/tg/ - Traditional Games » Thread #43355522

[14 / 2 / ?]

181KiB, 711x1122, 37302ea21def4b68d7032ae138f6f246.jpg

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:07:22 No.43355522 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>43355595 >>43355771 >>43356787 >>43357324 >>43357577

Why are paladins of evil gods/deities called anti-paladins? Shouldn't they just be called paladins, since a paladin is just a feverent warrior of a particular god?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:10:18 No.43355595 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43355522
>a paladin is just a fervent warrior of a particular god
But they aren't, which is why the Paladin's evil counterpart is called an anti-Paladin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:16:57 No.43355728 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Because until 4e fucked stuff up, paladins were by definition Lawful Good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:18:48 No.43355771 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>43357211 >>43357838

>>43355522
Paladins are chivalric knights fighting for truth and order and all that good stuff.

I do agree that evil, warped/mirrored/corrupted/whatever versions of paladin's shouldn't be called Anti-Paladins, though. That's fucking dumb, who calls their profession/"class" a name based entirely on its opposition to another? Same with Dark Knight, etc.

Anti-Paladins/Dark Paladins should have a unique name that evokes something beyond "think up that other guy, but with the colors inverted." However, evil paladins have so many different themes there's probably no universal name. Do dark paladins reject the compassion and honor of a paladin while retaining the charisma, becoming cold-hearted and calculating Warlords? Do they reject the idea of defending others and become a horrifying whirlwind of violence known as Ravagers? Or do they abandon salving and protective magic in favor of destructive controlling magic and keep the focus on heavy arms and armor, becoming some sort of Marshal of evil creatures?

>tl;dr it depends on the setting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:06:55 No.43356787 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43355522
To distinguish them from good paladins

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:12:04 No.43356883 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Mostly, convoluted D&D development history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:23:52 No.43357091 Report Delete

Quoted By:

What a bunch of nitpicking nerds. Call them something else then if that's what makes you tick

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:30:20 No.43357211 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43355771
>who calls their profession/"class" a name based entirely on its opposition to another?

It's also weird as shit to go around describing yourself as fighter or barbarian, or adventure as opposed to say soldier, warrior, or sellsword.

Anti paladin would likely describe himself as a knight or mercenary. Others might describe him as a "black guard", "dark knight", or similar as his ruthless nature and powers become well known

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:30:39 No.43357217 Report Delete

Quoted By:

IMHO it's quite obvious that "antipaladin" is just a conventional term to define the characters role to the player, like every othe 'class'. In game, an antipaladin would present himself as an errant knight, or a marshal, or a warlord, depending on the situation. Similarly, an old witch would describe herself as a wise healer, instead of risking to end burned alive, and a rouge would tell the city guards he's an adventurer or a treasure hunter, instead of ending in jail because he admitted to be a thive.
Every character I ever played was something more tha just "xyz class": my kobold rouge said he was an acrobat and jester, my halfling witch said she was a beer brewer and cook, my tiefling paladin described himself as a penitent at the service of the gods, my halforc warior allways said he was a humble stonecutter and artisan (he used a hammer as weapon). It's way more fun and realistic using a bit of flavor and storytelling than just stick to that single term on your character sheet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:36:16 No.43357324 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43355522
Because that's what George Laking and Tim Mesford called them when they first wrote game stats for them in Dragon #39, back in July 1980.

Seriously. Go look it up.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1444281849271.jpg, 219KiB, 708x1127

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:48:51 No.43357577 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>43357916

>>43355522

I remember some Pathfinder book describing anti-Paladins as the thematic equal and opposite to a Paladin. A Paladin is Lawful Good, so an anti-Paladin is Chaotic Evil. Paladins are chivalrous, so an anti-Paladin is self-centered and antagonistic. Paladins are honorable and shit, anti-Paladins use poisons to make you shit. I think they were going for some kind of Batman/Joker dichotomy.

Though the idea of it being a formal name is asinine. Really I try to avoid dark counterpart names, because it contributes to conflating a character's personality with their class (probably my biggest gripe towards class-based systems). You don't need to call a fallen Jedi a Sith. You don't need to call an evil Paladin an anti-Paladin or a Blackguard. Can't they just be an evil jackass?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:58:54 No.43357838 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43355771
"Dark Knight" was just another way of saying "Black Knight," which originally referred to a lordless knight. Without a wealthy patron's support, it was difficult to maintain a full suit of metal armor. The cheapest way to keep it from rusting is to slap a coat of paint over everything, and black was the cheapest sort of paint.

Lordless, penniless warriors tended to resort to banditry (after all, if they were respectable they wouldn't have been released from service), so a suit of black armor became the equivalent of neon orange jumpsuits as a big "I'm a criminal!" sign.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 19:02:20 No.43357916 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>43357989

>>43357577
>You don't need to call a fallen Jedi a Sith.
Technically (at least in the old Legends continuity) those AREN'T the same thing. The Sith are a very specific group that have this whole crazy Randian dog-eat-dog philosophy going on. Non-Sith dark siders generally just get called "Dark Jedi" or "dark siders".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 19:05:30 No.43357989 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>43357916

Yeah but they've still been shoehorned as the recurring antagonists when we really don't need them. Lucas conceptualized them way back when he was still writing the first film. But he wisely kept them out, because they weren't necessary for the story.

I feel that same approach should be taken when considering what an evil Paladin should be. They should just be a character, not a class.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches