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

[MerakSpielman]

This does exist in the core books, it is a PrC in the DMG called Blackguard.

You obviously didn't read this thread closely. My orignial post complians that the side of "good" gets a regular class (paladin) and evil has to depend on a prestige class (blackguard), the most powerful members of which were paladins to begin with.

"Whats wrong with a level 1 Dark Paladin" is the question.

 

[Dark Eternal]

Does anyone remember a character from Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman's "Rose of the Prophet" series named <i>Ada Ibn Jaad</i>?

He was absolutely the best portrayed 'evil paladin-like' character I've ever read, and he inspired an entire story line that I spent months working on that was all about a cult that promoted a lawful evil God of Honor and Glory.

Although I would never have applied any variation of the name 'Paladin' to the dark champions of my cult, the resemblence was eerie, and it was one that my players picked up on without the 'P' word ever coming into play. Those were some of the most creepy and deadly villians I ever placed into a game. Afterwords, almost half of my players wanted to play one of them in the next game.

In closing, my two pesos worth is simply this: there's no reason you couldn't just rewrite the paladin, and replace 'good' and 'holy' with 'evil' and 'unholy', and vice versa... but why would you? It's banal and boring. Instead, write up something inspired by the Paladin, but much more fitting to the concept of <b><i>EVIL</i></b>. This was the whole point of the Blackguard prestige class, and even that was merely a good beginning, not a true realization of the Evil Champion in the flesh.

Thanks, and thanks.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Well, I have the PrCs from the BoVD. That is some despicible evil there.

I was more interested in a discussion of the concept. As you say, if I wanted to do it, nothing is stopping me.

People have been giving good discussion, too. I like the posts that are vehemenantly against the idea.

 

[Larry Fitz]

You're right Merak, missed that line, sorry.

I think the concept is different. Lancelot duLac was an inspired warrior, full of God's grace, from birth. Mordred could have gone either way, but his mother raised him to be evil, so at some point he could take the reigns of evil and aspire to be something worse himself. Had he been raised by his father in Camelot, things may well have turned out differently. I think the point is that we believe that children are born mostly innocent, therefore they can start down the path of a Paladin from birth. Real Evil is something that must be ingrained into us and aspired to. I don't lke the idea of allowing everything that good gets to be mirrored by Evil. Then they become little more than teams with different uniforms, not embodiments of concepts and philosophies. Lancelot eventually fell from grace because he coveted another man's wife, had he become embittered he could well have become a powerful agent of evil, instead he sought redemption because he was basically a good guy, who couldn't stick to the Paladin requirements.

 

[Sixchan]

If you subscribe to the idea that a paladin is a warrior driven by the strength of his convictions, there's nothing wrong with an evil paladin that isn't also wrong with, say, a Lawful Neutral Marxist paladin who fights to uphold the rights of the peasant proletariat. Which, come to think of it, is actually pretty Wrong. But, whatever.

That's sounds kinda fun to play. A Marxist Paladin...

As to the argument that paladin is a core class, while blackguard is a prestige class, I'm of the opinion that paladin should be a prestige class, too. You've got to prove the strength of your convictions before you get the powers to go along with it. I don't allow anti-paladins in my game, but I don't have any problem with the Champion Of Evil. The only problem I have with an Anti-Paladin that's nothing more than a mirror of the good paladin is that I find the idea boring. To me, a necromancer lich makes a better Champion of Evil than a paladin who can inflict wounds by laying on hands. Just more fun all around.

Hmm...I'd still like a paladin-type Champion of Evil, but a non-carbon copy is needed.

I would consider lettting a character to play a character who was devoted to "being bad" only if he had a long, black mustache that he twirled constantly. And wore a black top hat. It would help if the character was named "Baron Von-something".

Hey! I've played mages like that...


So yeah, an evil paladin is cool, but I'd personally make the anti-paladin LE rather than CE...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If you ask me (and you did) the essential problem of an evil paladin is one that has to do with the nature of evil and the nature of a paladin.

In D&D, a paladin is a warrior devoted to the causes of Good and Law. They are not primarily devoted to a particular God but rather to those causes. A paladin is a servant of good and law supported by (some of) the gods.

Now, leaving aside the sticky problem of identifying the ideal of law and differentiating between it and good, it is clear that the paladin believes in and has a cause that is other than himself. A paladin can be forced to choose between doing what he believes in and doing what would be most advantageous for himself. Because good is good, such motivation is possible.

That is not true of evil.

Unless you have a strange moral framework in your D&D world such that good and evil are merely labels for two opposing teams, evil is essentially different from good.

The PH identifies evil with selfishness. Many philosophical traditions would agree with that. Others might identify it with pride. Either way, however, evil is generally self-seeking.

The "champion" of evil would not be a mirror image of the paladin engaged in a disinterested pursuit of abstract evil. Even if there were such a thing as abstract evil, it's not something people would pursue. The truly evil villian doesn't torture people because he believes that torturing people is right or obligatory; he does it because he likes torturing people (or maybe because it's convenient and intimidates his enemies)--he doesn't care about obligations.

The "champion" of evil wouldn't actually champion evil at all, he'd champion himself. It's not comprehensible for the epitome of evil to be forced to choose between his "principles" and doing what's most advantageous for himself; his principles dictate that he do what is most advantageous for himself. (They might also dictate a certain definition of advantage to include an autonomy that means surrendering and really joining the forces of good is never to his advantage however). The character might be an embodiment of evil but he wouldn't be a champion of it. He's a mass murderer, serial killer, or evil necromancer but he does what he does because he wants to and expect benefit from it not because it's "evil."

Because of this essential difference, the abilities of an "anti-paladin" would not suit the embodiments of evil particularly well. The paladin can heal because he wants to heal them. Why should the villain inflict with his touch? He can do that just as well with his greatsword. The paladin smites evil because he lives to stop evil and thereby protect people. Why should the villain smite good? He is just as happy destroying his rival for the title of BBEG as he is destroying a champion of good. The class to represent the embodiment of evil ought to have different abilities than a mere reversal of the paladins' abilities.

What about the champions of evil gods? What about them? Even they aren't engaged in a disinterested pursuit of "evil." They're engaged in carrying out their gods' plans. Others might consider those plans evil but that isn't why the gods are pursuing them. The gods might be trying to increase their power by spreading death or trying to destroy all of their hated enemy's works, or trying to get at another god by destroying people he cares about or something else. Wouldn't some kind of a plaguebearer prestige class be more appropriate to an embodiment of Nerull or Nurgle's will than an anti-paladin? Isn't the fist of Hextor better for a Hextorian champion? (The same might appropriately be said about the champions of good gods).

What about the LE knight archetype. The one who believes that brutality is necessary to hold his enemies in check? The one who philosophically opposes what is called "good" because he sees it as weak? He's not engaged in a disinterested pursuit of evil either though. He's engaged in a pursuit of power or strength or service to the state/collective by any means advantageous. Again, how are "anti-paladin" abilities appropriate here? Wouldn't a general smite (like the destruction domain) be more appropriate than smiting good? Wouldn't a wholeness of body type ability be more appropriate than a touch inflict? The ethos of the LE knight isn't actually opposite to the paladin's. I would expect a slightly modified Knight Protector or Samurai class to be more appropriate to this archetype than an anti-paladin.

**Edit**
Chaos and Law (leaving aside the problems of defining them in a manner that is distinct from our concept of good and evil and that people would actually want to champion) are potentially ideas that could be pursued disinterestedly. So a champion of Chaos or of Law is conceivable. A champion of evil, OTOH isn't conceivable in the same way (except verbally. . . and a square circle is also verbally conceivable).
**End Edit**

 

[Sixchan]

That last post got me thinking. Anti-Paladins really should be lawful evil. Anti-Paladins have to fit within a workable frame, and Chaotic Evil doesn't fit this. The Anti-Paladin could be a champion of Oppression and Power (and who says it's for himself? With Chivalry being a main idea of 'Paladinism', he could easily be just championing oppression and power for his king, or whatever). While a CE guy can only want stuff purely for himself, a LE person can still champion an ideal. And this makes for an interesting idea.

If corrupted LG Paladins become CE Blackguards, LE Anti-Paladins become CG Lightguards!

Hmm...that would be a pretty cool PrC, come to think of it...

 

[Thain]

I am normally appalled by the thought of Anti-Paladins, but there is one example that does justify the attempt and making the concept a reality:

Ashram, if he ain't a LE Paladin, no one is!

 

[AuraSeer]

So yeah, an evil paladin is cool, but I'd personally make the anti-paladin LE rather than CE...

I agree. My gripe with the "anti-paladin" idea is that people usually make it CE, to try and mirror the paladin. I don't think a chaotic deity-- or its church-- would inspire the kind of single-minded dedication that paladins seem to have.

A black knight would probably be LE. If I were to design a non-PrC class for a CE champion, I'd make it feel like some combination of barbarian, rogue, and assassin.

 

[ForceUser]

This whole thread reminds me of a question I read in an old 2nd edition Dragon magazine, wherein a player wrote in asking the Sage something along the lines of:

Q: Can dwarves be paladins? Because I have a chaotic evil one that is.

A: No comment.

That always cracked me up.

Do whatever you want. It's your campaign.