|
|
Post by mao on Mar 19, 2021 4:45:05 GMT -5
Boy do I have this word. It makes no sense, must be replaced by EVIL paladin or else
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 19, 2021 18:08:41 GMT -5
Boy do I have this word. It makes no sense, must be replaced by EVIL paladin or else  I have another take, I don't call them paladins at all. Paladins are by definition the ultimate good guy and anyone who is anything else is not a paladin. I have never had them in my game, but if I did, I would have to create a completely different name for them. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 19, 2021 18:55:41 GMT -5
Didn't 3E or something have a whole set of paladins for each alignment? I never much liked that idea. It seemed to cheapen the idea of paladin and make something that was supposed to be quite rare. Also I just didn't like what it suggested about alignment -- like, I thought LG was already kind of extreme, and then the paladin is a remarkable figure within that realm. But if every alignment has a paladin...I guess they're just specialized kits rather than a real character class?
In AD&D I think there were rather stringent ability restrictions as well as the LG requirement.
Yeah.
AD&D 1E minimums:
STR 12
INT 9
WIS 13
CON 9
CHA 17
So, while I appreciate the idea of a kind of extremely knightly villain, personally, I'd rather not see it made into a character class, simply an evil fighter who pretends to be pious, likely an NPC, maybe a Chaotic or NE character in a position of power or who is seeking power, can play along with LG types for his own purposes...if there is no alignment detection magic or the character works around it, could be interesting (and I'm sure has been done).
But if I needed an informal name, it would be "Knightly Scoundrel."
(Depending on religious flavor of campaign, there are also ideas like "the false monk" and so on.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Mar 21, 2021 6:30:39 GMT -5
|
|
