made up gods? And so forth.
Barring that, consider what else he is house ruling. I am betting that it will make or break the game, and will help you decide whether to leave or stay.
I ran a one shot adventure of 4e for a player and he liked it enough to run a game after my campaign but when I told him my concept he got upset and banned it from me...
I was going to play a elven paladin of the raven queen.
I explained to him that mostly I would act in a good fashion (killing undead, hunting down those that kill others for no reason, etc.) but he got upset telling me that paladins could only be lawful good...
My concept didn't seem that bad to me I am not using obscure loopholes or optimizing to make him uber strong. I just think it is a bit harsh to shoot down a players concept just because you don't morally agree with it (I think it is wrong for people to steal but I allow people to rogues with the concept of a member of the thieves guild)
Is there anyway to convince him?
I'm going to chime in here, although everyone in this thread spoke up before me.
Your DM is flat out, 100% wrong. Paladins take the alignment of the god they worship, and they possess powers granted by the various rites performed when the first become paladins.
Your character concept sounds great, and fits perfectly within the ideals of the Raven Queen. Roll of your character, and then take him, complete with pages 90 and 91 of the Player's Handbook, and tell your DM there is absolute no restriction placed on Paladin's in regards to alignment.
Then, have fun playing your new character.
Anyway, I am of the Old School that believes paladins should remain Lawful Good only... and the holy warriors of other alignments are something else. Work with that, do you have choice in your special abilities? Then make those choices match the Raven Queen, so your character is not a paladin but one of the Raven Queen's devoted knights.
Approach from the angle of "How can we make this fit" rather than "You must let me X".
They are all paladins. Just the word is more open now. If you prefer, templar or champion... examplar... justicar.. etc...
Any ways I think I am going to play a battle cleric and play as close to a paladin as I can any suggestions? I am thinking of going human for the extra feat or maybe dwarf for the durability...
I usually try to consider a dms feelings and opinion but if he shoots down a concept that I am really excited about (I wrote 4 pages of background story 1/2 of appearance and a full page of traits and things he'd do in certain situations) for no reason and no compromise then I will look for a loophole
And you don't have to agree with the DM, but you do have to play by his rules. Yeah, not so fun all the time, but it will end in less shouting matches and hurt feelings all around. So try to respect his setting. If you cannot, then perhaps this isn't a good match for the two of you. Best to remain friends then to fight over a game, making it unfun.
Discuss your options with the DM concerning a holy warrior of the Raven Queen. While I am not up-to-date with 4e, paladin abilities such as Lay On Hands (spending your own Healing Surges for other people) or one of the Challenge powers (foe takes damage for attacking anyone but you) imply a level of that traditional Lawful Good selflessness far better than old editions of paladins did.
Anyway, I am of the Old School that believes paladins should remain Lawful Good only... and the holy warriors of other alignments are something else. Work with that, do you have choice in your special abilities? Then make those choices match the Raven Queen, so your character is not a paladin but one of the Raven Queen's devoted knights.
Approach from the angle of "How can we make this fit" rather than "You must let me X".
If you want to be that way about it, the raven queen sould be Evil because she is death, rogue sould always be unaligned or lower becasue they have no honor and steal things, clerics can only be good or higher, They sould add all the weapons in the world to the handbook so they dont need to make books, and spellcasters sould not be proficent with weapons or armor... see what stario typing can do for you? you limit yourself so much there there is NO way you can move forward with you own ideas of the consept.
It is acceptable for the DM to limit which dieties have Paladins which are acceptable as PC classes in his game world. The concept of an Elfen Paladin of the Raven Queen might go against the feel of his world.
It would be best to discuss with the DM what limits as far as dieties and allginment and Codes of Conduct he accepts. A Limit of Paladins must be of a good diety, is a reasonable on imo.
What is being missed here I think is that the Paladin class, as presented in the book, has been altered to include the Black Guard and Crusader concepts. It would be best perhaps to seperate the titles, The Paladin is the one that follows the Good and more importantly LG Deities, the Crusader is the one following the Unaligned, the Black Guards are the ones following the Evil Deities.
I think if you re present your character as a Crusader and point out that you are subtly different from the traditional Good paladins. I think the PHB makes a mistake in not presenting different names for the classes, Such as Fighter (Soldier, Knight, Warrior) Rogue (thief, diplomat, scout, Con artist) and Paladin (Crusader, Black Guard) as alternative titles. Then you could say, yes Paladins do have to be good, but alas I am not one.
If you want to be that way about it, the raven queen sould be Evil because she is death, rogue sould always be unaligned or lower becasue they have no honor and steal things, clerics can only be good or higher, They sould add all the weapons in the world to the handbook so they dont need to make books, and spellcasters sould not be proficent with weapons or armor... see what stario typing can do for you? you limit yourself so much there there is NO way you can move forward with you own ideas of the consept.
I am seeing what strawmanning can do for you. Please do not put your own words in my mouth.
Notice how what I suggest is that the champions of the death goddess should be different to the champions of chivalry/valour/healing/justice? If the abilities of a Raven Queen champion are distinct from the abilities of the Valiant Defender of Good and True then excellent.
I fully agree with MrCustomer's point here...
What is being missed here I think is that the Paladin class, as presented in the book, has been altered to include the Black Guard and Crusader concepts. It would be best perhaps to seperate the titles, The Paladin is the one that follows the Good and more importantly LG Deities, the Crusader is the one following the Unaligned, the Black Guards are the ones following the Evil Deities.
What I suggest is that the Crusader chooses his abilities to differentiate himself from traditional heroic paladins.
Lil_bunny_fufu
I usually try to consider a dms feelings and opinion but if he shoots down a concept that I am really excited about (I wrote 4 pages of background story 1/2 of appearance and a full page of traits and things he'd do in certain situations) for no reason and no compromise then I will look for a loophole
I will call that poor DMing on his part. At the very least he should be willing to explore a compromise or way to include your character concept. My guess is that you described him as getting upset so he wasn't at his most rational or reasonable at that moment in time.
Or he never grown past the "because I say so" phase and is drunk with power. In which case he wont be a fun DM at all.
Finding a loophole will only help if he allows the loophole. Try discussing compromises with him again once he is calm, in particular how to make this character concept fit. Approach from the angle of working with him rather than against him.
Ubergeek
It's just semantic and flavour, Stormbrand. Chat blanc, blanc chat.
They are all paladins. Just the word is more open now. If you prefer, templar or champion... examplar... justicar.. etc...
It's long established semantics and flavour that add depth to character concept and many people greatly like. I prefer MrCustomer's idea: Good = Paladins, Unaligned = Crusaders, Evil = Blackguards. It allows the more open concept without making 'paladin' far less meaningful.
Use the cleric alignment system for paladins make your char lawful good (he doesn't seem not that lawful good already) and then he can be lawful good to an unaligned deity.
I know that would require house ruling but then your stuck in this situation because of old times sake why not solve it like they did in the old times?
I prefer MrCustomer's idea: Good = Paladins, Unaligned = Crusaders, Evil = Blackguards. It allows the more open concept without making 'paladin' far less meaningful.
Sorry if you or MrCustomer mentioned this before and I simply didn't see it but are you simply changing the name of the Paladin or are you also planning on changing the powers to reflect this?
I know one of the books suggested that the Evil Paladins (Blackguards) have there radiant damage changed to necrotic damage.
To me all it does is restrict a player to one of the many types of concept of the class, like saying a ranger can only use bows or a fighter has to be sword and board.
But what really baffles me is how it is okay for a cleric but not a paladin... I mean I must be stupid because I can't see any logical reason for this.
Sorry if you or MrCustomer mentioned this before and I simply didn't see it but are you simply changing the name of the Paladin or are you also planning on changing the powers to reflect this?
I know one of the books suggested that the Evil Paladins (Blackguards) have there radiant damage changed to necrotic damage.
Similair to their concept of angels in 4th, Most dieties have them and they of course are the allignment of said diety. The Gods have servants, Angels, Clerics and indeed Champions. At the core of it a Paladin is the champion of his/her deity.
For the most part changing the powers is unneeded, as the evil allignment should thus restrict players from choosing an Evil Paladin and such a Black Guard would be an NPC.
Good and Unaligned Paladins, (Paladin and Champion or Crusader) should probably have the same powers, and no change would be needed except maybe for the Evil Black Guard.
Keep in mind though that the DM can decide that a certain Deity doesn't use champions in this way. The Raven Queen may not want such a champion running through the land doing heroic good deeds and turning Undead, it might go against her purpose entirely.
mostly I would act in a good fashion
Also no offence to the OP, but perhaps the DM simply knows better. This comes across to me as "I will do token good deeds when it suits my purpose, but otherwise "
ah, an unaligned Paladin of the Raven Queen, who will do "mostly" good? I don't blame him for being wary of the "virtually evil" Paladin creeping into his game. That may or may not be your intent, but your concept reeks of such potential. To this end I would advise any DM to limit the Paladin class to Good deities unless they are absolutely sure of the player in question, or else established firm rules on expected Paladinish behavior.
Similair to their concept of angels in 4th, Most dieties have them and they of course are the allignment of said diety. The Gods have servants, Angels, Clerics and indeed Champions. At the core of it a Paladin is the champion of his/her deity.
A cosmetic change then, okay.
ah, an unaligned Paladin of the Raven Queen, who will do "mostly" good? I don't blame him for being wary of the "virtually evil" Paladin creeping into his game.
Mostly good to what though? I can see if the DM looked over the tenets of the Raven Queen and decided for some reason it didn't fit their campaign. To which he should also disallow clerics of the Raven Queen as they follow those tenets. But if it is just some throwback to what a 3rd Paladin was and how a Paladin of the Raven Queen doesn't fit those ideals it seems fishy.
That said If the DM knows the player and knows that he is using the Raven Queen to get away with bloody murder I could see that. If this where the case I could understand, personally I would send some Shadar-kai after him to adjust his beliefs back to the one true god... or have them reap his soul either way loads of fun :D
1. hold no pity for those who suffer and die, death is the natural end of life (neutral it is not saying make others suffer it is saying don't pity them, maybe give them an encouraging word " fear not for soon you will be in the raven queens embrace")
2.Bring down those who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the raven queen, you must punish hubris where you find it (can be considered a good act. Lich, necromancer, any the try to ignore the rules of death)
3.Watch for cults of orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The demon prince of the undead seeks to claim the raven queens throne. (okay there is no way you can call fighting orcus evil.)
So the paladin would take no sides in frivolous matters like law and chaos or good and evil... all that matter is life and death and making sure the natural order is upset. He is the hand of fate if those die before their time he is there to stop it, if someone is living past their time is will see to it they are sent to his queen.
I rambled a bit but I am trying to make it clear that I am not talking about an evil paladin like some posters keep saying please read the raven queens profile and you will see that she is not evil... don't call my character evil if you do not even take the time to read what his god is about please!
Mostly good to what though? I can see if the DM looked over the tenets of the Raven Queen and decided for some reason it didn't fit their campaign. To which he should also disallow clerics of the Raven Queen as they follow those tenets. But if it is just some throwback to what a 3rd Paladin was and how a Paladin of the Raven Queen doesn't fit those ideals it seems fishy.
There is a difference between a Cleric and a Paladin.
A Cleric is a priest, he preaches and leads in worship. You find clerics in temples etc. And in actuality only a very few Clerics (mostly adventerures) would don armor and weapons and go marching forth.
A Paladin is all about the Quest, being on the front lines and making his Deity's will take place. The Paladin seldom preaches, but fights the Diety's enemies, enforces the deities will on the unrighteous, etc etc.
A Paladin may not be the kind of servant that a particular Deity needs, and thus would not call such a champion and bestow divine power upon them.
And although a Paladin of such a diety might seem legal within the rules, it easily can conflict with a game world.For example, if the players are in a land that esposes certain Good deities, such as Pelor, then the existance of a Champion of a deity such as the Raven Queen, who although unaligned, is not going to be seen as an ally to the region, indeed such a Paladin could be seen as a threat and an evildoer by opposed worshipers.
Now a Cleric can worship a particular deity and not draw much attention, especially if done privately. But a Paladin's existance is to bring the will of his diety to being.
A Paladin of the Raven Queen might be very unwelcome in many regions worshiping good deities.
That said If the DM knows the player and knows that he is using the Raven Queen to get away with bloody murder I could see that. If this where the case I could understand,
While that might not be the case here. It is a serious risk for DMs to consider when allowing particular Deities. The Raven Queen among them. A Paladin of the God of Death and Spinner of Fate could easily be abusable by such a player desiring a "evilish" Paladin. Of all the non-evil deities, she is the most dubious
Indeed the "Mostly" I would act good floashes alot of bells and whistles warning of this.
While the rules lift brudensome and oft times silly restrictions from Paladins, they also lead the way for potential abuse.
And although a Paladin of such a diety might seem legal within the rules, it easily can conflict with a game world.For example, if the players are in a land that esposes certain Good deities, such as Pelor, then the existance of a Champion of a deity such as the Raven Queen, who although unaligned, is not going to be seen as an ally to the region, indeed such a Paladin could be seen as a threat and an evildoer by opposed worshipers.
That sorta fits into the '..decided for some reason it didn't fit their campaign.' I can completely understand if the reasons given fit with the story, and while you could stretch to allow the cleric to worship an unpopular god I guess it is possible, might leave to some interesting situations.
If the reason isn't a roleplaying one but instead a throwback idea of 3rd I got to question it. If it is a roleplaying one that is fine, might disagree with the roleplaying reason but in the end its the DM's call on that one.
A Paladin of the Raven Queen might be very unwelcome in many regions worshiping good deities.
On the other hand considering she hates the undead and will guard the departed from the curse of undeath she just may be worshipped as a protector of the newly dead. As she is called upon during the funeral rites your kingdom probably has some worship of her, who wants Uncle Timmy coming back for your brains.
Again the raven queen is not evil and her paladins would not act evil, when I said mostly good I did not mean good with some evil. I meant I would act as the raven queen ask and that will sometimes be what a good character would do remember her things are...
Well hopefully you wouldn't abuse this, but the point of if the DM feels it is abusable or not fitting his game still remains.
1. hold no pity for those who suffer and die, death is the natural end of life
So say unaligned monsters are preventing merchants from transporting food to a starving land, wouldn't this be the fate of that land?
"Not pity those who suffer and die" means exactly that. It is their fate that their crops should fail and the creatures that they have hunted for so long should gain in population and thus inflict them.
If an Evil Wizard has the cure for a disease that ravishes the lands, killing many peoples, He had nothing to do with the disease, it was of natural origins and has nothing to do with the land in question. But he doesn't want to share it since it is also a spell component he needs. Wouldn't your beliefs say that you shouldn't interfere with the fate of these people to s"uffer and die"
2.Bring down those who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the raven queen, you must punish hubris where you find it (can be considered a good act. Lich, necromancer, any the try to ignore the rules of death)
True that. However also is true is those Clerics who very peskfully raise the dead back, thus casting off the chains of fate.
How about the above example of the land being ravished with a natural disease? What about a person who tries to find a cure for that disease from unnatural means? A combination of arcane magics and unnatural organisms summoned by magics? Wouldn't your Paladin's duty be to stop him from trying to "cast of the chains of fate"?
It's all open to interpretation
3.Watch for cults of orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The demon prince of the undead seeks to claim the raven queens throne. (okay there is no way you can call fighting orcus evil.)
Yes, watch out for the competition. Great moral code you have there.
I rambled a bit but I am trying to make it clear that I am not talking about an evil paladin like some posters keep saying please read the raven queens profile and you will see that she is not evil... don't call my character evil if you do not even take the time to read what his god is about please!
It really doesn't matter if your intent is to play an Evil Paladin or not. I am simply pointing out the risk of abuse in allowing certain Deities to have PC Paladins. The Raven Queen among them. I think it is a reasonable restriction on the DMs part. Both for desired flavour of his game world and for the risk of abusive or undesirable results from the Paladin concept.
The Raven Queen may not be Evil but she also is not Good either. "Don't pity those who suffer and die" is not a good trait, and certainly not one that is generally conected to the Paladin concept
"What the city is hanging all those peasants for the crime of being vagrants because they are homeless after the lord owning all the land in this region laid them off work?
"Well I pity them not, for such is their fate to die..."
Conceptually I think that Paladins should be restricted to Good Deities and thus the good alignment. The Spells in the PHB certainly were designed for Good Clerics and this is outright admitted. I really don't see the intent that paladins be non-good, and wouldn't be suprised if the errata of a 4.5 came out that corrected the oversight.
Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope.
Not exactly the words I'd attach to an Evil or, if its possible, even less so, Chaotic Evil!
On the other I think that the PHB is written in a way to promote being a hero over being an adventure on average.
"Paladins smite enemies with divine authority" -- Evils gods still have divine authority and someone does get to do the smiting for them.
"bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope." -- Well I could try to twist that one but I'm not. Frankly I don't play Evil Paladins as PCs, unaligned however can be fun (tried a Paladin of Avandra it was interesting).
However it is sliced I loved Evil Paladins as the bad guys, have one that is a Paladin of Bane I'm working on for a campaign.
I realise that the PHB says there are (rarely) Evil Paladins....but given the description that just sounds like a load of, erm, nonsense....
Not exactly the words I'd attach to an Evil or, if its possible, even less so, Chaotic Evil!
no, but admittedly the powers and spells contained wihtin the PHB are designed in general for the Good. Thus it is implied that Evil Clerics and Paladins would have different abilities, but the one's listed are to support the Good Paladins.
It would proabably be best to reflavour as much as possible these abilities to match an Evil Paladin.
Again the raven queen is not evil and her paladins would not act evil, when I said mostly good I did not mean good with some evil. I meant I would act as the raven queen ask and that will sometimes be what a good character would do remember her things are...
1. hold no pity for those who suffer and die, death is the natural end of life (neutral it is not saying make others suffer it is saying don't pity them, maybe give them an encouraging word " fear not for soon you will be in the raven queens embrace")
2.Bring down those who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the raven queen, you must punish hubris where you find it (can be considered a good act. Lich, necromancer, any the try to ignore the rules of death)
3.Watch for cults of orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The demon prince of the undead seeks to claim the raven queens throne. (okay there is no way you can call fighting orcus evil.)
So the paladin would take no sides in frivolous matters like law and chaos or good and evil... all that matter is life and death and making sure the natural order is upset. He is the hand of fate if those die before their time he is there to stop it, if someone is living past their time is will see to it they are sent to his queen.
I rambled a bit but I am trying to make it clear that I am not talking about an evil paladin like some posters keep saying please read the raven queens profile and you will see that she is not evil... don't call my character evil if you do not even take the time to read what his god is about please!
I'm sorry to see you taking so much hate in this thread.
But as written in the Player's Handbook, your character concept is right on. I think it's an excellent concept, and I wouldn't let other people's preconceived notions of what's what stop you from doing it.
I like you opinions following the descriptive text covering what the rule book says about the Raven Queen. Again, I think you're right on it.
It would be easy to role play a neutral Paladin of the Raven Queen that played perfectly within the role of a good campaign.
Accepting that death is inevitable and natural is not evil.
The paladin class in 4th Edition removes the good/evil distinction, and now serves as a sort of avatar for the ideals of a certain god. They don't even receive their powers from a divine force anymore, but are granted them through rituals performed when they met their calling.
I think a lot of people in this thread are just stuck up on what they want to define a paladin to be, and not what the official rulebooks say a paladin is.
As for your DM, the cardinal rule in the DM's guide is "Find a way to say 'yes' to your players". Your DM is probably struggling with the concept, and wants to take the easy way out and just toss off your concept, instead of letting you go with it. That's just bad DM'ing, and I'm sorry you (and a great character concept) have to suffer because of it.
The other option would be making a LG paladin and seeing if the DM would still let you worship the Raven Queen. If not I guess you know that the unaligned gods are weaker than the good ones since they lack thier main warriors in case you ever want to go god hunting.
Now i have a paladin of Bane to go hunt down.
A Fighter may be a Mameluk, a Warrior, A Bushi, a Knight, etc... By example.
A Cleric Imam, Mystic, Priest, etc...
Conceptually I think that Paladins should be restricted to Good Deities and thus the good alignment. The Spells in the PHB certainly were designed for Good Clerics and this is outright admitted. I really don't see the intent that paladins be non-good, and wouldn't be suprised if the errata of a 4.5 came out that corrected the oversight.
By Kord's little pinky I hope not. Evil Paladins make great villains and some of the unaligned Gods have great potential for Paladin stories. I think the players guide wrote the Paladin as un-evil not truly towards good, but that's me.
But as written in the Player's Handbook, your character concept is right on. I think it's an excellent concept, and I wouldn't let other people's preconceived notions of what's what stop you from doing it.
Not our preconceived notions that must be stopped, its the DM's.
However the player must remember that as a Paladin of the God of Death there is going to be a wee bit a flak in game. Some villagers may be a tad uncertain if a paladin pledged to the Raven Queen strolls in, they may have this crazy idea (s)he might kill them for there god. Villagers aren't exactly known for there collective intelligence.
Also the Paladin might be pushed into some tight spots, following the Raven Queen is not all sunshine and puppy dogs, not that the poster is claiming it, but the player may be forced to do some unsavory things in the name of the Raven Queen. If the player can play those hard choices then its all good but unaligned means the Paladin will be doing good and evil.
Accepting that death is inevitable and natural is not evil.
Nope, but the guy on his death bed might disagree, his family might to and as the embodiment of the Death God they may lash out at you. Remember natural doesn't need to mean accepted.
If I where crafting an adventure based for a Raven Queen Paladin it might run with the adventure hook of people mysteriously dying and the townspeople are blaming you. They may not lynch mob you...yet but it would light a fire under you to either investigate or leave. (Please note its not that I think the Raven Queen is bad, evil or anything, I simply thing she can be easily misunderstood by towns folk)
The paladin class in 4th Edition removes the good/evil distinction, and now serves as a sort of avatar for the ideals of a certain god. They don't even receive their powers from a divine force anymore, but are granted them through rituals performed when they met their calling.
Your right but unlike real life if you use your gods name in vain (in dnd) to many times they might smite you. A Paladin of any god straying from the path might receive the visitors to correct that behavior. Just because a God can't revoke your powers does not mean they have to take one abandoning the tenets.
As for your DM, the cardinal rule in the DM's guide is "Find a way to say 'yes' to your players". Your DM is probably struggling with the concept, and wants to take the easy way out and just toss off your concept, instead of letting you go with it. That's just bad DM'ing, and I'm sorry you (and a great character concept) have to suffer because of it.
Excellent so your next heroic campaign we can expect to see you allowing Paladins of Asmodeus, those paladins actually following Asmodeus' tenets, in? While I admire the attempt to bow to your players idea frankly I prefer to run games where the campaign world sorta makes sense. By your definition I'm a bad DM because I will not let a worshipper of Bane (or most other evil gods) in my campaign... who cares about the fact that the idea is a Heroic campaign and that the characters will be opposing Bane and the evil.
The idea that your judging a DM on less than a page of text is strange. Its worse then judging a book by its cover, its like judging a book by a random paragraph.
Now i have a paladin of Bane to go hunt down.
Got a while to go, you be sapling he be mighty oak young one.
I would certainly allow unaligned characters as paladins... however it would be rather a stretch, in my opinion, to justify the Raven Queen as your patron god. A paladin does nothing BUT prevent death: tanking, healing with his or her OWN surges, and taking damage in place of other party members. That does not sound like the Raven Queen at all. I'd be far more convinced with a Cleric worshiping her, at least then most of your damage is radiant and you have turn undead.
If you could justify the paladin abilities while still worshiping a goddess who doesn't want you to mess with death and fate then go ahead, but I'd be very surprised if you pulled it off.
His battle was most often Good for the Good God!! Law for the Law Throne!!
As a 40k chaos player I loled irl.
Thank you! Thank you!
I'm sorry to see you taking so much hate in this thread.
But as written in the Player's Handbook, your character concept is right on. I think it's an excellent concept, and I wouldn't let other people's preconceived notions of what's what stop you from doing it.
Well I thank you for your support it it is nice to see some people like my concept
any ways mrcustomer you do bring up some good points but first those situations would have to be sprung on me on purpose like the paladin traps of 3.5 so I think that they are not a great example considering any paladin can be put in a bad situation (a cruel dm can screw a paladin with little effort no matter what alignment)
Also it may surprise you but I like to play out difficult choices with my character it makes me feel closer to them, if I wanted an easy character to play I would make a simple concept but that is bland to me. A paladin is still a mortal and stricken with mortal emotions so I might try to save some that were fated to die and thus anger my goddess then I get my powers removed and I work hard to regain her favor. A great chance for role playing and a chance for my team mates to get close to him
While I can see the point of paladins of the raven queen being feared they could also be the undead hunters of the world...they could have other jobs but they are ideally situated to deal with that issue
I don't play 4.0 and I don't plan on playing 4.0, but regardless of the version if the DM wants to make a change to his game from what is written in the books he has that right to do it, maybe the OP should have mentioned his concept before writing up four pages on the character, or maybe he needs to get a little creative and make the same concept with a different class - it can be done I'm sure.
And "The raven Queen?" are they serious? Did they poll 14 year olds for the names of these new deities? Where's "The Crow?" and "Da Blood Reapa?" They need paladins too.
The concept of the paladin predates 3rd edition and predates Dungeons and Dragons
Let's don't even GO there... please
The paladin was so many different things (in D&d and before that) until now. Now it is a class without restriction on alignment and race for those who want to serve a deity a bit more "martially" than a cleric. Which brings me to...There is a difference between a Cleric and a Paladin.
A Cleric is a priest, he preaches and leads in worship. You find clerics in temples etc. And in actuality only a very few Clerics (mostly adventerures) would don armor and weapons and go marching forth.
A Paladin is all about the Quest, being on the front lines and making his Deity's will take place. The Paladin seldom preaches, but fights the Diety's enemies, enforces the deities will on the unrighteous, etc etc.
A Paladin may not be the kind of servant that a particular Deity needs, and thus would not call such a champion and bestow divine power upon them.
Just a side-note about clerics being preachers and paladins being champions:
As far as I recall, not every cleric is a _priest_ with temple and believers (actually, most of them we're not until a certain level - adventuring and preaching in a temple doesn't go well together). Clerics were/are(?) the adventuring champion/crusader of their deities. (especially in older editions - tell me, what kind of temple servant needs heavy armor proficiency?
). So, in earlier edition, lawful good human deities (and later, lawful neutral, neutral good and non-human ones too) had paladins and clerics (and specialty priests) as special agents. Everybody else had to be content with simply having clerics (and sometimes specialty priests and clerics with god-specific prestige classes). Now every deity has clerics AND paladins, different agents for different jobs. Simple as that.
If I where crafting an adventure based for a Raven Queen Paladin it might run with the adventure hook of people mysteriously dying and the townspeople are blaming you. They may not lynch mob you...yet but it would light a fire under you to either investigate or leave. (Please note its not that I think the Raven Queen is bad, evil or anything, I simply thing she can be easily misunderstood by towns folk)
Do not forget that in the D&d world, religion is not monotheistic. Of course everyone has favourite gods, but they still do revere/fear the other ones too, and even pray to them. The god of death is supposed to be a quite central part of life (as ironic as it is
). Peasants/villagers/townfolk might fear and distrust the agent of the Raven Queen after all, but IMHO no sane/normal person would want to dishonor/anger the god who get's to decide your fate... That would be plain silly (though really, mobs of people are not known for their superior collective intelligence).good times
...but first those situations would have to be sprung on me on purpose like the paladin traps of 3.5 so I think that they are not a great example considering any paladin can be put in a bad situation (a cruel dm can screw a paladin with little effort no matter what alignment)
On the other hand if you take a class that requires a code of conduct and the DM does nothing they lose great story options. While always and forever putting the character into difficult situations based on the code is annoying and boring, to me, never doing it is the same. The character follows the tenets of a god, no matter if it is the Raven Queen, Kord, Bane or Avandra it is a code they follow and sometimes testing that characters resolve to follow it can make a great story.
Do not forget that in the D&d world, religion is not monotheistic. Of course everyone has favourite gods, but they still do revere/fear the other ones too, and even pray to them. The god of death is supposed to be a quite central part of life (as ironic as it is
Do realize that the idea of the adventure hook was something only to single out the Raven Queen's Paladin. While that actual hook could be easily moved to people are dying as the only strangers in town it seems they think you are at fault where it would allow the DM to focus broader instead on one person.
In a situation like the Adventure Hook I used I would rather focus on one character over the party, makes it hit a little closer to home. In that case if I where to single out an adventurer to hook them in with the Paladin is a prefect patsy... I mean prefect fit.
Lots of people chiding the DM saying that he needs to get out of the past or move out of 3.5. I give the guy credit; he's bought the books and made the commitment to play 4.0 so he has moved out of the past. However he has not decided to trash a long-standing concept of what a paladin is. The concept of the paladin predates 3rd edition and predates Dungeons and Dragons so if he chooses to stick to that rather than Wizard's current and temporary definition of a paladin then so be it. If Wizards decides to snub historical stereotypes and invent something else as the norm then it should be expected that some DMs may not go along with that aspect of the new game - I'm not sure why this is getting so many pairs of panties twisted in knots.
I don't play 4.0 and I don't plan on playing 4.0, but regardless of the version if the DM wants to make a change to his game from what is written in the books he has that right to do it, maybe the OP should have mentioned his concept before writing up four pages on the character, or maybe he needs to get a little creative and make the same concept with a different class - it can be done I'm sure.
And "The raven Queen?" are they serious? Did they poll 14 year olds for the names of these new deities? Where's "The Crow?" and "Da Blood Reapa?" They need paladins too.
First off history does not back up the D&D idea of paladin. They have been palace gaurds, judges (not the judge dredd kind but the judge judy kind), members of the german army, if I missed the part where they wandered the land and killed those that defied their god then I am sorry but still history shows that there are more then one concept.
Next lets point out that the idea of paladin in D&D has been changing for a while. They started out with race restrictions and alignment restrictions. Now I can play a dwarf paladin with rules punching me in the face. I am sure people were upset over them taking the race restriction out but they got over it, no we just need to get over the whole alignment restriction being removed.
Tradition does not make something wrong or right it just makes something. Also I will point out that as others have said the tradition makes no sense it make the lawful good gods the only one capable of making a divine warrior for their cause... 4e has made the logical assumption that other gods are not too dumb to see the benefit of a holy warrior.
History does not back your argument and the tradition argument does not stand because when like I said tradition does not equal good (i am not saying all traditions are bad just the ones that make no sense)
Sorry if you or MrCustomer mentioned this before and I simply didn't see it but are you simply changing the name of the Paladin or are you also planning on changing the powers to reflect this?
I know one of the books suggested that the Evil Paladins (Blackguards) have there radiant damage changed to necrotic damage.
Personally, I would also change some powers to reflect this. For example, healing people with your own surges and taking damage for other people suggests Good alignment to me. As another poster pointed out, none of these abilities fit with what we know of the Raven Queen.
Necrotic damage probably would fit the Raven Queen quite nicely, but the Raven Queen paladin would reasonably focus on other abilities than healing and protecting others.
Personally, I would also change some powers to reflect this. For example, healing people with your own surges and taking damage for other people suggests Good alignment to me. As another poster pointed out, none of these abilities fit with what we know of the Raven Queen.
Necrotic damage probably would fit the Raven Queen quite nicely, but the Raven Queen paladin would reasonably focus on other abilities than healing and protecting others.
Hey, non-good people have friends and family too.
A group of evil people doesn't necessarily mean they'll all try to kill each other all the time. The evil paladin who is protecting his evil wizard friend who's opening a portal to hell is still evil. This healing/protection = good is the same problem evil clerics had in 3.5. Why can't evil clerics spontaneously heal their evil followers so the evil mooks can fight the heroes more effectively? Are evil people/gods required to be dumb to the fact that an organized group of people who works together is more effective in accomplishing their (evil) goals.
Also, you can reflavor healing since hp is pretty much an abstraction of how much damage an individual can take without losing effectiveness. The evil paladin isn't saying nice and encouraging things to the underling he just healed, the paladin is threatening his underling with hellish torture if he doesn't get back up and continue fighting the heroes.
If you ask me, makeing a Paladin any Alignment class save the problem of makeing like 6 diffrent paladins. A feat alows you to make you Paladin more of you alignment based on Deity, and feats come every 2 instead of 3 lvl;s and alot less EX to lvl up somtimes. So I dont see the problem of Paladins being non-Lawful good. But if you must be that why, then I might as well play along.
Im not a Paladin that see's life as an illution and has the raven queen as a Deity, I am jst a I am just a humble follower who has the powers of a paladin that she has given to me. (For my Paladin in a Campain I am in)
First off I really do not get this whole "call them different names" thing... the class name is mostly an out of game thing a fighter doesn't say he is a fighter it is silly to use the name (which can be house ruled in a second) against a player.
To me all it does is restrict a player to one of the many types of concept of the class, like saying a ranger can only use bows or a fighter has to be sword and board.
But what really baffles me is how it is okay for a cleric but not a paladin... I mean I must be stupid because I can't see any logical reason for this.
So if the name doesn't really matter, why MUST the class be called a Paladin in the first place? Sure your DM may be stuck on 3E concepts, but then again it is HIS game and you don't have to play in it - he does.
Well, at least until he runs out of players...
Hey, non-good people have friends and family too.
A group of evil people doesn't necessarily mean they'll all try to kill each other all the time. The evil paladin who is protecting his evil wizard friend who's opening a portal to hell is still evil. This healing/protection = good is the same problem evil clerics had in 3.5. Why can't evil clerics spontaneously heal their evil followers so the evil mooks can fight the heroes more effectively? Are evil people/gods required to be dumb to the fact that an organized group of people who works together is more effective in accomplishing their (evil) goals.
Also, you can reflavor healing since hp is pretty much an abstraction of how much damage an individual can take without losing effectiveness. The evil paladin isn't saying nice and encouraging things to the underling he just healed, the paladin is threatening his underling with hellish torture if he doesn't get back up and continue fighting the heroes.
The difference is that the Paladin used to be a beacon of hope (and is still described this way in the PHB). This doesnt really match with the more utilitarian way Evil characters see others; that is, they see them as means to a selfish end. That is what Evil *is*.
That would make the Evil equivalent of a Paladin either an Overseer type (driving his servants and cannon fodder forward with force or threat of force) or a Seducer type, wiling them forward through silvery words, lies and bribes). Neither of which is particularly "paladin like" is it.....
The difference is that the Paladin used to be a beacon of hope (and is still described this way in the PHB).
Since the PHB was written for heroes I would except it to be slightly bent that way. Heck the Evil gods get what a sentence a piece, you need the DMG to even get an idea on their (un)holy tenets.
Neither of which is particularly "paladin like" is it.....
'Paladin like' in this game pretty much boils down to champion of your God and their ideals.
How about those dark knights in the Rose of the Prophet fantasy serie of novels? Or Ashram the Knight of Darkness in Lodoss War (this dude LOVED the dark elf Pirotess, and it was mutual...)?
-Paladin can only be Human.
-Paladin can only be Lawful Good.
-Paladin must tithe 10% of his gold (or treasure) to his church.
And if I do recall, or at least in first edition AD&D, all Paladins must journey to Hell and fight demons.
And if I was his/her DM, I could go far as what is allowed in the original D&D system... or AD&D system. See how they like that. :P
'Paladin like' in this game pretty much boils down to champion of your God and their ideals.
Nope, the description of the class bares no resemblence to evil in a meaningful way....(see the rest of what I posted)....
Hey, non-good people have friends and family too.
A group of evil people doesn't necessarily mean they'll all try to kill each other all the time. The evil paladin who is protecting his evil wizard friend who's opening a portal to hell is still evil. This healing/protection = good is the same problem evil clerics had in 3.5. Why can't evil clerics spontaneously heal their evil followers so the evil mooks can fight the heroes more effectively? Are evil people/gods required to be dumb to the fact that an organized group of people who works together is more effective in accomplishing their (evil) goals.
Also, you can reflavor healing since hp is pretty much an abstraction of how much damage an individual can take without losing effectiveness. The evil paladin isn't saying nice and encouraging things to the underling he just healed, the paladin is threatening his underling with hellish torture if he doesn't get back up and continue fighting the heroes.
To my knowledge, evil characters have more options for stuff like demon summoning and undead creation. Disposable troops to be casually sent to die. We Have Reserves. That seems more Champion of Evil to me.
Giving up one's personal health to save another (losing a healing surge to Lay On Hands) does not seem consistent with evil. Giving of yourself for the benefit of another is typically good (excluding foolishness and contrived circumstances), taking from another for the benefit of yourself is typically evil (again, excluding examples of sophistry). For an evil paladin, I would probably suggest something along the lines of being able to steal healing surges from others.
Engaging a creature in mortal combat to prevent it from harming your friends seems like a good act to me. Tactical or not, it is still fundamentally taking personal risks for the sake of others. Evil would more naturally focus on making others take the risks for them.
I know any ability can be used for Good or Evil, I merely suggest that the Good Gods would be more interested in giving powers that assist more naturally in Good acts and the Evil Gods are more interested in giving powers that assists more naturally in Evil acts. Naturally being the key part.
I am not suggesting Evil be dumb, but cooperation is not the same thing as self-sacrifice or generosity.
Hey Stormbrand, you did sound stario tyoe to my (Only lawful good paladins) so I deasided to lay out a few stario type as well and thing how you would react to them. Seems like yuo didn't really react kindly to them either.
If you ask me, makeing a Paladin any Alignment class save the problem of makeing like 6 diffrent paladins. A feat alows you to make you Paladin more of you alignment based on Deity, and feats come every 2 instead of 3 lvl;s and alot less EX to lvl up somtimes. So I dont see the problem of Paladins being non-Lawful good. But if you must be that why, then I might as well play along.
Im not a Paladin that see's life as an illution and has the raven queen as a Deity, I am jst a I am just a humble follower who has the powers of a paladin that she has given to me. (For my Paladin in a Campain I am in)
I'm not sure of the rules (not bought 4e), but sounds like that feat is a very good idea to me.
Maybe I'm biased in this, but I don't see Lawful Good Paladin as a stereotype so much as a concept in it's own right. For one thing, I have seen some very dramatic differences between Lawful Good paladins.
Nope, the description of the class bares no resemblence to evil in a meaningful way....(see the rest of what I posted)....
And as it has been pointed out before the book you pulled that from is for heroes. Besides you take one sentence out of the Paladins fluff and consider it the be all to being a Paladin.
1.Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves.
Don't need to be good to do this.
2.Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope.
Your description of the Paladin, already proven at least 1/3 of this can be evil.
3.Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
Evil can do this
4.To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice.
Evil can do the first one and the smiting part. An evil person could defend allies although it would be a case by case.
5.Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength.
Devotion to a god, can be evil.
6.Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
Would depend on the god as to what the temptation and the obligation is. Your god says steal something you probably steal it.
7.Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!
Evil can do this to.
7 points on the paladin fluff and of them Evil can do 4 of them flat out (1,3,5 and 7) and parts of two others (Point 2 and Point 4). Of that 6 depends on the tenets of your god, even a Good god might violate that one.
Evil RQ Paladin: "It's YOUR TIME." *shank*
2.Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope.
Your description of the Paladin, already proven at least 1/3 of this can be evil.
There are lots of crossover in classes...the point is that there are some parts of a paladin that make them non-evil. The notion of an evil-dedicated character (both Evil and Chaotic Evil are arch-egotists) bolstering the courage of companions and radiating as a beacon of inextinguishable hope (the latter especially) are far removed from Evil of either kind.
4.To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice.
Evil can do the first one and the smiting part. An evil person could defend allies although it would be a case by case.
Sorry, but the notion of Evil protecting their allies with their own sacrifice is nonsense. This is opposed to the very essence of Evil.
6.Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
Would depend on the god as to what the temptation and the obligation is. Your god says steal something you probably steal it.
Get outa here. Evil would have no problem with this stuff if it could get away with it. Evil today is not th same as the Evil of 3.x
Like I said, there are parts of paladinhood that make it inherently opposed to evil. A self-sacrificing beacon of hope is NOT an Evil archetype.
Sorry, but the notion of Evil protecting their allies with their own sacrifice is nonsense. This is opposed to the very essence of Evil.
Evil can stand in front of a charge, evil does not equal coward, they can smite there enemies but of course this isn't what your pointing out. No your pointing the 'sacrifice themselves' which I'll post yet again I said: 'An evil person could defend allies although it would be a case by case.'
An evil person can give up there own lives IF it accomplishes there goal (again case by case).
Get outa here. Evil would have no problem with this stuff if it could get away with it. Evil today is not th same as the Evil of 3.x
Huh? again read, I said it depends on the Tenets of there god. You seem to be confusing Evil with a Evil person following the tenets of a god. Since ALL Paladins (well except for those that gave up there god) require themselves to follow the tenets of a god, it is those tenets that determine what 'obligation' as it is a Paladins duty to follow those tenets. Further some Good Paladins may have this problem as their gods may ask them to go against this fluff, or their tenets may be counter, depends on the god and not a flat statement of goodness.
Like I said, there are parts of paladinhood that make it inherently opposed to evil.A self-sacrificing beacon of hope is NOT an Evil archetype.
And like I said the majority of it is, Paladins are not a do everything the fluff says or your booted from the club. The fact that a Paladin must follow a god and can leave the gods service with no mechanical problems proves that. They are a class and while you may love playing the fluff its not everything to being a Paladin.
As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; a paladin of a good deity must be good, a paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, and a paladin of an unaligned deity must be unaligned. Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters.
The only qualifier on the Evil Paladin is no PC's, but since we aren't discussing that simply the nature of evil paladins it is a moot point. Evil exists as a divine power and they get champions just like the rest of their divine brothers and sisters. Champions of the Divine seems to be the more prevailing theme rather then your Beacon of Hope.
An evil person can give up there own lives IF it accomplishes there goal (again case by case).
I think we must be reading different PHBs, as, in mine, Evil and Chaotic Evil are both selfish and egotistic if they are anything. Their goal is never achieved by self-sacrifice as the essence of their goals is always self-ascension and self-aggrandizement.
And like I said the majority of it is, Paladins are not a do everything the fluff says or your booted from the club. The fact that a Paladin must follow a god and can leave the gods service with no mechanical problems proves that. They are a class and while you may love playing the fluff its not everything to being a Paladin.
Then they should have changed the wording as the whole self-sacrificing beacon of hope is NOT compatible with Evil.
The only qualifier on the Evil Paladin is no PC's, but since we aren't discussing that simply the nature of evil paladins it is a moot point. Evil exists as a divine power and they get champions just like the rest of their divine brothers and sisters. Champions of the Divine seems to be the more prevailing theme rather then your Beacon of Hope.
It does not matter how many times something appears in the description; if it appears even once, then its part of the deal.
I think we must be reading different PHBs, as, in mine, Evil and Chaotic Evil are both selfish and egotistic if they are anything. Their goal is never achieved by self-sacrifice as the essence of their goals is always self-ascension and self-aggrandizement.
It seems that evil religion doesn't exist either, or if it is then strangely enough it is a pathetic sham.... there are no true believers. Just who is capible of doing terrible and righteous things in this game because they actually believe in there God and his words. Wonder if that good paladin would destroy an entire village, killing everyone in it because he was following his god, an evil person won't I guess.
A group of people, true believers of Asmodeus, set themselves up in a temple to enact their evil plot which will summon the great God into the World of men. The PC's discovering this rush to the temple, because as heroic and good PC's thats what they do. As the chants begin to summon this mighty God one person stands in there way, the Champion of their Cult, he will protect the clerics and warlocks until the last rites are complete and his god Asmodeus is brought into this world. He stands a vigil, watching and waiting knowing that the heroic PC's will attempt to stop them, he smiles in thought of unleashing his power on the enemies that seek to stop this crusade.
The mighty Paladin of Asmedeous..... wait sorry about that Paladins aren't evil I guess so changing it.... the mighty fighter awaits knowing that his god will be birthed into the world. He hears the sounds of the adventurers approach, five of them he counts and he gets readying knowing that he will die here, but his death will buy the time his allies need to complete their ritual.... But wait knowing he will die to protect his allies, knowing he is sacrificing his life for his god thats not evil so hold on. *puts on thinking cap*
Yes, Asmodeus has devils so lets give him a Pit Fiend as a protector.... can't do that Pit Fiends are evil and our paladin demoted to fighter can't be there because of the sacrifice. This isn't going to do it, give me a second.... Maybe if we change it to the Pit Fiend is there because Asmodeus promised him something, YES, that can be it. Also evil can only do something if they are bribed or threatened, so lets make this true and say Asmodeus did both.
The Pit Fiend champion of Asmodeus there to protect the cultists (well we know the cultists are there only for the power, cause they can't believe can they?) as the ritual to summon the mighty god Asmodeus to the World nears ever closer to completion. Now the PC's have arrived and in the titanic battle between the heroic PC's and the Pit Fiend the PC's claimed victory, their righteous strength, their power was able to thwart the mighty devil and destroy it. All that was left to do was to finish off the cultists before the ritual could be complete or sacrifice themselves someway to stop Asmodeus from entering this world, because there good and its in their contracts.
Entering the room it was clear that the ritual was done, Asmodeus was here. In a pathetically predictable plot twist the god killed off the cultists, maybe their egos got the better of themselves or Asmodeus was in an evilly evil mood. Now the PC's stand before the dark god, tired and unprepared for the trial this is. Understanding his calling the mighty Cleric of Bahamut steps forth to confront the god alone, he's good so its all okay, and challenges the god to the one thing the ancient pacts of gods say he cannot refuse.... a Rock Off.
Using himself as a bargaining chip (he is good, he wouldn't give up his friends) the epic cleric seals the deal with the dark God and the rest of the party watches as the duel begins. The God Asmodeus, it seems is a divine rocker and performs on a level that is not of mortal men completing his part of the duel by signing how he will make the cleric squeal. Then the cleric unleashes his Ukulele of Power and filled with the divine power of his God busts a monster, mammoth jam that becomes the greatest song ever...
Asmodeous was defeated that day, sent back to the Nine Hells whence he came. All because of a group of brave and heroic adventurers put there lives on the line to stop the evil that was Asmodeus, even if it would have cost them there lives. Thankfully evil is incapable of believing in gods, and thankfully they where filled with to much ego because not even the gods could say what would have happened that day if True Believers of Evil were there.
Sorry but if you want to portray evil that way that is truly one dimensional and boring. Hell very the one-dimensional Sith of Star Wars (like I needed to throw that in where the sith are from) can be evil and do evil because they believe in there cause. In DnD it seems impossible.
Then they should have changed the wording as the whole self-sacrificing beacon of hope is NOT compatible with Evil.
It does not matter how many times something appears in the description; if it appears even once, then its part of the deal.
Ah, no.
This isn't an all or nothing, if you fail once to be a beacon of hope lightning doesn't shoot down and kill the paladin. Normally fluff is well... fluff. There is nothing mechanical in the game that supports the paladin must be a beacon of hope.
I must say, I like the idea of paladins being all sorts of alignment. The LG gods are not so uber powerful that only THEY can make paladins. Gods in some settings are not really all that picky about followers, so if someone wants to be a holy champion in their name and serve them until their dying breath, they'll probably say yes. But wait! For some odd reason they are incapable of granting minor divine power to make a paladin. They can invest major amounts of divine power into clerics just fine, however. But waht is it that stops them from making their own paladin?
And secondly, I thought blackguard had an awesome concept, but hard to manage. What is that Hide 5 requirement doing in there anyway? I have no idea. Also, prestige classes that come with spells don't really work for most classes.
I am also biased against something that encourages people to make plans on how to get their paladins to fall so they can make effective blackguards.
Make it clear to the DM that this is not in the rules, by asking him why in his setting only Lawful good people can become paladins. Do the gods in his setting not normally have warrior champions? Do paladins in his setting only follow one of his made up gods? And so forth.
I find it interesting that some people (not you, specifically, but your statements brought it to mind) have no problem with a person serving a god, blindly, to their dying breath; but get all twitchy about somebody making bargains with devils/fey/the outer realms.
Isn't that exactly what being a god's holy champion entails? You're offering your service to the god, and in return gaining power from that service. How is this different from making a pact with a being of some other origin?
How is this different from making a pact with a being of some other origin?
There are no pacts to make deals with Dark Gods or even Good Gods. Also Warlocks aren't melee oriented as Paladins so its kinda hard to play one that way. Lastly everyone knows the Paladin gets the better insurance policy and retirement plan.
It seems that evil religion doesn't exist either, or if it is then strangely enough it is a pathetic sham.... there are no true believers. Just who is capible of doing terrible and righteous things in this game because they actually believe in there God and his words. Wonder if that good paladin would destroy an entire village, killing everyone in it because he was following his god, an evil person won't I guess.
A group of people, true believers of Asmodeus, set themselves up in a temple to enact their evil plot which will summon the great God into the World of men. The PC's discovering this rush to the temple, because as heroic and good PC's thats what they do. As the chants begin to summon this mighty God one person stands in there way, the Champion of their Cult, he will protect the clerics and warlocks until the last rites are complete and his god Asmodeus is brought into this world. He stands a vigil, watching and waiting knowing that the heroic PC's will attempt to stop them, he smiles in thought of unleashing his power on the enemies that seek to stop this crusade.
The mighty Paladin of Asmedeous..... wait sorry about that Paladins aren't evil I guess so changing it.... the mighty fighter awaits knowing that his god will be birthed into the world. He hears the sounds of the adventurers approach, five of them he counts and he gets readying knowing that he will die here, but his death will buy the time his allies need to complete their ritual.... But wait knowing he will die to protect his allies, knowing he is sacrificing his life for his god thats not evil so hold on. *puts on thinking cap*
Yes, Asmodeus has devils so lets give him a Pit Fiend as a protector.... can't do that Pit Fiends are evil and our paladin demoted to fighter can't be there because of the sacrifice. This isn't going to do it, give me a second.... Maybe if we change it to the Pit Fiend is there because Asmodeus promised him something, YES, that can be it. Also evil can only do something if they are bribed or threatened, so lets make this true and say Asmodeus did both.
The Pit Fiend champion of Asmodeus there to protect the cultists (well we know the cultists are there only for the power, cause they can't believe can they?) as the ritual to summon the mighty god Asmodeus to the World nears ever closer to completion. Now the PC's have arrived and in the titanic battle between the heroic PC's and the Pit Fiend the PC's claimed victory, their righteous strength, their power was able to thwart the mighty devil and destroy it. All that was left to do was to finish off the cultists before the ritual could be complete or sacrifice themselves someway to stop Asmodeus from entering this world, because there good and its in their contracts.
Entering the room it was clear that the ritual was done, Asmodeus was here. In a pathetically predictable plot twist the god killed off the cultists, maybe their egos got the better of themselves or Asmodeus was in an evilly evil mood. Now the PC's stand before the dark god, tired and unprepared for the trial this is. Understanding his calling the mighty Cleric of Bahamut steps forth to confront the god alone, he's good so its all okay, and challenges the god to the one thing the ancient pacts of gods say he cannot refuse.... a Rock Off.
Using himself as a bargaining chip (he is good, he wouldn't give up his friends) the epic cleric seals the deal with the dark God and the rest of the party watches as the duel begins. The God Asmodeus, it seems is a divine rocker and performs on a level that is not of mortal men completing his part of the duel by signing how he will make the cleric squeal. Then the cleric unleashes his Ukulele of Power and filled with the divine power of his God busts a monster, mammoth jam that becomes the greatest song ever...
Asmodeous was defeated that day, sent back to the Nine Hells whence he came. All because of a group of brave and heroic adventurers put there lives on the line to stop the evil that was Asmodeus, even if it would have cost them there lives. Thankfully evil is incapable of believing in gods, and thankfully they where filled with to much ego because not even the gods could say what would have happened that day if True Believers of Evil were there.
Sorry but if you want to portray evil that way that is truly one dimensional and boring. Hell very the one-dimensional Sith of Star Wars (like I needed to throw that in where the sith are from) can be evil and do evil because they believe in there cause. In DnD it seems impossible.
Ah, no.
This isn't an all or nothing, if you fail once to be a beacon of hope lightning doesn't shoot down and kill the paladin. Normally fluff is well... fluff. There is nothing mechanical in the game that supports the paladin must be a beacon of hope.
What *are* you on about? Its a simple fact that the notion of self-sacrifice and being a beacon of hope is nothing to do with Evil or Chaotic Evil as described in the PHB. They are egotism personified; they snort in derision at the idea of self-sacrifice and although they can certainly cower, con or seduce their followers, the idea of them being a beacon of hope is pure nonsense.
Honestly, read the books before rolling off on one
ETA: Oh, and that "fluff" you mention; its called ROLE-playing you know....
What *are* you on about? Its a simple fact that the notion of self-sacrifice and being a beacon of hope is nothing to do with Evil or Chaotic Evil as described in the PHB. They are egotism personified; they snort in derision at the idea of self-sacrifice and although they can certainly cower, con or seduce their followers, the idea of them being a beacon of hope is pure nonsense.
Honestly, read the books before rolling off on one
I did and that fact that evil can't be these qualities because they are somehow to stupid or simply unable to believe in a cause that are evil is very silly. That story wasn't directed at you more towards the retarded idea DnD seems to have about the nature of evil.
People can, have done and will do evil because they believe in what they are doing. Unless they think that only good can commit atrocities for a cause they truly believe in.
(EDIT: Instead of double posting) Evil should be scary and the idea that all evil is like that is not as scary to me, sorry, it more like a bad plot done to much. One that truly believes they are right, one that will kill you, me, our families, our cities and our way of life not because of some ego, not because of some power trip but because they truly believe that they are right and that there cause is worth killing and dying for... that is more scary and more evil to me. But that is simply my opinion. Of course I'm not claim all evil should be this way, but evil that is attempting to be really scary evil. (/end EDIT)
ETA: Oh, and that "fluff" you mention; its called ROLE-playing you know....
Fluff is roleplaying, it is the non-crunchy bits of the game. No where did I say that fluff wasn't important but you seem to be using fluff (ie ROLEplaying tips and ideas) as some sort of key point that makes it mechanically relevant to being a Paladin. Yes it says they are a beacon of hope but nowhere does it say that if a paladin choses to ROLEplay not being a beacon of hope they are no longer paladins.
But let's explore that shall we. Say your Paladin friend has been one for a couple of levels and starts to slowly move away from that beacon of hope that your say is part of the deal. Maybe they aren't a self-sacrificing as they where a little while ago what are you going to do? Game rules don't say anything that if the paladin loses his 'beacon of hopeness' he becomes a fighter so unless you encourage to play his character differently (but have nothing to back up your claim if he fails to be encouraged) he still is a paladin (unless you kill him then he is dead).
Ah forgot it seems to be a requirement in forums :rolleye2:
The BBEG isn't killing those millions of people so he can win the BBEG of the Year award. He's killing millions and opening a portal to hell because he believes that it would make a better world for himself/his country/his people. The soldiers of the evil empire isn't all going to be cowardly mooks. Cowardly mooks don't get to form empires. There will be people who believes in their evil empire and are willing to lay down their lives for it.
And as it has been pointed out before the book you pulled that from is for heroes. Besides you take one sentence out of the Paladins fluff and consider it the be all to being a Paladin.
Except that the books in general are designed for Good PCs. I think if you follow the advice readily given in those books, that PCs not play Evil allignments then you would realize that the classes given within the PHB were not intended to be Evil Characters.
Thus though the rules do allow it, the book was not intent upon Evil Paladins, and the abilities given for the Paladin class were not intended for evil PCs.
This is as much as they admitted to in earlier editions regarding the Cleric, that the spells in the PHB were focused upon non-evil PC spells and Evil Clerics weren't intended as PC and it was stated that Evil characters would likely have different spells.
I don't think an evil "Paladin" would be using the abilities described and intended for Good Paladins in the book.
I find it interesting that some people (not you, specifically, but your statements brought it to mind) have no problem with a person serving a god, blindly, to their dying breath; but get all twitchy about somebody making bargains with devils/fey/the outer realms.
Isn't that exactly what being a god's holy champion entails? You're offering your service to the god, and in return gaining power from that service. How is this different from making a pact with a being of some other origin?
A person serving a good god doesn't exactly do it blindly. The tenents of being Good are in of themselves worth doing anyways.
I mean following the dictates of one's religion where it says that you shouldn't murder your entire family and sacrifice your firstborn son on an alter and then **** and pillage the countryside. Well it goes without saying doesn't it?
On the other hand, the deliberate worship of an Evil deity is just madness isn't it.
I mean sacrificing your child on an alter to your god? Or if you aren't quite that devote or greedy, just an old virgin sacrifice might do.
But I stray from the topic, what was the question again?
The difference is that Paladin serves his God, because he beleives in his God and has Faith. The diety grants the Paladin power, not for the Paladin's own personal benifit, but to further the deities cause.
A person who enters a pact with some evil deity for his own personal power, doesn't need believe in that deities power or care about his cause, and uses that power for his own benifit.
I don't think an evil "Paladin" would be using the abilities described and intended for Good Paladins in the book.
Here is the kicker though PC's can't be evil Paladins, only NPCs. NPC's are not written up like PC's are they are written up like monsters so most of the abilities you talking about can be ignored or changed. This is the evil paladin:
Paladin Elite Solider
Power Source: Divine.
Defenses +1 Fortitude, +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Saving Throws +2
Action Point 1
Hit Points +8 per level + Constitution score
Weapon Proficiency Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged
Armor Proficiency Cloth leather, hide, chainmail, scale, plate; light shield, heavy shield
Trained Skills Religion, plus one other skill from the paladin class list
Class Features Channel Divinity, Divine Challenge, lay on hands
Implement Holy symbol
Except for lay on hands which I personally think an evil paladin could use, keep there allies alive. If you disagree it and Channel Divinity can simply be used on themselves to keep them in the battle.
But even in the rules to design an evil Paladin there are ways to create them around the whole 'I'm a good guy' thought.
I mean sacrificing your child on an alter to your god?
Subtle. Real nice.
First of all you never said what your guys alignment was going to be to begin with. The Raven queen is Unaligned. which means you could be good, unaligned, or evil.
her commandments in themselves could be of a good or evil nature. naturally the raven queen requires all undead, because they are abominations to her, to be destroyed. Also to not pity those who have passed. In proper roleplay fashion you're playing a selfless paladin who is not afraid of death and looks forward to the day he's rewarded with the raven queens blessing.
Sounds to me like your DM is stuck in 3E land and needs to be welcomed to 4th Edition finally.
And to put into this discussion about evil paladins the phb may describe evil in one way but unless you want a 2-d world you should not make all evil characters follow that. Some of my favorite evil people in all forms of media have been selfless (honestly almost every big bad guy has at least one totally loyal man willing to lay down his life for his master or his cause)
Evil paladins are the ones that make your players shake in their boots, the enemy that will give your paladin an epic fight that he will remember for a long time, the one who is willing to stand against an entire party by himself if it means his allies will complete their evil goal.
And as for sacrificing your child, well that is one type of evil... the drow will do it but a red dragon (also evil) will fight to her death to protect her child. Does that make the dragon good? of course not! Evil can love their family as well.
Evil paladins are the ones that make your players shake in their boots, the enemy that will give your paladin an epic fight that he will remember for a long time, the one who is willing to stand against an entire party by himself if it means his allies will complete their evil goal.
Not really, I shanked one last week for trying to do "aggressive contract negotiations." Loved the look on the players face, a long time "power gamer" (self admitted too) he thought the idea of the evil paladin was the neatest thing since sliced bread. Too bad he hadn't the slightest notion of evil until the poison was coursing through his veins....
But in 4th ed there are less alignments to work with. If i was running a game where the party was evil or a evil party member could effectivly function in the group without to much trouble i'd allow a player to play a paladin ( or in this examples' case, a Dark knight ) or darkknight of Lolth or any other bad god so long as they functioned in the group.
Now if the whole group was evil i'd be willing to go even further wit that idea.
"edit: Also, as far as alignment goes, just make them the same as the diety or just Evil. Just because your evil doesnt mean you crave blood every five seconds. I've played a campaign that lasted untill we all went down fighting, where the Cleric was a Cleric of vecna, his characters background was simply that e felt his god telling him to come here, collect knowledge with whatevermeans possible, before that knowledge was lost by those who would destroy it. He fit in with the party nicely, he was simply not moraly confused, he felt nothing wrong with doing what he bleaved in, and that was doing a few bad things here and there. But he played it well and it worked out, except for the part where we all died fighting )
As for a class standpoint, what makes a Dark knight different from a paladin? well from what i can see on the standard paladin skill list it doesnt need to be adjusted. I can see a Dark knight having diplomacy depending on the type of god he worships. Or any other of these skills, so thats fine. You might wanna change the "flavor visuals" of your powers. Like instead of your divine attacks being pure and silver they are vicious and give off a aura of black light that invokes fear or pain or something.
So to answer your immediate question, no they are not that bad, infact they are a interesting concept. i suggest asking your dm about simply putting a new name to them but still be the same class, and instead of pure silver flames or bright light for your powers and abilities, imagine blood red flames and stuff for visual aid.
But of course if your party isnt evil or even neutral largly you may have problems eventualy, but thats all roleplaying your character.
If the phrase 'evil paladin' gets your panties in such a twist, call them 'blackguards' or 'grayguards' and be done with it. Oh sorry, that was an inappropriate comment for a public board like this. EDIT: Call them 'unalignedguards' if it makes you feel better.
TS
he got upset telling me that paladins could only be lawful good...
He's wrong.
Is there anyway to convince him?
Show him the rules where it says a paladin doesn't have to be lawful good.
I believe Paladins should be Lawful Good, only regardless of dieties alignment.
Paladins are Virtuous Fighters who are granted special abilities by their dieties to protect the weak and defeat evil.
They should be fighters who are the epitome of Virtue.
The Lawful Paladin would believe in and follow Codes, edicts, Laws, Dogmas, etc.
To them, the Means outweight the ends and he/ she would not necessarily violate his/ her prinicpals to achieve goals.
Would the Lawful Paladin promise an honest fight and then cheat when he discovers he is outclassed by a more powerful opponent?
A Non-lawful Paladin would not necessarily follow a code or law unless it happened to suit his/ her situation at the time.
If a non-lawful deity would have a Dogma, but a non-lawful character, even a Paladin would not feel the need to follow the constraints of the Dogma.
A Lawful Fighter would follow the Codes, edics and Laws, also, but could be willing to stray from them without repercussions of his/ her actions.
An Evil Paladins are Oxymorons as they would not protect and defend as much as intimidate and tyranize.
Paladins should be willing to step up to Protect and Defend and confront Evil without hesitation.
Furthermore, Lawful good Paladins are not "Lawful Stupid." Sometimes it takes a party intervention to convince the Paladin that certain actions would not violate his codes.
I believe...
Even if I can't respect your argument, I have to respect you for arguing a belief rather than a belief asserted as fact. Kudos, dude.
TS
I always found the concepts of Good vs. Evil in D&D to be rather two-dimensional. These concepts aren't a personal expression, they're reflections of how outsiders view someone. An "evil" paladin is only so because others consider them evil... they probably think themselves quite righteous, since they're crusading in accordance with their faith and really believe that the things they do are for the greater good as defined by their religion.
Take the Eberron setting: paladins of the Silver Flame (a "good" deity) engaged in an indiscriminate racial genocide, because they believed they were saving the world. Or the Blood of Vol, whose layman followers were mostly common and decent people who revered undeath as a continuation of existence because like most normal people, they feared mortal death.
In any case, I personally believe it should be less about what's written on a character sheet, and more about what you do with it. In every edition, we've treated alignment as an internal character compass - a LG paladin was such because they could defend their position in the context of their religious edicts, even if they committed atrocities in the eyes of others in the name of their faith (and our DM often called on us to play out that very conflict, which made for some great roleplay - though it took a good degree of maturity).
Unaligned RQ Paladin: "I tried to save him, but I couldn't despite my best efforts ... it must have been his time after all."
Evil RQ Paladin: "It's YOUR TIME." *shank*
@ Salla: Well only,one problem with that.... a paladin MUST be the saim alignment of his/her deity.
@ Everyone else: Oh MY Goodness, you guys are still arguing this? you almost as bad as the Steath = CA or Stealth =\= CA grouple of people I just posted on. I mean com on, you find one little thing and pic at it and pic at it. I mean there is surely a Evil paladin, it's just they follow there way, and the way you make evil sound, you make them sound like dumb, erigent, and nat able to stand togeather. I do not read ANYWERE that says evil charaters would not give there life if a evil deity demanded it. And I do not read anywere that says Paladins must be good. as said before, if you want to starieo-type, then fine with me. You might as well make more requirments and restriction to make it like the real thing.
People also forget one little thing, WE ARE NOT TALKIN ABOUT EVIL, we are talking about an Unaligned paladin, I do not see were in the book it says anything that would go agenst that. One more thing, I have to agree with rentauri on this one. If evil is as bad as you say, then you are marking them as DUMB and definently not fit for a boss or enemy. Seeing as how you guys put it, there can ONLY be paladins for LG deitys, but how exactly can that be, don't all deitys have power to give to mortals? Arn't there evil deitys that give power to a mortal?
On rentauri story, you guys mad it sound like a bunch of ballony, making evil incompident and unable to work togeather. Odd how for some reason, you guys have a narrow vision on how evil is suposed to be and how good is suposed to be. How about if you stop paying attenction to the Flaver Text and start paying atenction to the Rules. I mean if it says paladins can be evil, then they can, if you dont think they sould, go back to 3.x and have to make 9 difrent paladin types.
I would allow it in my game but I would point out quickly that a paladin is supposed to represent the tenet's of their deities faith at ALL times. Failure to do so would result in sanctions from other members of the faith and ultimately a revocation of their powers by their own deity.
Playing a paladin presents a unique roleplaying challenge and not just a chance to cash in on some "kewl poewrz".
Basically, by diversifying 'paladin' so much, being a paladin is far less meaningful. Instead of evoking the sense of a beacon of hope, valiant defender of the weak and innocent, and all-around hero, it becomes 'just another class'. Same way as 'fighter' means pretty much anyone who fights.
While my knowledge of the 4e rules are limited, do clerics still get different powers based on domains/diety? If so, how much more difficult would it be to create paladin domains to seperate the champion of a lawful good healer god from the champion of a chaotic evil destroyer god?
Even if many of their abilities parralel each other, or even lean towards the same support function (for example Healing/Protection of the healer gods vs We Have Reserves diposable minions of the demonic/undead themed gods).
Basically, by diversifying 'paladin' so much, being a paladin is far less meaningful. Instead of evoking the sense of a beacon of hope, valiant defender of the weak and innocent, and all-around hero, it becomes 'just another class'. Same way as 'fighter' means pretty much anyone who fights.
Thats what happens if you make it a basic class. If it was suppose to be somehow special then it should have been a Paragon class or a something else and not the Divine Defender it is in 4e.
Besides a fighter, ranger, cleric (and others) can already roleplay the beacon of hope, valiant defender of the weak and innocent, and all-around hero that you describe the Paladin as so how is this special?
But as written in the Player's Handbook, your character concept is right on. I think it's an excellent concept, and I wouldn't let other people's preconceived notions of what's what stop you from doing it.
Exactly.
People are really, really hung up on old definitions of a paladin.
A few things brought up during the thread:
Stupid peasants blaming/lynching the paladin of the Raven Queen. Why would they? Peasants didn't lynch priests of Hades, the god of death, in ancient Greece. Nor did they priests of Set in ancient egypt. And if someone was a soldier in the Pharoah's army that dedicated himself to Set, there wouldn't be any lynching going on there either. Regardless of what a local peasant thinks of a particular god, under polytheism, the peasant respects all the gods and their servants.
Evil Paladins. For those who missed it, the thread is primarily about an unaligned paladin, not an evil one. Furthermore, everything describing the paladin in good terms can be applied to evil. For example, the beacon of hope thing. Hope for whom? Is a good paladin a beacon of hope for the cultists of orcus? For kobolds? For liches? Ofcourse not. In the same way, an evil paladin can be a beacon of hope for those of the same goals and inclinations. His allies and the allies of his god. Is an evil paladin a beacon of hope for the common peasant? For the loyal devotee or Pelor? For the orphans? No. Just like a good paladin is no beacon of hope for monsters, evil cultists, etc.,. And evil paladin can most certainly be an unquenchable beacon of hope for other evil beings.
The default for 4e is not to have evil characters. When a DM makes an exception and allows it, that's what it is. I'm not one of those DMs and I don't run games with evil characters. But I can totally see how a paladin of an evil god could completely fulfil his role as a champion of that god in the same way as the
To the original poster-- either don't play in that group or respect the DMs wishes. If you do decide to make a Battle Cleric of the Raven Queen and call yourself a champion or even Paladin of the Raven Queen, be mindful of the friction you might cause. It might help the DM grow up a bit though and not be so stuck with a notion of a paladin having to be the often misplayed "lawful stupid."
Thats what happens if you make it a basic class. If it was suppose to be somehow special then it should have been a Paragon class or a something else and not the Divine Defender it is in 4e.
Besides a fighter, ranger, cleric (and others) can already roleplay the beacon of hope, valiant defender of the weak and innocent, and all-around hero that you describe the Paladin as so how is this special?
Add the divinely blessed component and it *could* be feasible with a cleric/warlord.
I figure the heroic tier classes (levels 1-10) are liscenced to be somehow special by the suggestion they are heroic.
How I envision the paladin is as Step 1 on the path, the holy warrior in his pre Chosen Champion state. Read the rest of my last post and you will see I have no problem with the unaligned or evil versions with a basic overall class, on the basis there is customisation to allow the 'traditional' heroic champion to be different to the Raven Queen death champion to be different to the storm god destroyer champion.
I would personally have them use different names (Paladin/Crusader/Blackguard) for effect as well.
In essence, I like the idea that a paladin is something that villains or mercenaries cannot be. That alone adds depth to the character.
Read the rest of my last post and you will see I have no problem with the unaligned or evil versions with a basic overall class, on the basis there is customisation to allow the 'traditional' heroic champion to be different to the Raven Queen death champion to be different to the storm god destroyer champion.
I did and I didn't call that because as I quoted I sorta disagree with the special or meaningful idea of the Paladin. Its the Divine Defender, its a basic class and, to me, no more special then the Warlock, Wizard or any other basic class. It can indeed be roleplayed more special than the other classes but that is more the player bringing out some aspect of the individual Paladin. At the same token the Fighter can be roleplayed as something greater then just a fighter, but again that is just me.
In essence, I like the idea that a paladin is something that villains or mercenaries cannot be. That alone adds depth to the character.
See I love them as villains, not every villain of course just some.
---
In your previous post you mentioned separators for various gods and domains (I don't even think their domains are listed in the PHB or DMG). If such an addition where to occur it would probably be in whatever power book expands the Divine Power Source. For right now the only difference is whatever changes you as the DM and/or player what to bring to the table. One of the few I remember reading is giving evil the necrosis keyword instead of the radiant one.
and YorkusRex I understand your thoughts on my DM making the judgment based on my abilities but A.) this man offered me a chance to play an evil fighter B.) was 100% with me until I mentioned I would not be a lawful good paladin, I explained I would be unaligned and how I would act but he was to busy being upset
gricktree You are right of course I had a moment of immaturity when I was speaking of forcing a battle cleric down his throat. The funny thing is that I asked him if I could play a battle cleric of the raven queen and with out a hesitation he said yes...
I just feel a paladin would be more fun to role play (I am not choosing him for his kewl powerz in fact I think the paladin is not as good as the fighter as far as defenders go)
So many of you are right, he just is wrapped up in the 3.x world he wont even buy the new books he is borrowing mine (thankfully I bought 2 sets).
Dont orcs hope for the destruction of every race? Dont drow hope to anihilate every single regular elf on the world
Hope is subjective too. And if I followed an evil deity and had a paladin of that deity protecting my temple and working for my ideals, I would be pretty happy and hopeful. Lets bring death to all, and follow our champion!
I love the way 4th edition made so much easier to create any character you want. The DM guide even say to change powers to necrotic instead of radiant and such.Why stop there? Of course in the Players handbook everything will be displayed on the good-unaligned way of seeing the world. The game is pretty much clear now that you are expected to be an hero, at least and adventurer. The evil gods tenets are not even on the PHB. When new players get tired of playing the good doers, they can always use their new experience and start playing the evil guys.
A paladin of the Raven Queen sounds awesome to me. Go around fighting undead, easing the pain of the dieing, Fighting against unnatural death. It all depends on how the player is willing to compromise and help the game table. The OP seems to be doing this very well.
If the DM has good STORY reasons to not have a Paladin of the Raven Queen, for example, the Raven Queen church being the major antagonist of the story, so be it. Dont play one them. But this DM does not sound like that. He is stuck to a preconceived notion and by the way it was described to us, he just dont want to let go of that. To throw away a very well fleshed out character concept from a good player because of your preconceptions on what a paladin MUST be does not sound good to me.
Read the new edition like you are reading D&D for the first time. Dont let the past blind you. New rules, new mindset.
About the Beacon of Hope thing.
Dont orcs hope for the destruction of every race? Dont drow hope to anihilate every single regular elf on the world
Hope is subjective too. And if I followed an evil deity and had a paladin of that deity protecting my temple and working for my ideals, I would be pretty happy and hopeful. Lets bring death to all, and follow our champion!
Erm, no, Hope (in the alignment sense) is not subjective. Its tied in with the other part of the Pally description;
Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged
their prowess to something greater than themselves.
Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster
the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a
beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured
on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos
in action.
To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly
stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with
your sword while protecting your allies with your
sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation
is pure and simple, and your devotion is your
strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the
high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation
to dissuade you from your obligations.
Soooo, pledge themselves to something greater than themselves? Doesnt sound like "It is my right to claim what others possess." (Evil) or "Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others" (Chaotic Evil) does it? Bolster the courage of companions? Hmmm evil would seduce or threaten rather than bolster. Beacon of inexaustable hope? Its rather difficult to be a beacon of hope when you are a selfish tw*t.
The Paladin, as described in the PHB, is utterly alien to Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments.
Stupid peasants blaming/lynching the paladin of the Raven Queen. Why would they? Peasants didn't lynch priests of Hades, the god of death, in ancient Greece. Nor did they priests of Set in ancient egypt.
The Greeks and Egyptians didn't view death as evil. Furthermore lynching priests of the god of death would be a really bad idea if that god had any power. You would get to go to the special underworld, and I'm not talking about Elysium (which incidentally was traditionally part of the underworld. Its where heroes and such went.). And if the Raven Queen was as creative as Hades in coming up with punishments, then you would really be screwed(push the ball up the hill. Whoops, it fell down push it up again. etc.)
So many of you are right, he just is wrapped up in the 3.x world he wont even buy the new books he is borrowing mine (thankfully I bought 2 sets).
Is he DMing 4e because he wants to or because the group wants him to? If it's the former, you have a bit of leverage against him ("all paladins are LG, eh...maybe I should take my books home...). You'd have even more leverage if you were willing to DM; "My books, my campaign, my rules!" How do the other players feel about the situation anyway?
TS
See I love them as villains, not every villain of course just some.
---
In your previous post you mentioned separators for various gods and domains (I don't even think their domains are listed in the PHB or DMG). If such an addition where to occur it would probably be in whatever power book expands the Divine Power Source. For right now the only difference is whatever changes you as the DM and/or player what to bring to the table. One of the few I remember reading is giving evil the necrosis keyword instead of the radiant one.
I love blackguard/antipaladin villains as well... my favourite part is making them very scary.
I'd certainly want to try bringing such ideas to the table, mostly because I feel gods or holy forces would grant their holy/unholy warriors with powers appropriate to their cause aim, rather than one set fits all.
Having read Facestabbing In The Name Of Your God I know that paladins can choose different abilities as they gain levels, so customising a death-themed paladin may be possible. I picture paladins of each alignment having general trends on their powers of choice.
Erm, no, Hope (in the alignment sense) is not subjective. Its tied in with the other part of the Pally description;
Soooo, pledge themselves to something greater than themselves? Doesnt sound like "It is my right to claim what others possess." (Evil) or "Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others" (Chaotic Evil) does it? Bolster the courage of companions? Hmmm evil would seduce or threaten rather than bolster. Beacon of inexaustable hope? Its rather difficult to be a beacon of hope when you are a selfish tw*t.
The Paladin, as described in the PHB, is utterly alien to Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments.
Semi-agreed. How I see it is that there is room inside evil for the Heartless Guardian type, so while evil can be shoved into the defender role that does not make it fit.
Still, as much as I hate to bring it up, there were many examples in history of thoroughly evil people who could and did bolster and bring hope. People could be and were devoted to those causes, so there is certainly room for something similar.
Having read Facestabbing In The Name Of Your God I know that paladins can choose different abilities as they gain levels, so customising a death-themed paladin may be possible. I picture paladins of each alignment having general trends on their powers of choice.
Couple ways I could see this happening. One is a simple re flavoring of the abilities to suit each god. Something like:
Holy Strike- Paladin Attack 1
You strike an enemy with your weapon, which ignites with holy light.
At-Will ✦ Divine, Radiant, Weapon
Could become
Kord's Might- Paladin Attack 1
You strike an enemy with your weapon, which resounds with strength of the Storm God
At-Will ✦ Divine, Thunder, Weapon
The prefered way I'd want to see it work would be as a mimic of the Warlock/Fighter system on powers. Warlocks are divided into Pacts (much like Clerics and Paladins are divided by Gods) if you use a power that is from your Pact chances are good that the power has a bonus, like the Fighter has with certain powers and weapons. This lets a Warlock still select any power but really only gets bonuses if the power is related to the pact/weapon.
Fearsome Smite- Paladin Attack 1
When you strike a foe with your weapon, the force of the blow causes him to shudder and second-guess his tactics.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Fear, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage. Until the end of your next turn, the target takes a penalty to attack rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Sehanine, Raven Queen: The penalty to the target's attack rolls last for one round longer.
Shielding Smite Paladin Attack 1
A translucent golden shield forms in front of a nearby ally as you attack with your weapon.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, one ally within 5 squares of you gains a power bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Bahamut, Pelor, Moradin:The bonus to the target's AC last for one round longer.
Now you may not agree with the Gods I selected, I didn't really put to much thought into them, and the bonus to those is simply +1 round duration (not alot) but they are level one and a simple example.
Still, as much as I hate to bring it up, there were many examples in history of thoroughly evil people who could and did bolster and bring hope. People could be and were devoted to those causes, so there is certainly room for something similar.
Many more bringing False Hope to the people. Even if they are going it for there own selfish/egotistical reasons the people believe in them to the very end. The devil that walks as a preacher to lead you to damnation as it were.
Couple ways I could see this happening. One is a simple re flavoring of the abilities to suit each god. Something like:
Holy Strike- Paladin Attack 1
You strike an enemy with your weapon, which ignites with holy light.
At-Will ✦ Divine, Radiant, Weapon
Could become
Kord's Might- Paladin Attack 1
You strike an enemy with your weapon, which resounds with strength of the Storm God
At-Will ✦ Divine, Thunder, Weapon
The prefered way I'd want to see it work would be as a mimic of the Warlock/Fighter system on powers. Warlocks are divided into Pacts (much like Clerics and Paladins are divided by Gods) if you use a power that is from your Pact chances are good that the power has a bonus, like the Fighter has with certain powers and weapons. This lets a Warlock still select any power but really only gets bonuses if the power is related to the pact/weapon.
Fearsome Smite- Paladin Attack 1
When you strike a foe with your weapon, the force of the blow causes him to shudder and second-guess his tactics.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Fear, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage. Until the end of your next turn, the target takes a penalty to attack rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Sehanine, Raven Queen: The penalty to the target's attack rolls last for one round longer.
Shielding Smite Paladin Attack 1
A translucent golden shield forms in front of a nearby ally as you attack with your weapon.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, one ally within 5 squares of you gains a power bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Bahamut, Pelor, Moradin:The bonus to the target's AC last for one round longer.
Now you may not agree with the Gods I selected, I didn't really put to much thought into them, and the bonus to those is simply +1 round duration (not alot) but they are level one and a simple example.
Many more bringing False Hope to the people. Even if they are going it for there own selfish/egotistical reasons the people believe in them to the very end. The devil that walks as a preacher to lead you to damnation as it were.
Everything there sounds perfect! I like those ideas.
One reason I only added the +1 round duration was those effects are pretty balanced if you wanted the Power Creep to be bigger you would need to change the baseline effect. The problem with this is that there aren't many powers to tinker with (unless you have multiple gods have multiple effects maybe).
While I do like this idea, and feel that every Divine Power Source should have something like it.
An alternate way allowing the Channel Divinity to effect it more could be:
Fearsome Smite Paladin Attack 1
When you strike a foe with your weapon, the force of the blow causes him to shudder and second-guess his tactics.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Fear, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage. Until the end of your next turn, the target receives a -1 penalty to attack rolls.
Sehanine: The illusions are cast and the Goddess power descents onto the target causing them to question everything. The duration received from this power is increased to 1 + Wis Modifier and ends at the end of your turn for that round.
Raven Queen: Deaths claims all and the fear of death is all consuming causing the target to question everything. The penalty received from this power is increased to 1 + Wis Modifier and ends at the end of your next turn.
This would open it to multiple gods and be more interesting (in my opinion) but the amount of time needed to do this and make sure each go gets enough 'screen time' would be a pain.
Semi-agreed. How I see it is that there is room inside evil for the Heartless Guardian type, so while evil can be shoved into the defender role that does not make it fit.
Still, as much as I hate to bring it up, there were many examples in history of thoroughly evil people who could and did bolster and bring hope. People could be and were devoted to those causes, so there is certainly room for something similar.
Did those (allegedly) evil people from history serve as a beacon of hope, or did they just con people for a while - I'd suggest the second is not part of the paladin's make-up....
But with 4E You can just be a good/unalgin Paladin
Normaly good people have more friends and all.
Evil people did have friends and such but much lower in numbers then good people most of the time evil ppl would kill each other in there sleep if it meant gain and all. or at least abuse each other if they fear the law or such or do the best they can to harm / hurt each other if they can get away with it.
As such Evil people are worse for wear. i mean look at it this way
Good people have been around and like 90% of the time if not more we dont realy do anything but go on with our lifes.
And 90% of the time evil ppl spent is trying to hurt each other gain profit and do other evil things.
so considering good in a large scale is only doing a few things 10% of the time and it has so far PREVENTED Evil to dominate the land.
Then hell Good is much better then evil just think what good people doing if they spent more then 10% on a whole to stop crime and all.
Note as a WHOLE not talking about the cop whos job is to stop this and all. im talking on whole not just LG or such.
i mean even the netrual guys dont bother the evil much and still evil has yet to take over the planet. sure there are evil cults in D&D or RL and such. w/e.
But hey i am not kissing anyones boots and such and i do not have to do any of that stuff. So Evil as a Whole has had HOW LONG? to make me into a slave or w/e?
To long.
In short evil kinda sucks in the long run in my mind. might be intrusting short run but w/e.
And LG Paladins a fine.
Good paladins are just fine.
Alagin paladins are just fine
Evil paladins kinda suck. They might make a good menace or rampage the level 1 Village as there level 20 self. but you never see the evil paladin taking on multibol goodies of his level or such do you?.
No.
You see the Fighter (Example) of goodness rampageing though hordes of Evil kobolts. you see alot of stuff where good is allways outnumberd and such.
so LG Good / unaligin can just be fine big whoop.
Evil however just sucks long term. im surprize the drow havnt killed them selfs yet. i mean what is there birth rate? and dont like even 3 year old drow kill each other off? I mean they should have a negitive kill number vs Birth...
But hey this is D&D Fantasy and all. they could magicol make babys and such who cares.
Its DM Choice and all realy.
But ya Just becouse your not a LG paladin dosnt mean its realy all that bad.
Did those (allegedly) evil people from history serve as a beacon of hope, or did they just con people for a while - I'd suggest the second is not part of the paladin's make-up....
Who says they are mutually exclusive options? Just because the hope is false doesn't mean the villain can't be a beacon of it.
Which would make an interesting philosophy for a fallen paladin. I think I have a BBEG forming...
Traditionaly, evil PC characters had always been at least discouraged, if not banned by the books. Or DM disalow Evil characters.
-- DMG p 186
The core rule books certainly assume the possibility of a Paladin of the Raven Queen to be more than possible.
The core rule books certainly assume the possibility of a Paladin of the Raven Queen to be more than possible.
And Bane is flat out listed has having them:
Bane is the evil god of war and conquest. Militaristic nations of humans and goblins serve him and conquer in his name. Evil fighters and paladins serve him.
So we got good gods having them, unaligned and evil the whole plate.
For the record, I agree the character concept behind a paladin of the Raven Queen is very neat. Where I think there is an issue is that many players & DMs don't want it to be the same thing as the traditional Lawful Good paladin.
Basically, by diversifying 'paladin' so much, being a paladin is far less meaningful. Instead of evoking the sense of a beacon of hope, valiant defender of the weak and innocent, and all-around hero, it becomes 'just another class'. Same way as 'fighter' means pretty much anyone who fights.
Hear, Hear!
This basically sums it up right here. The Paladin class as seen by many is a special and unique class and not "just another class" I think from a Roleplaying standpoint this is true and as it should be.
Not to straight jacket the Paladin, but the requirments of the Paladin class has always been such that to play one nearly always meant discussing it with the DM first and ensuring such a character is suitable for the DM's game and of course the party.
Not all Players, Games or Parties were suitable for a Paladin. And in part the heavy allignment restriction that it carried served to prevent a Paladin from entering where they were ill suited, such as with a party of evil PCs.
Rightly many DMs should be worried about the effects of loosinging up those restrictions. With the removal of a strict allignment restriction come the availability of the class to be played where it shouldn't.
For example, as is often sited and complained about, are those who abuse Neutral (or I should say unaligned) and play to such an extreme as to really be evil characters. Now such a player would be prevented from playing a Paladin simply because the allignment restriction would quickly solve the problem.
Now there is a danger, a very real danger, of such players being able to choose a Paladin and be Unaligned, with a god such as the Raven Queen. And although many are no doubt fair and intent upon playing the Paladin properly, there are others who will play the extreme of "unaligned" and play what amounts to as-near-to-being-totally-evil-and-unredeemable-as-possible under the claim of being unaligned and following the tenents (as they define them) of the Raven Queen.
Under the rules in third there was no rule against a PC choosing a Cleric worshiping an Evil God, but does that mean the DM shouldn't say "um no, Clerics must worship Good or Neutral Gods only" and preventing the players from doing so? The answer is Yes and in general it's advised that the Evil allignment be restricted.
Now historically there has always been the Evil opposite to the Good Paladin. King Author vs Mordred for example, the Shadow Knight or Death Knight or more relevant the BlackGuard in the DM's Guide in third.
But can does not mean you Should. The Paladin class should be generally withheld as a chossable Class unless it is a compatible choice with the Player, the DM's Game and of course the party. The DM shouldn't let just any player in any game be a Paladin and this has always been the case.
It boils down to this, and relevant to the allignment question here. The DM should be very careful before allowing a Paladin of an Unaligned Deity into his game dependent upon his story, the party in general and specifically the Player in question. Because being Unaligned frees up the PC's choices considerably there is consequently much more need for the DM to ensure the Player will handle the character properly and not abuse or stretch the credibility of his allignment to the extreme.
Even an Unaligned Paladin should be a paragon of virtue and a shining example, you don't need to be good specifically to do this, after all Valor, bravery, chivilry and honor can be prized by the Unaligned just as much as Good and Lawful Good. An Unaligned Paladin should be no more willing nor able to do an action that is Evil then a Lawful Good Paladin. The only differenceis where a Good Paladin's goal is Good (for Good's sake) an Unaligned Paladin's goals will be more practical. (and perhaps have less moral debates because of not being altruistically good, such as not killing off all the evil Goblins because a few of them might be unaligned)
Unaligned=/=weak, uncaring, etc...
Paladins are a bit all... more or less enthusiast. Fanatical, in extreme cases.
Why not with something like her, in a 'cold' (pun semi-intended) way? you are like the goddess - you are death. You serves it without question.
Like a samurai - 'he who serves'.
So you have bad players... that is the simple truth. Punishing others for their failures is cruel. I could bring up many example for each class where I have seen players get out of control one way or another. Yet no DM I know has punished the other players for that they just kicked the problem player and moved on.
Instead of forcing players to play strict alignment restrictions maybe listen to them (don't let them play evil characters if that messes you up) but try out a new look on a class, you may learn something and maybe have fun.
Remember this is a game of creativity, some of my best campaigns came from players ideas for a character or their backgrounds. So don't smack ideas down because "I'm the dm and what I say goes" it just make players upset...
The whole mindset of the Paladin is firmly rooted in Lawful Good (that's 4th Ed LG, not a flashback to previous generations), making the notion of non-LG ones actually quite jarring with the basic concept.
Sticking to the old restrictions of past editions of dnd just limits player creativity. As long your not stopping anyone from having fun why should you be stopped from playing a fun and creative character that is allowed by the rules.
Also to everyone saying that the "historic" Paladin was Lawful Good I say bunk. The term Paladin comes from the Palatine Hill in Ancient Rome, where they acted as Palace guards. An interesting historic fact about Roman house guards is that they often killed the person they were supposed to protect. That doesn't sound very LG to me.
Lastly, I didn't wish to derail the thread but wanted to discuss the misconceptions of the Raven Queen so I started another thread if anyone is interested.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1059012
The section on why to play a tiefling has a note about wanting to OVERCOME the dark side, not join up with it and have lots of fun.
Of course, the race description says that not all tieflings turned away from the dark side, but of course the same thing exists for paladins, saying that all sorts of paladins exist.
And how come paladins of a god have to be all goody goody, honorable boy scouts, while a cleric of the same faith can choose to bend the rules?
And how come a paladin is an embodiment of their god? Whats a cleric then? Just some guy waving around a holy symbol and happens to channel more divine energy then the paladin?
Apparently, if you just worship the gods and get all of your power from them, they give you a break and you don't have to uphold a code of honor, while they make the silly crusaders, knights and paladins do such.
And if a player is being disruptive to a game by playing evil when the character sheet says "Unaligned Paladin", the answer is NOT to bend the rules to disappoint the player. So what if neutral paladins played by idiots are going to act badly? So will a wizard. Or a fighter. The class isn't going to stop them, and it will always be an issue with ANY class, and most non-evil alignments.
But if you can't trust a player to play responsible, the best thing to do is clear communication, and talk to the player about how you would like to run an non-evil campaign. Changing the rules isn't going to work, the problem player(If they exist, I am not talking about the OP) will simply do it with another player, and feel unfairly treated as the rules were changed JUST to stop them from doing a legit build because the DM SAID SO.
For a paladin they should not be sitting around wondering what is a lawful good action or what is a good action so they know what they can do. They should be focusing on thier gods tenets before even considering what is good and evil. They are agents of a god not an alignment.
As for for the comment that unaligned being pleged to someting greater is an oxymoron, unaligned just means they are undecided about good and evil or they don't care about good and evil. They care only about thier gods will. A paladin of Erathis could be devoted to protecting a small village from the wilderness or attempting to reclaim a ruined city from the wilderness to be inhabitable again. These actions could be considered good but they are still an unaligned view because they are not doing it becuase it is good but they are doing it to further thier beliefs or cause.
As for for the comment that unaligned being pleged to someting greater is an oxymoron, unaligned just means they are undecided about good and evil or they don't care about good and evil. They care only about thier gods will. A paladin of Erathis could be devoted to protecting a small village from the wilderness or attempting to reclaim a ruined city from the wilderness to be inhabitable again. These actions could be considered good but they are still an unaligned view because they are not doing it becuase it is good but they are doing it to further thier beliefs or cause.
Thank you this is what I mean... a unaligned paladin should not care about good or evil, law or chaos they are they right hands of their gods and their gods will is all that matters.
I'm still having a bit of trouble getting past the principle of Paladins that has them as "indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves... protecting [their] allies with [their] sacrifice"(PHB page 89). This is not even really compatible with Good, never mind Un, Evil and CE - simply put, the notions of something greater than yourself is HIGHLY out of sync with Evil and CE (to Evil alignments, NOTHING is "greater than themselves"), and not really in keeping with Good or Unaligned (how can you be "unaligned" AND "pledged...to something greater" - that's oxymoronic).
The whole mindset of the Paladin is firmly rooted in Lawful Good (that's 4th Ed LG, not a flashback to previous generations), making the notion of non-LG ones actually quite jarring with the basic concept.
I would say an evil god or demon lord is greater than the evil priest or unholy warrior, and the priest/blackguard could see that too. They may be serving for reward or for a personal sense of purpose, or 'reflective greatness' (becoming great by attatching themselves to the god) but they remain pledged to a more powerful being.
Alternative is the religious fanatic who identifies with something, and therefore is obsessed with sword-point conversion, not because it is right but because it is their faith. Now they are pledged to their religion, but at the same time motivated by selfish aims. The gap between "It is my right to claim what others possess" and "It is my right to dictate what others bow down to" is not all that large.
Unaligned and pledged to something greater = pledged to something seperate from morality, eg: the Raven Queen.
Now since the word "paladin" has had Basic D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition & 3.5 Edition of being associated with the heroic ideal, I think we should keep the word associated with that. But the same basic class applies to Crusaders/Blackguards/Champions of faith.
I would say an evil god or demon lord is greater than the evil priest or unholy warrior, and the priest/blackguard could see that too. They may be serving for reward or for a personal sense of purpose, or 'reflective greatness' (becoming great by attatching themselves to the god) but they remain pledged to a more powerful being.
I would have thought most folks would realise that when the term is used as it is in the Paladin description, "serving something greater than yourself", it does not simply refer to "more powerful", but rather is refering to something "given greater value than the self/selfish".
The gap between "It is my right to claim what others possess" and "It is my right to dictate what others bow down to" is not all that large.
Indeed....but that still does not gell with the description of a Paladin
Unaligned and pledged to something greater = pledged to something seperate from morality, eg: the Raven Queen.
The Raven Queen is not "seperate from morality", she is simply part-way between selfless service and selfish predation; displaying a moral code of her own.
I would have thought most folks would realise that when the term is used as it is in the Paladin description, "serving something greater than yourself", it does not simply refer to "more powerful", but rather is refering to something "given greater value than the self/selfish".
It is totally possible for someone to serve someone out of selfish aims. An evil paladin might defend people while they are summoning a god back to the earth because he believes that the god is going to give him something for it even if he dies, and he will be in a better position. It works fine.
It is totally possible for someone to serve someone out of selfish aims. An evil paladin might defend people while they are summoning a god back to the earth because he believes that the god is going to give him something for it even if he dies, and he will be in a better position. It works fine.
However, that isnt what the
pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope.
says, or means, is it.
They blast foes with magical prayers, bolster and heal companions, and lead the way to victory with a mace in one hand and a holy symbol in the other.
Curious do all your clerics wield one handed maces to?
I would have thought most folks would realise that when the term is used as it is in the Paladin description, "serving something greater than yourself", it does not simply refer to "more powerful", but rather is refering to something "given greater value than the self/selfish".
Indeed....but that still does not gell with the description of a Paladin
The Raven Queen is not "seperate from morality", she is simply part-way between selfless service and selfish predation; displaying a moral code of her own.
1 - That is circular logic. Using purely the Lawful Good definition of greater as evidence that paladins are only Lawful Good. According to an evil cleric or blackguard "more powerful" can mean the same thing as "greater".
2 - Nor does it contradict it, unless everything paladin-related is forcibly interpreted to Lawful Good.
3 - Or rather, that something can be Unaligned on the moral scale and still pledged to her for reasons other than morality.
Also...
pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope.
Doesn't mean you can't expect a reward from it. Reflective glory/greatness. Even evil people can want to be part of something more than mortal.
Also saying an unaligned paladin will act evil is is odd to me... an unaligned paladin should act... unaligned not evil, not good if a player is out of control acting evil the DM has every right to punish them... A player who uses unaligned as a way to act evil is obviously immature and someone I would not want at my table... And a DM should not punish all players for the acts of the immature.
So you have bad players... that is the simple truth. Punishing others for their failures is cruel. I could bring up many example for each class where I have seen players get out of control one way or another. Yet no DM I know has punished the other players for that they just kicked the problem player and moved on.
It is not about "bad" players. It is about Players that are not suited for a certain role. Remember that a Paladin should be living by a higher standard then a regular PC and that what might be a perfectly acceptable action to others would be absoutely unaceptable to a Paladin of the same allignment.
And respectfully, if you believe that Unaligned is neither Evil nor Good, then you have the alignment wrong for a Paladin. This is what I mean, a Paladin requires more then normal to be in a game, which is why a DM should never allow any Paladin unless they are compatible with the player, the setting and the party, moreso for Unaligned Paladins.
I will cite an old, outdated example. Clerics in third could be Nuetral, but that didn't mean they were neither Good nor Evil, such a Cleric would have to decide which side of the fence they were on. Specifically and mechanically a Neutral Cleric would have to choose between Rebuke/Turn Undead and Spontaneous Casting Heal/Harm spells.
The only difference between a Lawful Good, Good and UNaligned Paladin will be in objectivity. The Unaligned Paladin will not be Neutral between Good and Evil, rather I would say he would be opposed to Evil, but not neccesarily inclined to do good for Good's sake either.
1 - That is circular logic. Using purely the Lawful Good definition of greater as evidence that paladins are only Lawful Good. According to an evil cleric or blackguard "more powerful" can mean the same thing as "greater".
No, it starts with the definition of the Paladin itself.
Doesn't mean you can't expect a reward from it. Reflective glory/greatness. Even evil people can want to be part of something more than mortal.
You are changing the terminology there; its not an issue of being part of something more than mortal but rather of seeing something more important than yourself and being willing to sacrifice for it ("pledged ... to something greater than themselves ... protecting [their] allies with [their] sacrifice")...which is generally opposed to the nature of Evil ("It is my right to claim what others possess. ...[and I will]....support institutional structures that give [me] power") and is diametrically and utterly opposed to Chaotic Evil, which "believes he or she is the only being that matters".
No, it starts with the definition of the Paladin itself.
You are changing the terminology there; its not an issue of being part of something more than mortal but rather of seeing something more important than yourself and being willing to sacrifice for it ("pledged ... to something greater than themselves ... protecting [their] allies with [their] sacrifice")...which is generally opposed to the nature of Evil ("It is my right to claim what others possess. ...[and I will]....support institutional structures that give [me] power") and is diametrically and utterly opposed to Chaotic Evil, which "believes he or she is the only being that matters".
1 - "It" being your personal interpretation? Circular reasoning - "Paladins are Lawful Good because of XYZ in their description, which means this because Paladins are Lawful Good." In effect, that case requires working from the assumption/premise that paladins are Lawful Good in order to show that Paladins are Lawful Good.
Establish that premise first and then I will be able to accept your case, but currently both the premise and conclusion depend on each other. Evidence must be independantly valid to rule out other options.
2 - This assumes Evil has no personality outside of "memememememe". What of a religious fanatic "convert now or die by my sword heathen" who uses terror, torture and brutality to force others to join his church? Would that count as evil? Still, he's acknowledging the existance of something greater than himself and is serving it, probably sacrificing for it as a matter of fact.
I agree that evil paladins would be a non-standard form of evil, but nothing prevents evil characters from seeking to justify their actions by some bizarre self-serving logic. Alignments are not 1-dimensional.
1 - "It" being your personal interpretation? Circular reasoning - "Paladins are Lawful Good because of XYZ in their description, which means this because Paladins are Lawful Good." In effect, that case requires working from the assumption/premise that paladins are Lawful Good in order to show that Paladins are Lawful Good.
Erm, no.
The Paladin's description only fits with LG. The class' central precepts are alien to all the other alignments.
2 - This assumes Evil has no personality outside of "memememememe". What of a religious fanatic "convert now or die by my sword heathen" who uses terror, torture and brutality to force others to join his church? Would that count as evil? Still, he's acknowledging the existance of something greater than himself and is serving it, probably sacrificing for it as a matter of fact.
You dont get it do you. The D&D alignment system in 4e references selfishness not "terror, torture and brutality". That may or may not be a sign of a poorly thought out alignment (a thread in itself :D ) but that is what we are working with. The Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments in D&D4 are predicated on the concept of egotism and so have no place for (in their mind daft) notions of being less important than something or someone else.
They are selfish. Its not like you can't get something out of following a god(selfishness). They might not view the god as really having any right to their servitude(that would be the egotism there), but they serve to gain power and reputation and such(selfishness again). The paladin class works fine with this.
Is it a language thing? Is it that, in some parts of the world, "pledging yourself to something greater.....[and] sacrificing yourself for your allies" is found under "selfish egotistical tw*t" in some dictionaries. I've yet to see any but apparently there are some
You dont get it do you. The D&D alignment system in 4e references selfishness not "terror, torture and brutality". That may or may not be a sign of a poorly thought out alignment (a thread in itself :D ) but that is what we are working with.
Well maybe you should work with something else then. A broader definition of Evil, for example.
TS
PS: Sorry for being so snarky but I just don't have any patience for people who can't wrap their head around a new concept and yet tell others that "they don't get it."
Is it a language thing? Is it that, in some parts of the world, "pledging yourself to something greater.....[and] sacrificing yourself for your allies" is found under "selfish egotistical tw*t" in some dictionaries. I've yet to see any but apparently there are some
Pledging yourself to something greater could be means to selfish ends. Sacrificinc yourself for your allies might be a show of devotion which gets you a place at your gods side. At a gods side is a very nice place to be, and it comes with a lot of power. If you have trouble seeing this, its not my fault. Maybe your parents dropped you as a kid on an hourly basis. Maybe you already decided and are too proud to consider an alternate opinion. Maybe your insulting my intelligence to hide a lack on your part. Or maybe you had a bad day and decided to take it out on some random person on the forums rather than adhering to a modicum of politeness.
Pledging yourself to something greater could be means to selfish ends.
Sacrificinc yourself for your allies might be a show of devotion which gets you a place at your gods side. At a gods side is a very nice place to be, and it comes with a lot of power.
The key point though, is that Evil and Chaotic Evil do not recognise a greater something. As CE explicitly put it, "Each believes he or she is the only being that matters". I cannot see how Chaotic Evil could be any more explicitly opposed to the notion of a greater (ie: more important) 'something'.
Further, Chaotic Evil would consider "protecting your allies with your sacrifice" to be nonsense, as Chaotic Evil, again explicitly, states that they have "a complete disregard for others". This is utterly opposite the idea of "protecting your allies with your sacrifice" as someone who "believes he or she is the only being that matters" would not "sacrifce" themselves.
Oh, and apparently sacrificing yourself, but in truth making it a manipulative act to achieve more power, is *not* sacrificing yourself.
Sacrificinc yourself for your allies might be a show of devotion which gets you a place at your gods side. At a gods side is a very nice place to be, and it comes with a lot of power. If you have trouble seeing this, its not my fault. Maybe your parents dropped you as a kid on an hourly basis. Maybe you already decided and are too proud to consider an alternate opinion. Maybe your insulting my intelligence to hide a lack on your part. Or maybe you had a bad day and decided to take it out on some random person on the forums rather than adhering to a modicum of politeness.
Sorry, I probably should not have been so sarcastic, its been one of *those* weeks
They are selfish. Its not like you can't get something out of following a god(selfishness). They might not view the god as really having any right to their servitude(that would be the egotism there), but they serve to gain power and reputation and such(selfishness again). The paladin class works fine with this.
A Paladin doesn't choose to become a Paladin in that sense, not everyone can be Paladins, no matter how much they meet the needed criteria.
Rather the reverse is the case, a Paladin is "called" by their deity, the only choise a Paladin can make is to refuse that calling.
Pledging oneself to a cause is not for self gain. A Paladin uses the powers he gains to further the cause of his deity, he devotes the power and reputation he gains to further that cause.
For example, his reputation to influence others to follow his example and his deities ways.
A Paladin who beleived his Deity wasn't worth his service and who was in it for selfish reasons would fall fast and hard, and certainly such a selfish individual would never be called in the first place.
The key point though, is that Evil and Chaotic Evil do not recognise a greater something. As CE explicitly put it, "Each believes he or she is the only being that matters". I cannot see how Chaotic Evil could be any more explicitly opposed to the notion of a greater (ie: more important) 'something'.
Unlike a Good deity, an Evil Diety would no doubt welcome such a selfish servent, indeed such a deity might even encourage such attitudes, tempting his Paladin with power, fame and riches etc etc
And Third edition did have Evil "Paladins" only they were called Blackguards in the DM's Guide. The problem however is the Paladin, as described in the PHB, and his abilities are centered around the Heroic, Good Paladin.
Evil Clerics and Evil Paladins (under different titles such as Blackguard, Shadow Knight etc), while they can exist would most certainly have different abilitys. Classic example is Harm or Death Touch instead of Lay on Hands for the evil version of the Paladin. The flavour in the PHB doesn't lend itself to Evil and non-heroic characters.
As for the Unaligned Paladin, yes Paladins should be heroic and a shining example to others. Thus, as I have said before an Unaligned Paladin would be best compared to a Neutral Cleric from third eddition who had to choose between Spontaneous casting Heals (good) or Inflict (evil) and Turn Undead (good) or rebuke Undead (evil) An Unaligned Paladin would favour Good over Evil
Unlike a Good deity, an Evil Diety would no doubt welcome such a selfish servent, indeed such a deity might even encourage such attitudes, tempting his Paladin with power, fame and riches etc etc
And Third edition did have Evil "Paladins" only they were called Blackguards in the DM's Guide. The problem however is the Paladin, as described in the PHB, and his abilities are centered around the Heroic, Good Paladin.
Evil Clerics and Evil Paladins (under different titles such as Blackguard, Shadow Knight etc), while they can exist would most certainly have different abilitys. Classic example is Harm or Death Touch instead of Lay on Hands for the evil version of the Paladin. The flavour in the PHB doesn't lend itself to Evil and non-heroic characters.
As for the Unaligned Paladin, yes Paladins should be heroic and a shining example to others. Thus, as I have said before an Unaligned Paladin would be best compared to a Neutral Cleric from third eddition who had to choose between Spontaneous casting Heals (good) or Inflict (evil) and Turn Undead (good) or rebuke Undead (evil) An Unaligned Paladin would favour Good over Evil
I dont doubt the place of the Blackguard...I just look at the description of the paladin and their role and see it is at odds with Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments....
I dont doubt the place of the Blackguard...I just look at the description of the paladin and their role and see it is at odds with Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments....
So just call evil paladins in your game blackguards and have their powers deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.
TS
So just call evil paladins in your game blackguards and have their powers deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.
Which is what I think the suggestion 3 pages ago was (maybe 2 pages).
And respectfully, if you believe that Unaligned is neither Evil nor Good, then you have the alignment wrong for a Paladin. This is what I mean, a Paladin requires more then normal to be in a game, which is why a DM should never allow any Paladin unless they are compatible with the player, the setting and the party, moreso for Unaligned Paladins.
I understand your position and maybe I am wrong but I think the best paladins would be unaligned. It takes more then normal to look past what the mortals see as good and bad, and honestly a gods may also view it differently then a mortal would.
It is easy to play a lawful good paladin but it takes something else to play a paladin that can see the truth. Good and evil can be subjective, a group could hear of goblins in a abandoned keep not hurting any one but since goblins are evil a most lawful good paladins would join a group to attack them and clear them out. Maybe the goblins were trying to get away from their violent kin.
The world is more then black and white and an unaligned paladin realizes that,
there are some true evils in the world and an unaligned would fight those (an unaligned would prefer to be ruled by a good king then an evil one).
Don't get me wrong I do respect your views it just seems like we see 2 totally different ways
Erm, no.
The Paladin's description only fits with LG. The class' central precepts are alien to all the other alignments.
You dont get it do you. The D&D alignment system in 4e references selfishness not "terror, torture and brutality". That may or may not be a sign of a poorly thought out alignment (a thread in itself :D ) but that is what we are working with. The Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments in D&D4 are predicated on the concept of egotism and so have no place for (in their mind daft) notions of being less important than something or someone else.
1 - "Because I said so" is not a convincing case. The class' central precepts favour LG, that is not the same as excluding everything else. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not claim that Good is incompatable with the paladin precepts when you say "all the other alignments". If I am mistaken please point out how Good is incompatable with the paladin precepts.
However, the claim that Paladins are only appropriate for Lawful Good is only supported by evidence that is dependant on the claim that paladins are LG only beingalready established and accepted.
2 - What I don't get how gaining hurting others and taking advantage of their weakness (in this case inability to defend themselves) in order to dominate them (gaining power over them at the expense of their freedom), supporting their church (an institutional structure which gives them power)... is anything less than textbook Evil Alignment.
Also, an excerpt from Chaotic Evil...
Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly contribute to their interests.
A campaign of religious torture/terror/brutality fits the description of "destroying anything and anyone that doesn't directly contribute to their interests" (by joining their church).
It is easy to play a lawful good paladin but it takes something else to play a paladin that can see the truth. Good and evil can be subjective, a group could hear of goblins in a abandoned keep not hurting any one but since goblins are evil a most lawful good paladins would join a group to attack them and clear them out. Maybe the goblins were trying to get away from their violent kin.
Peaceful goblins are presumably non-evil, probably unaligned or Good. I disagree with examples such as these because they depend on an Evil alignment being applied where it clearly doesn't fit.
Now if the goblins are peaceful purely from circumstance, then that would be different, but the goblins would be willing to take advantage of any others they find vulnerable.
So just call evil paladins in your game blackguards and have their powers deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.
TS
....and give them a different role description as well :D
Soooo make them a different class
;)....and give them a different role description as well :D
Soooo make them a different class
A class is a mechanical concept. A pre-packaged set of abilities. You can reflavour the class fluff any way you want. The paladin class is just a defender with the divine power source. No more, no less.
A class is a mechanical concept. A pre-packaged set of abilities. You can reflavour the class fluff any way you want. The paladin class is just a defender with the divine power source. No more, no less.
1, A lot of us actually still associate the Paladin with a hero knight
2, The basic description, as I have repeatedly shown, is at odds with alignments other than LG (and is especially opposed to the values of CE).
3, They could just as easily have made a "Dark Knight" class with abilities and context suited to the (egotistic) values of the Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments.
Its steamroller editing to push it all into the paladin (especially with the alleged darkening of the overall game repeatedly discussed on here)
1, A lot of us actually still associate the Paladin with a hero knight
Doesn't matter. All that matters is what your DM says.
2, The basic description, as I have repeatedly shown, is at odds with alignments other than LG (and is especially opposed to the values of CE).
And the description for the Blackguard is somehow the same as the Paladins? Remember he is talking about removing the description and adding the Blackguard's in that place. All he is keeping the mechanical bits but every roleplaying bit of information is changed. He is resetting the Paladin back the its mechanical core, the Divine Defender and instead of whatever fluff is there it now is geared towards the Blackguard. That right there changes the description and drops pretty much every point you raised as I believe none of them exist in the mechanics.
3, They could just as easily have made a "Dark Knight" class with abilities and context suited to the (egotistic) values of the Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments.
What would be the point? Paladins can't be played evil, clerics require you to ask for permission to play evil so why would they add a class to the game that probably will not be played. Given that you can just re-flavor the Paladin to want you want.
1, A lot of us actually still associate the Paladin with a hero knight
See, this is where we differ. A hero knight is an archetype. A person can also play a hero knight using the fighter class or the warlord class. The paladin is just one way of expressing the hero knight. Just as you don't have to be in the paladin class to be a knight, you shouldn't have to be restricted into playing a paladin class only as a hero knight archetype. Class =/= archetype.
An offering from OoTS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
I understand your position and maybe I am wrong but I think the best paladins would be unaligned. It takes more then normal to look past what the mortals see as good and bad, and honestly a gods may also view it differently then a mortal would.
It is easy to play a lawful good paladin but it takes something else to play a paladin that can see the truth. Good and evil can be subjective, a group could hear of goblins in a abandoned keep not hurting any one but since goblins are evil a most lawful good paladins would join a group to attack them and clear them out. Maybe the goblins were trying to get away from their violent kin.
The world is more then black and white and an unaligned paladin realizes that,
there are some true evils in the world and an unaligned would fight those (an unaligned would prefer to be ruled by a good king then an evil one).
Don't get me wrong I do respect your views it just seems like we see 2 totally different ways
That is a good example with the Goblins. Simply being Evil creatures may be enough for a Good or Lawful Good Paladin. Whereas an Unaligned Paladin would be unconcerned so long as the Goblins posed no threat to innocents. It's Goblin territory and only a fool would go there unarmed, would be his opinion.
But by and large an Unaligned Paladin would be more apt to behave like the Good Paladins. He might not champion the cause of Good specifically, but neither will he abide evil. Should the above goblins pose a threat, even a potential threat to a nearby community, the Unaligned Paladin would hunt them down just like the good Paladins.
And it comes right down to the flavour in the PHB. The Paladin in the book regardless of being Good, Lawful Good or Unaligned, have chosen the good path. Much like third's Neutral Cleric choosing to Cast Heals and Turn Undead (instead of the evil counterpart) The Unaligned Paladin has opted to be on Good's side. Even if not blindly commited like the LG and G Paladins, an Unaligned Paladin would at no point commit an evil deed.
True you could technically have the Unaligned Paladin who opted for the more harsh side (as the N Cleric who chooses inflict and rebuke) however the book really doesn't have the evil version of the Paladin's abilities available, so the Paladin in the book should not be played nor was intended to be played in an evil manner whatsoever.
And this is what you should approach your DM with, an Unaligned Paladin should not be a potential for concern, but a heroic character just like the Lawful Good Paladin. The book doesn't contain the flavour needed for an evil Paladin.
True you could technically have the Unaligned Paladin who opted for the more harsh side (as the N Cleric who chooses inflict and rebuke) however the book really doesn't have the evil version of the Paladin's abilities available, so the Paladin in the book should not be played nor was intended to be played in an evil manner whatsoever.
Given that Evil Paladins can not be PCs and that NPCs are written as templates I doubt this will happen. If a book comes out to give Clerics more flavor to fit with there God (or even Domains) I would hope that they would do the same with the Paladin at that point. If such a thing did happen, it would most likely occur in the Divine Power Sourcebook, or possibly even PHB II.
That is a good example with the Goblins. Simply being Evil creatures may be enough for a Good or Lawful Good Paladin. Whereas an Unaligned Paladin would be unconcerned so long as the Goblins posed no threat to innocents. It's Goblin territory and only a fool would go there unarmed, would be his opinion.
But by and large an Unaligned Paladin would be more apt to behave like the Good Paladins. He might not champion the cause of Good specifically, but neither will he abide evil. Should the above goblins pose a threat, even a potential threat to a nearby community, the Unaligned Paladin would hunt them down just like the good Paladins.
And it comes right down to the flavour in the PHB. The Paladin in the book regardless of being Good, Lawful Good or Unaligned, have chosen the good path. Much like third's Neutral Cleric choosing to Cast Heals and Turn Undead (instead of the evil counterpart) The Unaligned Paladin has opted to be on Good's side. Even if not blindly commited like the LG and G Paladins, an Unaligned Paladin would at no point commit an evil deed.
True you could technically have the Unaligned Paladin who opted for the more harsh side (as the N Cleric who chooses inflict and rebuke) however the book really doesn't have the evil version of the Paladin's abilities available, so the Paladin in the book should not be played nor was intended to be played in an evil manner whatsoever.
And this is what you should approach your DM with, an Unaligned Paladin should not be a potential for concern, but a heroic character just like the Lawful Good Paladin. The book doesn't contain the flavor needed for an evil Paladin.
Thank you this was my whole point with playing an unaligned paladin, he would act in a good fashion but see beyond "goblins are evil lets kill them all" (not sure were the talk of evil ones came up).
We agree at last, I thank you for all your input you helped me see where he was coming from and gave me plenty (hopefully) to convince him.
1, A lot of us actually still associate the Paladin with a hero knight
And a lot of us have given up archaically specific definitions of classes.
2, The basic description, as I have repeatedly shown, is at odds with alignments other than LG (and is especially opposed to the values of CE).
The only thing that you've repeatedly shown is that you have an obsessive compulsion to misrepresent your opinion as fact.
3, They could just as easily have made a "Dark Knight" class with abilities and context suited to the (egotistic) values of the Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments.
But instead they chose to use that page space for something worthwhile to a large portion of the gaming population, rather than wasting page space on a second and largely unnecessary divine defender.
Its steamroller editing to push it all into the paladin (especially with the alleged darkening of the overall game repeatedly discussed on here)
Steamroll editing is a problem, but I'm willing to bet anything that the "dark knight" class was dropped waaay before any of the designers started to feel the pressure of upcoming deadlines, if it was ever on the table to begin with.
TS
But I have never liked the paladin as a force for an alignment, he workes for a church, and forwarding the mission of the church should be his first goal. What happens then when the dictates of the church dont match his alignment, this leads to some great roleplaying ops.
In the above example with the goblins, the faith of the paladin would detirmine his reaction. A paladin of Pelor, must bring light into the darkness and might go to drive off the goblins or if they are truly a "good" group of goblins find a way to nurture that. A Paladin of the Raven Queen on the other hand might decide that the goblins and the village have the same right to live and die, and wouldnt get involved unless the gobo's are orcus worshipers or animating the dead. Kord's paladin (also unaligned) would gladly attack the goblins to prove his might in battle...who cares if they are good goblins. These are of course just stereotypes.
I have fought against the idea that paladins should all be LG for a long time, which is easy in my games and hard at any sort of con or the like. I like that the core books support that now...let those who only want LG paladins be the outsiders (insert evil laugh)
I think your DM is probably just afraid that you're going to play an evil sacrificial nut-job and cause inter-party tension. As long as you play a charicter like that tongue in cheek, and have a good sense of humour, rather than screaming "sacrifices for the death god" and murdering aimlessly...I don't think your DM will have anything to worry about.
Given that Evil Paladins can not be PCs and that NPCs are written as templates I doubt this will happen. If a book comes out to give Clerics more flavor to fit with there God (or even Domains) I would hope that they would do the same with the Paladin at that point. If such a thing did happen, it would most likely occur in the Divine Power Sourcebook, or possibly even PHB II.
I am being somewhat more specific to the Unaligned Paladin being comparible to the Neutral Cleric from Third who had to choose between Good attributes or Evil Attributes. The Unaligned Paladin has no choice but to choose the Good attributes since the Evil ones are not available, thus is my basis of an Unaligned Paladin is flavoured the same as the LG Paladin in the PHB and should behave very much the same.
The DM should reserve Unaligned Paladins only to mature players who recognize this and avoid those Players who will use being Unaligned as an excuse for less-then-heroic-and-closer-to-evil behavior.
I could see a Raven Queen Paladin still being "good" in that they are seeking to ensure that the natural order of death be preserved... and those who try to eschew that (undead) are to be opposed/set free/destroyed. By contrast, an "Evil" paladin of the Raven Queen might have a similar approach, but could take it upon themselves to be a self-styled Grim Reaper... Yet who knows, there could be an adventure opportunity to explore the conflict between the two approaches between two paladins who serve the same god.
In terms of a cooperative party-type, the former would work better than the latter...
Even so, the freedom to have evil paladins is an interesting option, even if only to have available for NPC construction.
The DM should reserve Unaligned Paladins only to mature players who recognize this and avoid those Players who will use being Unaligned as an excuse for less-then-heroic-and-closer-to-evil behavior.
That's the same idea many DMs needed to do with normal characters playing the CN alignment as an excuse. Those people will now try it with the unaligned now and the Paladin is no different there to, IMO.
I love the fact that evil paladins are possible. They would make the perfect adversary.
Neutral paladins are cool too, as long as they have a cause they find worthy.