Fallen Blackguard?

[Snowbluff]

So what if I wanted to play a fallen paladin who has blackguard powers but is trying to be good? I get to keep my cool evil powers, right? I'm a sucker for redemption characters, ya know.

I would like to do the Paladin1/BG10/Nar Demonbinder style of build, but with spell thematics (these are totally [Good] spells, guys).

[Cowardly Griffo]

I don't see anything in the class about a code of conduct, so sure, why not.

Also I was instantly reminded of this (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/its-not-like-i-like-you-or-anything). Though I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what you meant. :smalltongue:

Spell Thematics (Supah KAWAII!!!) combined with Animate Dead would be kind of adorable and horrifying.

[Snowbluff]

Also I was instantly reminded of this (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/its-not-like-i-like-you-or-anything). Though I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what you meant. :smalltongue: It's always a struggle man. Sometimes you're helping the mailman deliver mail while grumbling to yourself "I could kill him. It would be so easy."


Spell Thematics (Supah KAWAII!!!) combined with Animate Dead would be kind of adorable and horrifying.

"This is Balthenoth, Great Lord of the Fire Pits. He's a solar."

[Lanson]

Well, I'm pretty sure you can, as the dmg is not one if the books that states if you lose a prerequisite to a prc you lose it's benefits. However, you won't be able to return to paladin due to their multicasting restriction. You may be able to atone and get your paladin 1 abilities back. Probably want paladin lvl 2 for grace in that event

[Snowbluff]

I could atone, but that would mean I would have to be totally fixed. That's not nearly as much fun. I wouldn't be able to trick demons I summon into helping me, either.

[Lanson]

True. Does lying to an evil creature to make them do good still count against a paladin? Besides, according to BoVD, merely summoning or consorting with evil outsiders is an evil act by itself, does your dm enforce that ruling? That may not allow you to progress demonbinder if they're a stickler like my dm is.

[Thiyr]

Well, I'm pretty sure you can, as the dmg is not one if the books that states if you lose a prerequisite to a prc you lose it's benefits. However, you won't be able to return to paladin due to their multicasting restriction. You may be able to atone and get your paladin 1 abilities back. Probably want paladin lvl 2 for grace in that event

Doesn't matter, losing the prereq still means you lose the PrC's abilities (see the convenient link in my sig). And unfortunately, I can't think of a good workaround. You could ask the DM to let you extend the Hellbred's evil exemption to PrC requirements. It would also be very thematically appropriate for the "evil redeemed" motif.

[Snowbluff]

Doesn't matter, losing the prereq still means you lose the PrC's abilities (see the convenient link in my sig). And unfortunately, I can't think of a good workaround. You could ask the DM to let you extend the Hellbred's evil exemption to PrC requirements. It would also be very thematically appropriate for the "evil redeemed" motif.

Well, we go by the latest printing, right? Doesn't that mean the reprinted DMG not including that rule in the PrC rules mean it doesn't apply here?

I mean, I've never used that rule, and I've been told left and right it doesn't apply outside of the book.

According to DnD, evil spells and justifying the means are consider evil, so I could keep the alignment even if I am working for good, I think.

[Jeff the Green]

However, you won't be able to return to paladin due to their multicasting restriction.
There is Knight Training, which lets you choose one class to multiclass with, though it won't work here.


I could atone, but that would mean I would have to be totally fixed. That's not nearly as much fun. I wouldn't be able to trick demons I summon into helping me, either.

You don't need to be totally fixed:

The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.
Though you will need to have returned to LG to get your paladin abilities back

[Snowbluff]

I wouldn't want more levels of paladin. If any I would have 2 for having x2 cha to saves.

For race, I was thinking Illumian for Aeshkrau. Possibly Naenhoon may be added.

I don't have a game for this, so this is just a build for now:
Paladin1/BG10/Nar Demonbinder1/Casting PRC8
F: Power Attack
F: Cleave
1: Improved Sunder
3:
6:
9: Staggering Strike
12: Spell Thematics?

[Thiyr]

Well, we go by the latest printing, right? Doesn't that mean the reprinted DMG not including that rule in the PrC rules mean it doesn't apply here?

I mean, I've never used that rule, and I've been told left and right it doesn't apply outside of the book.

According to DnD, evil spells and justifying the means are consider evil, so I could keep the alignment even if I am working for good, I think.

Two issues with that line of reasoning: First, this is a flat addition to the rules, so it's not really overridden so much as its just not put in there. In addition, I don't think we should include the reprints of Core in that case anyway, as otherwise it leads to some very, very confusing situations. For instance, said reprints don't include any mention of swift actions, making the casting of spells with a casting time of less than a standard action....problematic. Further, the last mention of said ruling is explicitly a general ruling, stating you lose PrC abilities until you meet the prereqs again. So unless we have something that explicitly overrides that, it's gonna apply to any PrC, regardless of book. If you want to ignore it, go ahead. I personally like how that works (means that retraining your character isn't just a giant pile of crazy, and makes it a bit more fair to use temporary sources of abilities to qualify for something), and would rather just cut out alignment as a mechanical thing myself. It means tweaking/removing a few spells, but leads to easier ability to do concepts like the OP's.

(Btw, sorry if this came off as somewhat rude, its just that, as you might guess from my sig, this is one of those things that kinda really bothers me. But so long as its an active choice rather than being misinformed, I'm down with ignoring that.)


EDIT: Oh hey, you're the OP. Herp. De. Dur. That's what i get for swapping from phone to desktop mid-thread!

[AMFV]

Well, we go by the latest printing, right? Doesn't that mean the reprinted DMG not including that rule in the PrC rules mean it doesn't apply here?

I mean, I've never used that rule, and I've been told left and right it doesn't apply outside of the book.

According to DnD, evil spells and justifying the means are consider evil, so I could keep the alignment even if I am working for good, I think.

Well that act remains evil, but it's possible to do repeated Evil acts and still be Good, if you wind up having the net Good balance out. For example a Malconvoker is Good, notionally, even though they are doing some very questionable things.

In your case, you're using powers that are Evil, which is Evil, but you're working towards Good, and presumably doing other things, so while you don't cancel out the Evil acts you're doing you could do enough Good to make up for them, as long as they are only done when it is absolutely necessary, and as long as you keep strict control of them.


Doesn't matter, losing the prereq still means you lose the PrC's abilities (see the convenient link in my sig). And unfortunately, I can't think of a good workaround. You could ask the DM to let you extend the Hellbred's evil exemption to PrC requirements. It would also be very thematically appropriate for the "evil redeemed" motif.

The convenient link where you link to a place where nobody was even discussing that and nobody responded to you. There is certainly a lot of argument on that point, and it's hardly conclusive, but the point is that you should probably link to something with a more significant argument or at least the presence of both sides if you're going to be taking that aggressive a tone with folks.

[Starbuck_II]

Can't a Hellbred race get Blackguard while not Evil?

[Snowbluff]

Can't a Hellbred race get Blackguard while not Evil?

IIRC, it's not PrC requirements. It doesn't really matter, because I can still maintain evilness and no DM I knows care about the CW's rule.

[Thiyr]

The convenient link where you link to a place where nobody was even discussing that and nobody responded to you. There is certainly a lot of argument on that point, and it's hardly conclusive, but the point is that you should probably link to something with a more significant argument or at least the presence of both sides if you're going to be taking that aggressive a tone with folks.

While this will be the last i say on the matter in this specific venue, for sake of keeping things more on topic. The context around what I said in the linked post is irrelevant. Somebody made the same assertion made here, and I provided reasoning and evidence as to the contrary. While I wasn't terribly clear then, it was partly responding to the arguments posed in a separate thread as well (which seems to be the only reason people try to limit the ruling to PrCs where the rule is printed, even if it only appears in one of three books said ruling is present in). Regardless of context, I've left an open challenge to provide an argument against my points, and will continue to leave it there, but thusfar nobody has stepped up. I'm not gonna open up a thread just to pick this fight, so in the meantime I'll continue to point to this as both RAW and a logical reading of intent, at least until somebody can at least provide something more logical than "The earliest appearance of this rule has an adjective in front of the word prestige class in the section title, so it only applies to this book!"

[AMFV]

While this will be the last i say on the matter in this specific venue, for sake of keeping things more on topic. The context around what I said in the linked post is irrelevant. Somebody made the same assertion made here, and I provided reasoning and evidence as to the contrary. While I wasn't terribly clear then, it was partly responding to the arguments posed in a separate thread as well (which seems to be the only reason people try to limit the ruling to PrCs where the rule is printed, even if it only appears in one of three books said ruling is present in). Regardless of context, I've left an open challenge to provide an argument against my points, and will continue to leave it there, but thusfar nobody has stepped up. I'm not gonna open up a thread just to pick this fight, so in the meantime I'll continue to point to this as both RAW and a logical reading of intent, at least until somebody can at least provide something more logical than "The earliest appearance of this rule has an adjective in front of the word prestige class in the section title, so it only applies to this book!"

Suffice it to say it has to do with source primacy. Neither the Complete Warrior or the Complete Arcane are considered the primary source on Prestige Classes. The DMG had errata published which did not include this particular information. As such we must conclude that the formal rules of the game have not changed with regards to qualification, additionally several prestige classes that occur outside of the Complete Warrior and the Complete Arcane are inherently self-disqualifying, suggesting that either you are misinterpreting the rules, or the rules inherently do not function.

If that was intended to be a primary reading it would have occurred in later texts (it does not), or else it would have occurred in a text that was the source text for Prestige Classes, of which there is not a particular sourcebook. At best you can argue that it was intent, but if so, why has the ruling not been reproduced in other texts? Particularly those where there are self-disqualifying prestige classes, particularly those such as Ur-Priest. In any case presenting it as though it is a resolved issue, when there is clear fuzziness is my pet peeve. I will accept that your reading could be valid, but I'm well versed enough in the argument to know that there are definitely valid arguments on both sides, enough that any ruling either way is pretty much a straight up DM call.

[Shinken]

Kinda sorta related: in my group, we had a Ranger/Assassin once. She atoned when she discovered she was the reincarnation of a Jade Phoenix Mage. She advanced her Assassin casting with JPM then. It was pretty cool.

[nedz]

Suffice it to say it has to do with source primacy. Neither the Complete Warrior or the Complete Arcane are considered the primary source on Prestige Classes. The DMG had errata published which did not include this particular information. As such we must conclude that the formal rules of the game have not changed with regards to qualification, additionally several prestige classes that occur outside of the Complete Warrior and the Complete Arcane are inherently self-disqualifying, suggesting that either you are misinterpreting the rules, or the rules inherently do not function.

If that was intended to be a primary reading it would have occurred in later texts (it does not), or else it would have occurred in a text that was the source text for Prestige Classes, of which there is not a particular sourcebook. At best you can argue that it was intent, but if so, why has the ruling not been reproduced in other texts? Particularly those where there are self-disqualifying prestige classes, particularly those such as Ur-Priest. In any case presenting it as though it is a resolved issue, when there is clear fuzziness is my pet peeve. I will accept that your reading could be valid, but I'm well versed enough in the argument to know that there are definitely valid arguments on both sides, enough that any ruling either way is pretty much a straight up DM call.

IIRC Complete Arcane also contains the rules for Weapon-like spells and which feats you can apply to SLAs.

[Snowbluff]

Kinda sorta related: in my group, we had a Ranger/Assassin once. She atoned when she discovered she was the reincarnation of a Jade Phoenix Mage. She advanced her Assassin casting with JPM then. It was pretty cool.

Neat.

I think I need a cool good guy PrC for arcane casters that would fit here. I could do Malconvoker, but if there are other options that would be cool.

[AMFV]

IIRC Complete Arcane also contains the rules for Weapon-like spells and which feats you can apply to SLAs.

Well the Complete Arcane is a primary source for Arcane matters. Furthermore the Rules Compendium was published after and includes those rules, but does not include the prestige class requirement. If that was intended to be a game wide rule, it would have been included in the compilation of all game rules.

[toapat]

I wouldn't want more levels of paladin. If any I would have 2 for having x2 cha to saves.

For race, I was thinking Illumian for Aeshkrau. Possibly Naenhoon may be added.

I don't have a game for this, so this is just a build for now:
Paladin1/BG10/Nar Demonbinder1/Casting PRC8
F: Power Attack
F: Cleave
1: Improved Sunder
3:
6:
9: Staggering Strike
12: Spell Thematics?

if you want the blackguard backdating you actually do need 10 levels of paladin,


A fallen paladin who becomes a blackguard gains all of the following abilities that apply, according to the number of paladin levels the character has.

in effect, you dont get the 10 pseudo levels of blackguard if you dont have 10 levels of paladin

so you should probably just dump retrain that first level of paladin because all its getting you is +1 smite good/day. That or trade out 8 levels of paladin and get LoH in exchange for 1d6 sneak attack

[Snowbluff]

The levels will be dumped as per the 11+ rule. It's a given. Retraining the paladin level will frak the prereqs in an unfriendly way, and isn't possible via Reformation since the choice is an impossible one to make chronologically.