Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 764141" data-attributes="member: 2067">As a fellow DM I say do whatever the heck you want in your campaign. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> There's nothing mechanically flawed with the idea of an Evil Knight of some sort.However, I agree with the logic the designers of D&amp;D seemed to use in their not including an Evil Knight Core Class: D&amp;D is, by default, a game of heroes. Saving the innocents from evil is the assumed campaign structure. Thus, having an evil class wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.Now, fast foward to the DMG. The Assassin is really just a souped-up guild rogue, not an anti-paladin. The Blackguard, likewise, is a PrC for a fallen paladin, not for a Knight of Evil.There's no mechanical reason that a Knight of Evil couldn't exist. In fact, because the idea's so popular, there's about half a billion things you can use to represent it. However, it's not included in the Core Rules because the PC classes, in the Player's Handbook, should be the heroic knights of good and justice.I, myself, prefer the idea of no 'anti-paladins,' because I like the Paladins to feel *real* special....they've got fiends, yeah. And they've got fallen paladins. And lots of other evil stuff. Having one gomer who's MORE ULTIMATE EEEEEVUHL doesn't add anything to my campaigns.If I were to play an evil campaign, I may consider it. But, to be honest, I'm swayed in favor of the Shadow Knight class from FFd20, myself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 764141, member: 2067"] As a fellow DM I say do whatever the heck you want in your campaign. :) There's nothing mechanically flawed with the idea of an Evil Knight of some sort. However, I agree with the logic the designers of D&D seemed to use in their not including an Evil Knight Core Class: D&D is, by default, a game of heroes. Saving the innocents from evil is the assumed campaign structure. Thus, having an evil class wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Now, fast foward to the DMG. The Assassin is really just a souped-up guild rogue, not an anti-paladin. The Blackguard, likewise, is a PrC for a fallen paladin, not for a Knight of Evil. There's no mechanical reason that a Knight of Evil couldn't exist. In fact, because the idea's so popular, there's about half a billion things you can use to represent it. However, it's not included in the Core Rules because the PC classes, in the Player's Handbook, should be the heroic knights of good and justice. I, myself, prefer the idea of no 'anti-paladins,' because I like the Paladins to feel *real* special....they've got fiends, yeah. And they've got fallen paladins. And lots of other evil stuff. Having one gomer who's MORE ULTIMATE EEEEEVUHL doesn't add anything to my campaigns. If I were to play an evil campaign, I may consider it. But, to be honest, I'm swayed in favor of the Shadow Knight class from FFd20, myself. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification