Is there anything really wrong with the idea of an evil Paladin?

[MerakSpielman]

Remember Anti-Paladins?

Why do the forces of Good get all the fun?

Why can there not be a paladin devoted to the cause of evil? He can Smite Good, Lay on Wounds, detect Good, etc... Gets all the same spells, but with "evil" instead of "good" wherever it applies.

I just don't see why the forces of Evil have to rely on a prestige class (Blackguard, which starts as a good paladin more often than not), when the forces of Good get a core class.

 

[Janos Antero]

There is no reason there can't be, and there are dozens of rules for Anti-paladins. It's just one of the old easter egg DnD cliches that's never died.

There have been anti-paladins since about 5 minutes after paladins, but conceptually they don't exist to establish the elite special good nature of paladins.

 

[alsih2o]

There have been anti-paladins since about 5 minutes after paladins, but conceptually they don't exist to establish the elite special good nature of paladins.

i would reverse this, it would be nce to hear from col pladoh on this, but i think paladins came about to fight those who concentrated on evil

i fully agree with the rest tho

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Remember Anti-Paladins?

Shivers

Yes, unfortunately I do.

Why do the forces of Good get all the fun?

Good gets Paladins and a few celestials. Evil gets liches, demon lords, four kinds of Fiend, vampires, mummies, the most powerful artifacts... need I go on?

Why can there not be a paladin devoted to the cause of evil? He can Smite Good, Lay on Wounds, detect Good, etc... Gets all the same spells, but with "evil" instead of "good" wherever it applies.

Because that would just be applying a mirror to the Paladin. The concept of the Paladin relies on the idea that Evil and Good are conceptually different, that Good triumphs over Evil, and that the forces of good are few and elite, while the forces of evil are numerous and expendible. Also, the idea of the anti-paladin leads one to end up with a concept that really doesn't work conceptually- a sort of Chaotic Evil black knight. A chaotic evil Assassin or Nightstalker makes more sense as an opponent to the Paladin.

I don't see why the forces of Evil have to rely on a prestige class (Blackguard, which starts as a good paladin more often than not), when the forces of Good get a core class.

#1. D&D is a game of heroes.

#2. Evil has enough champions already.

#3. The Anti-paladin is nonsensical to begin with.

 

[Alchemist]

Those are good, solid points.

I've always considered paladins as champions of a particular god rather than a generalized champion of good battling the generalized hordes of evil. With that in mind, a paladin of a LG god is just as reasonable as a paladin of a LE, NG or NE god. The paragons of excellence in bringing the word to the masses, and smiting down those who act counter to the objectives of the church, and all that.

A paladin of Hextor would be concerned about maintaining the iron-fist stranglehold of his religion upon a countryside and protecting it from wandering do-gooders and those who would disrupt the order that is in place. He would be geared up with detect/smite good/chaos abilities and whatnot. A paladin of Pelor would have a different focus than the current LG paladin. It dosen't seem unreasonable, but would require more work and adjustment of the existing paladin.

Just throwing some thoughts out there.

 

[Arnwyn]

Because there's no such thing? You can call it whatever you want, I suppose, but really there's no such thing as an evil "paladin". (And no, paladins *aren't* holy warriors. They may have divine powers, but paladins don't need a faith or even a god according to the core rules. Their whole being is doing good deeds and protecting those who need it. An evil guy whose point of existing is only to "be bad"? Uh, I think not.)

Okay, enough with semantics. There has been a few d20 books that have created a core class that mirrors the paladin except that it's evil. Done and done. (Don't ask me which ones - I've ignored them because I couldn't care less about the concept.)

Why is it not in the WotC D&D Core Rules? I think Tyler sums it up best in his post above.

 

[cimerians]

The paladin is considered a person of good in our own history. Nothing is impossible, you could have an evil Paladin, I guess a Paladin of Evil would be a good title. Its just extremely rare.

Here is the definition:

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

Palatine I believe is a French word which has a few different meanings if you look that word up.

 

[Emerald]

Re: Re: Is there anything really wrong with the idea of an evil Paladin?

#1. D&D is a game of heroes.

#2. Evil has enough champions already.

#3. The Anti-paladin is nonsensical to begin with.

I am not sure I entirely agree with these points. One of the benefits of D&D is that you get to play anyone and our group, at least, loves playing neutral and evil PCs. It is harder to rp and I am sure much harder for our DMs because they still have to come up with reasons for our party to stay together and plot hooks to investigate. We have lots of party intregue and even PCs who have attempted to assassinate other PCs, charming other PCs to find out info and basically alot of secrets are kept. It definately a role playing challenge, But a lot of FUN. So I would not say that D&D has to be a game of heroes.

 

[cimerians]

Lets put it this way.

If your an evil person of some sort. You are not considered a Paladin.

 

[MerakSpielman]

That's right. You're an Anti-Paladin.

Let's not argue semantics, ok?