Antipaladin and playability

[Spore]

Greetings playground,

the Antipaladin is a class that has always struck my curiosity because I like Paladins but doing always the good and lawful thing isn't our cup of tea. Our DM has houseruled that Paladins can be LN and NG. To mirror this, Antipaladins can be CN and NE. Which brings me to my question.

How can a chaotic neutral Antipaladin be played not only to fit its alignment but also to fit into a standard-ish adventuring group?


A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features (including the fiendish boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an antipaladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate.

That is the main problem I see here. I can't see a decent deed that doesn't immediately kill of the connection to the evil forces powering the class features. Would we be better off allowing LE/NE/CE Antipaladins rather than CN ones? Because that would be the main schtick of the character. Abusing the powers of evil to further his own goals and improve the live of herself and her minions.

Further, how would you use the 'Smite Good' ability if you don't actually want to kill good guys who try to stop you? I'd figure using an archetype or an ability or feat that uses the ability for different purposes but that's just circumventing the issue somewhat.

[(Un)Inspired]

Maybe play a chaotic neutral oracle or cleric instead? The paladin oath is kinda dumb and the antipaladin oath is exactly twice as kinda dumb.

[Psyren]

Actually, some of the antipaladin oaths are pretty functional, such as Calistria's:



My life is my path, and none will sway me from it.
I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions.
I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me.
All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.
I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands.


As an added bonus she herself is CN, so she'd be a good choice if you're planning to go this route.

The only truly "stupid evil" oath is Rovagug's, and since all his followers are insane, that seems to be by design.

[(Un)Inspired]

Actually, some of the antipaladin oaths are pretty functional

The only truly "stupid evil" oath is Rovagug's, and since all his followers are insane, that seems to be by design.

The SRD says that good implies respect for life. Respecting life is thus a good act. People are alive. Showing respect to a person is a good act. Antipaldins lose all their jazz if they ever commit a good act.
Think about all the little things that are teeny tiny signs of respect.

You can't ever shake someone's hand or nod to greet someone.
You can never call someone sir or madam.
You can't respect someone's opinion...ever... Even if you agree with it.

[Psyren]

The SRD says that good implies respect for life. Respecting life is thus a good act. People are alive. Showing respect to a person is a good act. Antipaldins lose all their jazz if they ever commit a good act.
Think about all the little things that are teeny tiny signs of respect.

"Implies" is hardly intransigent, and even if it weren't, a series of very minuscule good acts like shaking hands will not shift your alignment if you are still a bad or even just indifferent/mercenary person overall. Even Devils shake hands when finalizing contracts.

Anything can become ridiculous if you go out of your way to read it as such.

[(Un)Inspired]

"Implies" is hardly intransigent, and even if it weren't, a series of very minuscule good acts like shaking hands will not shift your alignment if you are still a bad or even just indifferent/mercenary person overall. Even Devils shake hands when finalizing contracts.

Anything can become ridiculous if you go out of your way to read it as such.

It doesn't matter that the good acts are incredibly minuscule. If scale of the good act was not specified. Any willing good act knocks an antipaladin down to super-chump. Devils can shake hands to conclude deals cause they rarely take levels in antipaladin.

Paizo wants to have a game with concrete forces called good and evil that May or may not be related to The Good and The Evil.

Good implies respect for life. If a character implies respect for life then they are being good by paizo's rules.
There's plenty of ways to make a cool character powered by evil that doesn't become useless if they accidentally say "bless you" when somebody sneezes.

If you want to find a way to linguistically get around the antipaladin rules I suggest attacking the term "willfully". I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that someone is definitively willfully doing anything.

[Nerjin]

... Alternate interpretation, (un)Inspired, of how to be an Anti-paladin. You simply must work to further the power of evil AS A WHOLE. Sure you'll have to do some good thing or a few neutral things. But as long as it's for the purpose of greater evil I'm sure the big bossman will be okay with it.

Or we can sit down and say "NO! There is only one way to play the class. Rogue, why aren't you stealing? You're a rogue. You lose backstab damage." "Fighter, you aren't fighting. You lose weapon proficiency." "Paladin, you didn't slaughter the child who punched a girl in the face unprovoked. That's an evil act therefore you allowed evil to live. You lose your powers."

We can start getting really silly if we forget that a class is a guide line to how your character is. Not what your character is.

[Psyren]

If scale of the good act was not specified. Any willing good act knocks an antipaladin down to super-chump.

Wrong. The act must be willing and altruistic. The minute you personally benefit in any way from the act, you get off scot-free. That opens up the floodgates to what is allowed, because as an adventurer, nearly everything you do benefits you in some way. And at that point, it is only an alignment shift that can make you fall.

They literally tell you this in the very next sentence, did you miss it? :smalltongue: "This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends." Guess what, I'm after XP and gold, as an adventurer even walking down the street is going to lead me to one of those two things.

So again I say - reading things in such a way as to make them ridiculous is a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter what class you're attempting to scuttle.

[(Un)Inspired]

Wrong. The act must be willing and altruistic. The minute you personally benefit in any way from the act, you get off scot-free. That opens up the floodgates to what is allowed, because as an adventurer, nearly everything you do benefits you in some way. And at that point, it is only an alignment shift that can make you fall.

They literally tell you this in the very next sentence, did you miss it? :smalltongue: "This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends." Guess what, I'm after XP and gold, as an adventurer even walking down the street is going to lead me to one of those two things.

So again I say - reading things in such a way as to make them ridiculous is a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter what class you're attempting to scuttle.

If an act must be in the service of his own dark ends it means that any act performed for an end that isn't dark (even if it is for an end that is the antipaladin's benefit) casts Dispel Class Features on the antipaladin.

I agree that a careful reading of just about any text can shows the cracks in out attempts to communicate.

I question what this thing called altruism is and how we can reasonably define it in such a way that it has any meaning whatsoever.

[Psyren]

If an act must be in the service of his own dark ends it means that any act performed for an end that isn't dark (even if it is for an end that is the antipaladin's benefit) casts Dispel Class Features on the antipaladin.

The wonderful thing about "ends" is that they're long-term, by definition. They come at the end, see? They don't even have to be relevant until the campaign is over. No Fall necessary.


I question what this thing called altruism is and how we can reasonably define it in such a way that it has any meaning whatsoever.

As there is no game definition, you have to resort to the dictionary.

"the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."

Once it benefits myself, I can say it's not longer altruistic. QED. And the following sentence says "yes, that is how we intended it."

[Zubrowka74]

Actually, some of the antipaladin oaths are pretty functional, such as Calistria's:

As an added bonus she herself is CN, so she'd be a good choice if you're planning to go this route.

The only truly "stupid evil" oath is Rovagug's, and since all his followers are insane, that seems to be by design.

Could you please telle where I can find these deity specific oaths? I guess not on the SRD...

[Yanisa]

Could you please telle where I can find these deity specific oaths? I guess not on the SRD...

They are from Inner Sea Gods, one of those campaign books. You can find the codes hidden here (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/DeityDetails.aspx), but only the famous ones seem to have codes. I found Abadar (LN), Calistria (CN), Erastil (LG), Iomedae (LG), Rovagug's (CE), Sarenrae (NG), Shelyn (NG), Torag (LG) and Urgathoa (NE). Perhaps there are more but I couldn't find anymore.

[Psyren]

Could you please telle where I can find these deity specific oaths? I guess not on the SRD...

They are Golarion-specific, which means the PFSRD can't host them as it can only carry the generic stuff. As Yanisa mentioned, you can find them on Archives of Nethys, which is allowed to host the setting material.

[(Un)Inspired]

As there is no game definition, you have to resort to the dictionary.

"the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."

Once it benefits myself, I can say it's not longer altruistic. QED. And the following sentence says "yes, that is how we intended it."

If I am to follow that definition of altruistic I need to understand what these things "disinterested" and "selfless" are. Can an act be "selfless"? Can one be "disinterested" while performing an act?


You make an interesting point about ends. I suppose one could narratively filibuster there way into never quite reaching an end. Might actually make for a kinda cool character.

[avr]

Norgorber (NE) has an antipaladin code too.

[Psyren]

If I am to follow that definition of altruistic I need to understand what these things "disinterested" and "selfless" are. Can an act be "selfless"? Can one be "disinterested" while performing an act?

Now you're getting into philosophy, but to put it bluntly I'd say no, almost no act can truly be altruistic. Certainly no act taken by a PC, since there is some kind of reward even in a metagame sense. Which is exactly my point - it explains why antipaladins can exist at all, their code does not make them fall at the drop of a dime like you thought it does.

[(Un)Inspired]

Now you're getting into philosophy, but to put it bluntly I'd say no, almost no act can truly be altruistic. Certainly no act taken by a PC, since there is some kind of reward even in a metagame sense. Which is exactly my point - it explains why antipaladins can exist at all, their code does not make them fall at the drop of a dime like you thought it does.

I think I see your point.

Do you mind if I ask, if you were DMing for one, what sort of Goodness restrictions (if any) would you enforce for an antipaladin?

[Psyren]

I think I see your point.

Do you mind if I ask, if you were DMing for one, what sort of Goodness restrictions (if any) would you enforce for an antipaladin?

I would make them fall for an actual alignment shift to Good, which would either require one truly major benevolent/self-sacrificing act, or a consistent pattern of good behavior - just like a paladin would fall for a pattern of wickedness or one major heinous act. What I would not do is count merely respecting people or shaking their hands in the morning while going on to be a bully or brute the rest of the day as fall-worthy.

[(Un)Inspired]

I would make them fall for an actual alignment shift to Good, which would either require one truly major benevolent/self-sacrificing act, or a consistent pattern of good behavior - just like a paladin would fall for a pattern of wickedness or one major heinous act. What I would not do is count merely respecting people or shaking their hands in the morning while going on to be a bully or brute the rest of the day as fall-worthy.

Can you give me an example of what it would look like for antipaladin to do something truly major benevolent/self-sacrificing?

[Zubrowka74]

They are from Inner Sea Gods, one of those campaign books. You can find the codes hidden here (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/DeityDetails.aspx), but only the famous ones seem to have codes. I found Abadar (LN), Calistria (CN), Erastil (LG), Iomedae (LG), Rovagug's (CE), Sarenrae (NG), Shelyn (NG), Torag (LG) and Urgathoa (NE). Perhaps there are more but I couldn't find anymore.

Thanks! Pretty neat. The longer ones (Callistria, Iomeda, Erastil...) are pretty cool, even if some are mostly standard paladin stuff. But it's good to see the distinction between two identically aligned codes. Shows that roleplay has some weight in the game after all :D


EDIT : Lamasthu has one and it makes sense for a CE deity as some are at the base good actions. A lot of inspiring material!




All things are monstrous, and only the weak hide their marks. I show the world as it is.
I will bring the outcasts in from the cold and teach them the taste of victory.
I fill the wombs. I birth the children. I teach our enemies why they fear the night.
I bring madness to the cities, that in their blood and fear they may understand the chaos of the world.
I will spread the Mother's seed. If the blind cannot be taught to see, their children can.

[Psyren]

Can you give me an example of what it would look like for antipaladin to do something truly major benevolent/self-sacrificing?

Say an antipaladin is passing through a flyspeck village. He spends the night at the inn; during the night, orc raiders invade and begin ransacking the place. I would expect that character, generally, not to assist with the village's defense - after all, if they are weak enough to be pillaged/conquered, they deserve it. Any orcs that come after him personally would be dispatched for their affront, but he would not go out of his way to pursue any of them or save anyone who is kidnapped or about to be killed (or worse.) For example, if two orcs that were about to slaughter a villager instead choose to pick a fight with the antipaladin, he could feel free to take them out, even though his actions indirectly saved that villager's life. To keep his status, the antipaladin would either leave the town to its own devices entirely or demand a (likely substantial) reward for his assistance. If after he assists, the mayor either does not or cannot fork over the reward, he would be obliged to take revenge in some way, up to and including finishing the job the orcs started (or more likely, simply executing that mayor and making the same demand of his successor until the situation is resolved.)

Does that help?



EDIT : Lamasthu has one and it makes sense for a CE deity as some are at the base good actions. A lot of inspiring material!

"I fill the wombs" is particularly unsettling when you realize just what she is encouraging her (male) antipaladins to do.

[(Un)Inspired]

Say an antipaladin is passing through a flyspeck village. He spends the night at the inn; during the night, orc raiders invade and begin ransacking the place. I would expect that character, generally, not to assist with the village's defense - after all, if they are weak enough to be pillaged/conquered, they deserve it. Any orcs that come after him personally would be dispatched for their affront, but he would not go out of his way to pursue any of them or save anyone who is kidnapped or about to be killed (or worse.) For example, if two orcs that were about to slaughter a villager instead choose to pick a fight with the antipaladin, he could feel free to take them out, even though his actions indirectly saved that villager's life. To keep his status, the antipaladin would either leave the town to its own devices entirely or demand a (likely substantial) reward for his assistance. If after he assists, the mayor either does not or cannot fork over the reward, he would be obliged to take revenge in some way, up to and including finishing the job the orcs started (or more likely, simply executing that mayor and making the same demand of his successor until the situation is resolved.)

Does that help?

I think so. Your example seems fitting for the kind of life an evil knight would have in an Arthurian myth when he not harassing Lancelot or something.

Thanks for taking the time to write out something that I believe makes sense.

[Zubrowka74]

"I fill the wombs" is particularly unsettling when you realize just what she is encouraging her (male) antipaladins to do.

It all depends if your table is PG or not. "I birth the children" refers to reproduction, eh. ;)

[Lapsed Pacifist]

I think erring on the side of letting a player actually playing the class they picked is perfectly reasonable. But then again, I would never cause any paladin to fall without the player's consent.

[upho]

Personally, I can see a few potentially serious problems with the standard oath for a CN (anti-)pally, but they're more of the philosophical or setting/alignment flavor consistency type rather than the purely technical or semantic type. To begin with, a LN or CN pally should be able to choose whether their powers/features, like LOH, are regular or anti-pally versions (just like channel for clerics), and all powers which can be changed to the L/C-axle rather than the G/E-axle, like Smite [opposite alignment] should be altered. Likewise, both the regular and the anti code are just off for pallys of any kind of N flavor, as both these codes focus on the G/E-axle, which per the game definitions should be either of no real importance or "preferably in equal measures" to the N alignment types (and by extension N deities and their pallys). What usually IS important is of course the L/C-axle, and thus what the code for such pallys should focus on.

Basically, I think it would be inconsistent with the whole alignment system if LN="G pally code" and CN="E antipally code", when nothing says LN is inherently any more or less inclined to commit evil acts than CN is. So for a CN pally, I'd change the code to say something like:


A chaos-paladin who ceases to be chaotic neutral, who willfully commits a lawful act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all (anti-)paladin spells and class features (including the boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an (anti-)paladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate.

This would put the focus where it belongs for a CN pally and won't force him to work for evil by default (which it shouldn't).


If an act must be in the service of his own dark ends it means that any act performed for an end that isn't dark (even if it is for an end that is the antipaladin's benefit) casts Dispel Class Features on the antipaladin.While you are of course free to play the game in any way you and your group prefer, I would have serious issues with this "stupid good/evil" interpretation, especially in a setting which uses the standard alignment system. First, it makes both the regular LG pally and the CE antipally classes nigh unplayable, especially in a party with members of other alignments. Second, this would of course also affect all other pallys in the game world, with the only logical conclusion being that a typical setting like Golarion should reduce its number of NPC pallys to say less than 0.1% of the current number, and antipallys actually shouldn't exist at all except in stories to scare children, as an abstract philosophical concept, or perhaps as extremely rare and short-lived low-level "flukes" produced by utterly insane deities like Rovagug.

And considering how at odds with the world in general, and the nature of PC races and civilization in particular, this interpretation would make both types of pallys, it would also mean most sane people would regard the few existing ones more as nutcase outsiders than champions of Good or Evil.


Sidenote:
Actually, some of the antipaladin oaths are pretty functional, such as Calistria's:
/snip/
As an added bonus she herself is CN, so she'd be a good choice if you're planning to go this route.Hmm... Though I'm not using Golarion and therefore don't know much about Calistria, I do find her CN alignment to be quite a bit at odds with her oath, to say the least:


My life is my path, and none will sway me from it. Questionable. The emphasis on "my way or the highway" is also highly egoistic and probably just as Evil as Chaotic.
I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions. Fine. Chaotic more than anything else.
I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me. No. This is Evil more than anything else.
All slights against me will be repaid tenfold. No. Also more Evil than anything else.
I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands. Uh... Can't see why being CN includes a greater desire for vengeance.

If I had been asked to guess the alignment of the deity having this pally oath, I definitely would've said CE. And I think PF's alignment system would very much agree with me. But I guess the oath was written like this in order to fit with the CE restriction of the antipally class rather than the CN alignment of Calistria.

[deuxhero]

"I fill the wombs" is particularly unsettling when you realize just what she is encouraging her (male) antipaladins to do.

Well you already mentioned the code of Calistria, the goddess of lust, which has "I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions." AND "I take what I desire, by trick or by force".



If I had been asked to guess the alignment of the deity having this pally oath, I definitely would've said CE. And I think PF's alignment system would very much agree with me. But I guess the oath was written like this in order to fit with the CE restriction of the antipally class rather than the CN alignment of Calistria.

Well she's one of two deities with neutral alignments that sponser Paladins or Antipaladins. Abadar, the other, gives us this (which is an addition tot he normal code, not a replacement).


I am a protector of the roadways and keep travelers from harm. No matter their destinations or goals, if they are peaceable and legitimate travelers who harm no others on the road, I will ensure that they pass safely.
Bandits are a plague. Under my will they come to justice. If they will not come willingly before the law, where they can protest for justice in the courts, they will come under the power of my sword.
Corruption in the courts is the greatest corruption of civilization. Without confidence in justice, citizens cannot believe in their countries, and civilization begins to disappear. I will root out corruption wherever I find it, and if a system is fundamentally flawed, I will work to aid citizens by reforming or replacing it.
I am an aid to the markets. I ensure equitable trade between merchants and citizens. Theft and deceit on either side are intolerable.
I make opportunities, and teach others to recognize them. When I aid others, I open the way for them, but will not carry them—they must take responsibility.

[goto124]

Say an antipaladin is passing through a flyspeck village. He spends the night at the inn; during the night, orc raiders invade and begin ransacking the place. I would expect that character, generally, not to assist with the village's defense - after all, if they are weak enough to be pillaged/conquered, they deserve it. Any orcs that come after him personally would be dispatched for their affront, but he would not go out of his way to pursue any of them or save anyone who is kidnapped or about to be killed (or worse.) For example, if two orcs that were about to slaughter a villager instead choose to pick a fight with the antipaladin, he could feel free to take them out, even though his actions indirectly saved that villager's life. To keep his status, the antipaladin would either leave the town to its own devices entirely or demand a (likely substantial) reward for his assistance. If after he assists, the mayor either does not or cannot fork over the reward, he would be obliged to take revenge in some way, up to and including finishing the job the orcs started (or more likely, simply executing that mayor and making the same demand of his successor until the situation is resolved.

This sounds like a great reason to play an antipaladin. How to get him to work with gooder PCs is another problem...

[Psyren]

Personally, I can see a few potentially serious problems with the standard oath for a CN (anti-)pally, but they're more of the philosophical or setting/alignment flavor consistency type rather than the purely technical or semantic type. To begin with, a LN or CN pally should be able to choose whether their powers/features, like LOH, are regular or anti-pally versions (just like channel for clerics), and all powers which can be changed to the L/C-axle rather than the G/E-axle, like Smite [opposite alignment] should be altered. Likewise, both the regular and the anti code are just off for pallys of any kind of N flavor, as both these codes focus on the G/E-axle, which per the game definitions should be either of no real importance or "preferably in equal measures" to the N alignment types (and by extension N deities and their pallys). What usually IS important is of course the L/C-axle, and thus what the code for such pallys should focus on.

Basically, I think it would be inconsistent with the whole alignment system if LN="G pally code" and CN="E antipally code", when nothing says LN is inherently any more or less inclined to commit evil acts than CN is. So for a CN pally, I'd change the code to say something like:



This would put the focus where it belongs for a CN pally and won't force him to work for evil by default (which it shouldn't).

I think I get where your confusion is coming from. There is no such thing as a "LN Paladin" or a "CN Antipaladin." You must be LG or CE. There are LN and CN deities who sponsor paladins and antipaladins respectively, but the character in question is simply falling under their purview via the One-Step Rule - to keep their paladin powers they must still adhere to that extreme corner alignment.



Sidenote:Hmm... Though I'm not using Golarion and therefore don't know much about Calistria, I do find her CN alignment to be quite a bit at odds with her oath, to say the least:


My life is my path, and none will sway me from it. Questionable. The emphasis on "my way or the highway" is also highly egoistic and probably just as Evil as Chaotic.
I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions. Fine. Chaotic more than anything else.
I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me. No. This is Evil more than anything else.
All slights against me will be repaid tenfold. No. Also more Evil than anything else.
I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands. Uh... Can't see why being CN includes a greater desire for vengeance.

If I had been asked to guess the alignment of the deity having this pally oath, I definitely would've said CE. And I think PF's alignment system would very much agree with me. But I guess the oath was written like this in order to fit with the CE restriction of the antipally class rather than the CN alignment of Calistria.

She actually does lean evil to some, or at least "vindictive." But she ends up neutral for a few reasons: (1) she pursues any means possible to realize her ends, even if it means doing good deeds, and encourages her followers to do the same; (2) vengeance is as much a tool of good creatures as evil ones (consider for instance a youth who grows up to be a renowned demon hunter or dragonslayer because of some childhood trauma); and (3) she cares for and protects elves, much as Torag looks out for dwarves.

[Lapsed Pacifist]

I think I get where your confusion is coming from. There is no such thing as a "LN Paladin" or a "CN Antipaladin." You must be LG or CE.

I think you missed the part where Sporeegg said that their GM had houseruled the possibility of a CN Antipaladin. this thread is about whether such a concept is viable.

[atemu1234]

It all depends if your table is PG or not. "I birth the children" refers to reproduction, eh. ;)

True, but maybe in the metaphorical way? Either way, it still sounds creepy...

[Spore]

I think you missed the part where Sporeegg said that their GM had houseruled the possibility of a CN Antipaladin. this thread is about whether such a concept is viable.

I never thought Psyren would miss the entire point of a thread. And while your discussion about the Golarion Antipaladins is fine and helps me imagine some sort of character concept the actual problem lies within the homemade setting. Which is considerably more influenced by Eberron and Final Fantasy:

Clerics aren't bound to the alignment of their gods but an evil Cleric of a LG deity can still only cast Holy Smite and not Blasphemy. Since deities have long since left the world and the divine spark is used not granted to power divine magic. There are two powers who grant Paladin and Antipaladin abilities regardless of faith:

The Eternal Flame and the Dark/Black Flame. One is the pinnacle of Law and Good, the other is the pinnacle of Chaos and Evil. Paladins and Antipaladins are on a stricter code than clerics, but both powers allow "only evil" and "only chaotic" people to wield their powers. The world's creator has explained this as the following: The Dark Flame could call a perfectly innocent CN guy to become an Antipaladin. "Why?" did I ask. "Well, just to see what happens." The Dark Flame recruits all close enough to its own alignments but just a very few become "real" Antipaladins. They have to survive a divine test (usually about 5th level) or be consistently tormented in their dreams (Antipaladin) or permanently called until they refuse (Paladin).

I figure the Flames always try to pull their chosen ones back to the "classical" alignments so a CN Antipaladin will be tempted by power to abandon any remaining moral qualms.

The point of the thread is how to get an CN Antipaladin to work in a group of more or less good characters (possibly with dodging the trope "Lone Wolf")

[upho]

I think I get where your confusion is coming from. There is no such thing as a "LN Paladin" or a "CN Antipaladin." You must be LG or CE. There are LN and CN deities who sponsor paladins and antipaladins respectively, but the character in question is simply falling under their purview via the One-Step Rule - to keep their paladin powers they must still adhere to that extreme corner alignment.No confusion, I know that's how it works, but the OP talks about an exception to that alignment restriction. Which I think is a very good idea. Giving the abstract concept of a certain class an alignment restriction other than that of the deity the class is supposed to serve, as is the case according to current RAW for a pally of a N deity such as Calistria, seems very weird to me.

Also: "You must be LG or CE." Is there a reason for this (beyond "we didn't have the page space/time to publish a N version of the pally")? Does anyone know why this is regarded more sacred by Paizo than even following the alignment of your deity?


She actually does lean evil to some, or at least "vindictive." But she ends up neutral for a few reasons: (1) she pursues any means possible to realize her ends, even if it means doing good deeds, and encourages her followers to do the same; (2) vengeance is as much a tool of good creatures as evil ones (consider for instance a youth who grows up to be a renowned demon hunter or dragonslayer because of some childhood trauma); and (3) she cares for and protects elves, much as Torag looks out for dwarves.Yeah, I read up a bit on her. I'd say her current pally oath is still plenty more E than she is though. Again, probably because Paizo didn't like the idea of a N pally for some reason, but still thought Calistria should have pallys in her service.

[Psyren]

I think you missed the part where Sporeegg said that their GM had houseruled the possibility of a CN Antipaladin. this thread is about whether such a concept is viable.


No confusion, I know that's how it works, but the OP talks about an exception to that alignment restriction. Which I think is a very good idea. Giving the abstract concept of a certain class an alignment restriction other than that of the deity the class is supposed to serve, as is the case according to current RAW for a pally of a N deity such as Calistria, seems very weird to me.

It sounded like you were addressing antipaladins of Calistria in general, not the variant being proposed here (which does not yet follow a specific deity's order, at least I thought.) If that was not the case then my mistake.


I never thought Psyren would miss the entire point of a thread.

See above - also, I am human, you know. I know it can be difficult to tell over the internet but I assure you, it's true.


Also: "You must be LG or CE." Is there a reason for this (beyond "we didn't have the page space/time to publish a N version of the pally")? Does anyone know why this is regarded more sacred by Paizo than even following the alignment of your deity?

They didn't want one, just like they didn't want necromancy (specifically the reanimating-the-dead-kind) to be good-aligned in their setting. Is that so strange?


Yeah, I read up a bit on her. I'd say her current pally oath is still plenty more E than she is though. Again, probably because Paizo didn't like the idea of a N pally for some reason, but still thought Calistria should have pallys in her service.

See, here again it sounds like you're talking about the existing CE Antipaladins and not any sort of CN variant. Of course the code sounds very CE - right now, that's the only alignment her "paladins" can be. Hence my confusion about your confusion.

[upho]

The Eternal Flame and the Dark/Black Flame. One is the pinnacle of Law and Good, the other is the pinnacle of Chaos and Evil.Well, with these LG/CE power sources, it does make sense that there are G or E pallys of N deities, as well as N pallys. So keep the CE antipally oath as is, just don't treat it as "stupid evil", which should give your PC quite a lot of room for "abusing the powers of evil to further his own goals". As a DM, I would have the actions of such a PC questioned (by other pallys/the power source itself/whatever) from time to time, and the world would certainly give the PC problems if he cannot come up with a good (pun intended) reason how his actions promotes Evil in some way. And a solid defense of actions is really easy in this case, actually, for example along the lines of: "In the long run, I benefit more than anyone else from acting like I did. Which is all I care about, MY gain!" :smalltongue:

[Spore]

See above - also, I am human, you know. I know it can be difficult to tell over the internet but I assure you, it's true.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/427/561/7ad.jpg


As a DM, I would have the actions of such a PC questioned (by other pallys/the power source itself/whatever) from time to time, and the world would certainly give the PC problems if he cannot come up with a good (pun intended) reason how his actions promotes Evil in some way.

While I like it when the DM plays to the PC's strengths and weaknesses I would to hear a reason to dampen this conflict somewhat. I realize that Paladins are held to a higher standard than clerics while it should honestly be vice versa from a perspective of power levels and gameplay as well as internal reasoning: Clerics are the direct channel of gods while Paladins are merely bolstered Fighters for Good.

There's also a nation ruled by thirteen Antipaladins (the DM called it the "Mordor" of his setting) where I can't honestly see all of them being radically evil or radically chaotic. Heck, even drow society in Faerun, the so-called pinnacle of chaotic evil has a very strict code in its cities made to benefit chaos and treachery.

I could see the character as an acolyte or initiate (or generally person with a horrible past, depending on the level) who saw or noticed where the empty promises of power lead and abandoned his evil ways. He isn't out for saving the world from evil but his own revenge. His thirst for power is not sated but he wants to determine the actual conditions on how this works rather than being a slave of the Black Flame or their masters.

Maybe his firstborn son was sacrificed or his best friend was killed due to his resistance which didn't make him give in but flee. And there is no greater chaos than the turmoil within an CE society. The main problem I got as a player however is that the Antipaladin's abilities in itself are not a great way to grant powers to fight against other classically evil creatures. Undead are immune to Touch of Corruption and Smite Good as well as Divine Bond (Weapon) does almost nothing to evil outsiders. The Fiendish minion is terrible vs. everyone evil, and even worse vs. the inevitable good forces hunting the character for existing (mainly inquisitors). Also without spending a feat, channel negative energy is almost always detrimental to the party.

I chose to ignore the comment on the first page about "how an evil oracle/cleric is much better at doing what the backstory requires" and I've played an Antipaladin 2/Ninja 13 for a short amount of time where the dip greatly improved my saves and ability to slaughter good targets. And honestly, even a Divine Trickster (houseruled class by Rich), an Assassin or an evil Inquisitor does a better job at being morally ambigous. Especially because you can just choose the Black Flame as your god, be CN and still have your Bane ability target evil outsiders.

As a summary:
- The classes' powers are not promoting "pinnacle of evil/chaos" but the "best killer of pure and good things".
- The features are confused about what a melee character in PF should be (at least a Paladin is very durable with free action LoH)
- Other classes are much much more capable of doing what I try to portray.

[upho]

See above - also, I am human, you know. I know it can be difficult to tell over the internet but I assure you, it's true.:smalleek:
But... I always thought at least you were on the non-human team, like I am...

Guess it's back to the loneliness of online reality and being the eternal "UFO" again... :smallfrown:


They didn't want one, just like they didn't want necromancy (specifically the reanimating-the-dead-kind) to be good-aligned in their setting. Is that so strange?Not in itself. The strangeness appears when they also think two of their major N deities should have pallies.


See, here again it sounds like you're talking about the existing CE Antipaladins and not any sort of CN variant.Sorry 'bout that. In my first post, I first addressed Sporeegg's exception, and then went on to comment on the related existing exception (deity-wise) in Golarion. I've done the same in most of my later posts, thinking it was obvious because of the quotes to which I'm replying.


Of course the code sounds very CE - right now, that's the only alignment her "paladins" can be. Hence my confusion about your confusion.So basically what I said: "Again, probably because Paizo didn't like the idea of a N pally for some reason, but still thought Calistria should have pallys in her service", I guess.

[Spore]

Grey Wardens is what Paizo has for neutral paladins. :)

[Psyren]

Not in itself. The strangeness appears when they also think two of their major N deities should have pallies.

It's no stranger than when WotC did it. St. Cuthbert has paladins and he's LN. So do Wee Jas and Helm, the poster-girl and boy respectively of Lawful Neutrality. Pelor and Lathander have paladins despite being solidly NG. And so on.



So basically what I said: "Again, probably because Paizo didn't like the idea of a N pally for some reason, but still thought Calistria should have pallys in her service", I guess.

See above - this is not unique to Paizo by any stretch. They're just continuing a trend.

[upho]

While I like it when the DM plays to the PC's strengths and weaknesses I would to hear a reason to dampen this conflict somewhat. I realize that Paladins are held to a higher standard than clerics while it should honestly be vice versa from a perspective of power levels and gameplay as well as internal reasoning: Clerics are the direct channel of gods while Paladins are merely bolstered Fighters for Good.I agree. My point was more that as a DM I would at least challenge the pally PC's Evil "cover" persona from time to time (depending on what he does and the persons who know about his actions, of course). Meaning the pally should be perfectly able to get off free by "lying" if he can, at least superficially, properly defend questionable actions by sound reasoning.

Meaning there should be no divine higher authority which automatically sees and knows everything the pally does, and which can more or less arbitrarily strip him of his powers. Instead, I'd recommend pallys should be scrutinized by a much less all-seeing and much more worldly authority, for example comprised of the pally's higher-ranking colleagues and church members (such as the mentioned "Unholy Thirteen Antipallys of Sort-of-Mordor" in your campaign). This brings the whole philosophical debate about the code-related stuff, such as "What does it mean to promote Evil?", into the game instead of having it confined to a meta-level OoC. Which I think could open up for some great RP. (Another nice side-effect is that this could potentially give some Inquisitors a very interesting (and dangerous) role/job...)


As a summary:
- The classes' powers are not promoting "pinnacle of evil/chaos" but the "best killer of pure and good things".
- The features are confused about what a melee character in PF should be (at least a Paladin is very durable with free action LoH)
- Other classes are much much more capable of doing what I try to portray.Hence why I suggest the alignment aspects of these class features should be up to the sponsoring deity in question, or, especially in the case of your campaign, chosen more or less freely by each pally, just as in the case of an inquisitor, oracle or assassin. This would make the swearing of the oath to the deity/power/thing (like the Black Flame in your case) more of a symbolic action, and whether he's generally regarded as a pally or an antipally would be mostly dependent on whether what he swore to is regarded as G or E. (Besides of course how white his steed is or demonic his minion appears to be, how shiny or black and spiky his armor is, and whatever other subtle signs the pally uses to declare his affiliations.) :smallwink:

Also, at least in the standard D&D setting, the Blood War is a big thing, meaning I think there are very compelling reasons for antipallys to have powers tuned to fight E (or L or C) things rather than G. This would also open up for quite a bit more variation, as each individual pally could be a mix of pally and antipally features according to RAW.

In conclusion, I suggest you ask your DM to allow you to replace these features with versions more in accordance with your character, giving your pally for example a "Chaos Companion" rather than a fiendish minion and allowing you to have LoH rather than ToC. And as you mentioned, it surely wouldn't hurt class balance...

I think I'd really like both playing and DM:ing for your character, btw. :smallsmile:

[Spore]

I had something like "Smite Chaos/Smite Order" in mind for both neutral knightly alignments but at least the idea of "Smite Order" was cast aside without providing arguments. We have a few players who try to stay close to the book and they get very .. let's just say ... annoying when dealing with homebrew.

That's why I'm not sure if an CN Inquisitor isn't honestly just better at "being evil". Firstly they have enough skill points to cover up their identity (Stealth, Bluff, Perception to find eaves-dropping spies), secondly their Judgment and Bane abilities are much more flexible and can be refluffed as Smite x anyways. Thirdly their spells and wisdom > charisma lend for a more divine connection and improve the gameplay I would want from such a character: Less "in your face evil", more likely "subtle behind your back evil".

But there are two toys that I can't replicate so simply:
- Immunity to diseases + spreading diseases: While this isn't group friendly OR in the mind of my concept, I miss out on wiping out whole towns with a particuarly nasty disease
- Aura of Cowardice is a pretty good buff to all fear-based concepts
- Touch of Cruelty opens up for several very aweseome game plans: Staggered, shaken and a turn later frightened enemies aren't much up to a fight.

Combining fear and debuffing with a nonlethal combat style and you can even boast to be the moral compass of the group because you are NOT the one in the group slaughtering the enemies. They just stop to attack and are considerably easier to get chained up. After all, Antipaladin is just a label. I am true and righteous (Bluff + circumstance bonus).

Weirdly enough Inquisitors are almost equally as good at striking fear into the enemies. Still, they don't get around fear immunity (which most of the time are weird extradimensional things or undead anyway so you'd have no qualms killing them).

[upho]

It's no stranger than when WotC did it. St. Cuthbert has paladins and he's LN. So do Wee Jas and Helm, the poster-girl and boy respectively of Lawful Neutrality. Pelor and Lathander have paladins despite being solidly NG. And so on.Oh, I'm certainly not saying WotC did this any better in any edition before 4th. I just find it curious that this, by comparison to other classes, extremely harsh and unusually personality-related "homage" to what first inspired the pally class is still regarded as sacred, despite classes in general and the pally class in particular having grown to something else, and despite this limiting "homage" causing inconsistency issues in published settings.

In terms of alignment restrictions, a pally similar to the 4e version would be ideal for making pallys of St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, Calistria or Abadar, as well as any other deity of any alignment. So why haven't this annoying stopping-block of a relic been tossed out?

I mean, using your comparison to necromancy always being evil, wouldn't you think it odd if they made an archetype or PrC dedicated to a N deity that specializes in necromancy?

[avr]

As an inquisitor
Immunity to disease - remove disease will do for that.
Spreading disease - you may need to use mundane means. Or get an animal companion or improved familar which happens to be a dire rat.
Fear - inquistors have any number of fear ... or pain-type spells. Pain spells aren't blocked by immunity to fear but they have much the same flavor.

An inquisitor is certainly easier to use & I think would be a better plan.

[Psyren]

Meaning there should be no divine higher authority which automatically sees and knows everything the pally does, and which can more or less arbitrarily strip him of his powers. Instead, I'd recommend pallys should be scrutinized by a much less all-seeing and much more worldly authority, for example comprised of the pally's higher-ranking colleagues and church members (such as the mentioned "Unholy Thirteen Antipallys of Sort-of-Mordor" in your campaign). This brings the whole philosophical debate about the code-related stuff, such as "What does it mean to promote Evil?", into the game instead of having it confined to a meta-level OoC. Which I think could open up for some great RP. (Another nice side-effect is that this could potentially give some Inquisitors a very interesting (and dangerous) role/job...)

Sounds like you'd enjoy Eberron then - that's more or less what it does. As long as your church hasn't kicked you out, you can keep your powers even if your alignment has shifted out of bounds, and "detect spells" make you detect as whatever your church purports to be. Getting excommunicated by your mortal leadership is what makes you fall.



I mean, using your comparison to necromancy always being evil, wouldn't you think it odd if they made an archetype or PrC dedicated to a N deity that specializes in necromancy?

Not really - Dread Necromancers can be neutral after all, so there's precedent. It's a very hard line to walk if you plan on making reanimation a habit, but it IS possible.

Dogma-wise, LN deities like Wee Jas and Jergal permit reanimation in very dire circumstances, require you to be very respectful to the dead while they're up and about, and to not use them any longer than is absolutely necessary. Others, like Kelemvor and Pharasma, simply don't want you even thinking about it.


In terms of alignment restrictions, a pally similar to the 4e version would be ideal for making pallys of St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, Calistria or Abadar, as well as any other deity of any alignment. So why haven't this annoying stopping-block of a relic been tossed out?

4e simply said "you must match your deity's alignment," and required both Paladins and Clerics to follow this rule (with Unaligned deities being the exception.) I find this rather lazy as it removes a great deal of internal conflict from the church - for example, in a NG or LN church, there are no paladins with the "stricter" LG alignment who are there to serve as an example for (and debate/berate) their non-LG fellows. But then, I wasn't a fan of what 4e did with alignment in general, so I can see that being a point of contention also.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there's a place for more intrigue-heavy settings like Eberron. But I don't think the entire game should be like that. Base D&D is built on the assumption of being a hero, and part of that assumption is black and white morality - knowing for sure that you are One Of The Good Guys, and that person over there is One of The Bad Guys, and that you're totally justified in breaking out the smites. The more complex approach can be fun too - in moderation.

[Nagukuk]

Back in the days of Dragon Magazine - and Advanced D&D. There was an article with Paladins for every alinement. It has been a long time since I read over them, but perhaps they could give you some more research material at least.

It was called A PLETHORA OF PALADINS.

[upho]

I had something like "Smite Chaos/Smite Order" in mind for both neutral knightly alignments but at least the idea of "Smite Order" was cast aside without providing arguments. We have a few players who try to stay close to the book and they get very .. let's just say ... annoying when dealing with homebrew.

That's why I'm not sure if an CN Inquisitor isn't honestly just better at "being evil". Firstly they have enough skill points to cover up their identity (Stealth, Bluff, Perception to find eaves-dropping spies), secondly their Judgment and Bane abilities are much more flexible and can be refluffed as Smite x anyways. Thirdly their spells and wisdom > charisma lend for a more divine connection and improve the gameplay I would want from such a character: Less "in your face evil", more likely "subtle behind your back evil".

But there are two toys that I can't replicate so simply:
- Immunity to diseases + spreading diseases: While this isn't group friendly OR in the mind of my concept, I miss out on wiping out whole towns with a particuarly nasty disease
- Aura of Cowardice is a pretty good buff to all fear-based concepts
- Touch of Cruelty opens up for several very aweseome game plans: Staggered, shaken and a turn later frightened enemies aren't much up to a fight.

Combining fear and debuffing with a nonlethal combat style and you can even boast to be the moral compass of the group because you are NOT the one in the group slaughtering the enemies. They just stop to attack and are considerably easier to get chained up. After all, Antipaladin is just a label. I am true and righteous (Bluff + circumstance bonus).

Weirdly enough Inquisitors are almost equally as good at striking fear into the enemies. Still, they don't get around fear immunity (which most of the time are weird extradimensional things or undead anyway so you'd have no qualms killing them).Hmm... Does your group allow PoW? If so, you could go Inquisitor and exchange your domain for a warpath with the Black Seraph discipline, allowing you to take the Black Seraph style feats which enables you to remove opponents' immunity to fear (even if they are immune to mind-affecting). Quite a roundabout way, but combined with some other appropriate feats it could easily make you a silly fearsome and very capable melee inquisitor.

If you don't start at 1st level, you could also begin as CG and take Soulless Gaze (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/damnation-feats/soulless-gaze-damnation) plus one other damnation feat, meaning you'd end up CN and able to, for example, turn any enemy panicked with a full attack using Cornugon Smash. Add the Cruel weapon property and they'll also be sickened, something like a no-save mini-version of the antipally's disease-spreading. With Stern Gaze and Intimidating Prowess, your hilariously high intimidation bonus will easily be enough to demoralize even the most dangerous foes you're likely to ever meet. Add Scarred Legion to your Solo Tactics feats for extra super-scary flavor. :smallbiggrin:

More feat and item intense than the antipally version for sure, but also quite a bit more powerful, besides giving you the much increased general flexibility of a 6/9 caster and being RAW. And you'd have access to the extremely well-fitting and deliciously evil-flavored Black Seraph maneuvers. You'd probably won't have enough room for Dazzling Display and related feats in this case, but you'd still end up as any antipally's wet dream (nightmare?)!

If the Black Seraph style feats are no-go, I don't know of any way to let you ignore immunity to fear.

[Spore]

New feats would be allowed as are singular archetypes but I am afraid I won't be able to introduce the mechanics of stances for a single character.