Blackguard = Anti-Paladin?
Sharguild
Member Posts: 186
I'm not overly familiar with what in effect, a Blackguard is;
As I am of an ancient breed, an ADnD v2.0 player, I did not really stay current wrt what this new class is meant to identify. I recall back in the early '80s there was talk of utilizing a script antithetical to the Paladin and so the "Anti-Paladin" was developed.
However, these were the "last" guys you wanted to party with, they were essentially created as a nemesis that a group of heroes would confront as part of a campaign and were treated much as you would a Lich.
These guys were all sorts of bad news;
- aura of decay ( not much fun in a camping tent)
- easily willing to sacrifice companion or minion at first opportunity to advance own desires
- total coward that would always use devious ends to achieve goals
- powerful yet extremely rare to confront one-on-one as will always exploit opportunities
- never achieved allegiances, would black-mail, coerce or threaten for services
- basically, Sauron before the ring thing.
So, what is a Blackguard?
As far as I can ascertain, not all of these characteristics have been implemented. Take Dorn for example. Apparently he has some bizarre code of ethics and is willing to join a group regardless of personal traits they exhibit ( short of an actual Paladin confronting him).
He also doesn't seem to exhibit a hidden agenda that would essentially guarantee the party ends up worm-food
( that an Anti-Paladin would go out of his way to ensure, "leave no loose ends").
And, if you are creating a Blackguard as your PC, what in essence is your considered play-style/goal?
An Anti-Paladin would have ZERO interest in resolving ANY of the plot quests the campaign unfolds. If anything, he would do everything he could to become Sarevoks best bud, then have a minion back-stab him in the toilet and take over. Achieving god-status through expediency, heh.
This also brings to mind my whole concept on the ambitions of any evil aligned party, but one thought train at a time.....
Your thoughts?
As I am of an ancient breed, an ADnD v2.0 player, I did not really stay current wrt what this new class is meant to identify. I recall back in the early '80s there was talk of utilizing a script antithetical to the Paladin and so the "Anti-Paladin" was developed.
However, these were the "last" guys you wanted to party with, they were essentially created as a nemesis that a group of heroes would confront as part of a campaign and were treated much as you would a Lich.
These guys were all sorts of bad news;
- aura of decay ( not much fun in a camping tent)
- easily willing to sacrifice companion or minion at first opportunity to advance own desires
- total coward that would always use devious ends to achieve goals
- powerful yet extremely rare to confront one-on-one as will always exploit opportunities
- never achieved allegiances, would black-mail, coerce or threaten for services
- basically, Sauron before the ring thing.
So, what is a Blackguard?
As far as I can ascertain, not all of these characteristics have been implemented. Take Dorn for example. Apparently he has some bizarre code of ethics and is willing to join a group regardless of personal traits they exhibit ( short of an actual Paladin confronting him).
He also doesn't seem to exhibit a hidden agenda that would essentially guarantee the party ends up worm-food
( that an Anti-Paladin would go out of his way to ensure, "leave no loose ends").
And, if you are creating a Blackguard as your PC, what in essence is your considered play-style/goal?
An Anti-Paladin would have ZERO interest in resolving ANY of the plot quests the campaign unfolds. If anything, he would do everything he could to become Sarevoks best bud, then have a minion back-stab him in the toilet and take over. Achieving god-status through expediency, heh.
This also brings to mind my whole concept on the ambitions of any evil aligned party, but one thought train at a time.....
Your thoughts?
3
Comments
Though I admit to being crap when it comes to making evil characters. Even the most "evil" character I've ever come was a Chaotic Neutral Warlock in Neverwinter Nights 2. He eventually turned out Chaotic Good.
I suggest not to his way of thinking. His interests were certainly different than that of the alliance as he was a proponent for the Empire but I don't recall even the Jedi Council calling him "evil". I was of the impression the "dark side" of the force was more a yin-yang thing than an evil-good thing.
But... this conversation will assuredly de-rail the thread so perhaps another conversation another time on this.
If you've read Dragonlance - the dark goddess created a group of dark knights that would essentially battle the light gods' - knights of Solmania - dark knights follow a calling - whatever it may be - and even though the description makes them seem pretty evil - they should have their own code of ethics that shapes what they do.
As a paladin follows the will of his gods so does a blackguard follow the will of his dark gods. This does not necessarily mean you don't help those in need or stop wanna be mages that want god-hood or is demon-hood - I imagine the black knight's gods would want to stop another evil god from ascending and becoming another foe to deal with or a dark god that might surpass them.
In truth, BG doesn't do that great of a story line for evil alignments - besides the need for revenge for the death of Gorion - of course a lot depends on your definition of what evil means and how it plays out - a lot of thieves are evil aligned doesn't mean that they want to consort with demons and become evil gods.
Evil - might just simply mean doing something outside what is accepted by society/government - its hard to be different - and so you are evil in there eyes.
As a Child of Bhaal you essentially have interest in denying your heritage and ascending despite it or embracing your heritage and ascending because of it.
I've played pnp evil campaigns and they were notoriously difficult to control and come to a successful conclusion. Main reason being, we teenagers had a propensity for confusing evil with psychotic mass murder of everyone. Fun times....
I can only imagine the difficulty Ray and the gang had trying to fashion a story-line that would enable "evil" characters to somehow come to a rational conclusion.
Alas, I'm side-lining once more....
Thanks for your thoughts re; "Dark Knight", I like it.
I would be interested to know what the "intent" was of a Blackguard in the game though.
Yeah, I can google "Blackguard". That would tell me nothing of the games intent however.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
So, a paladin is a paragon of the beliefs and/or virtues of a "good" deity, which in turn grants said paladin some cool abilities, for as long as the paladin stick to those beliefs/virtues. So it's a sort of (unspoken?) goody-two-shoes contract.
And a blackguard is the same, except with an "evil" patron, and a "do my dirty work in exchange for the cool abilities" contract.
So the common ground, I believe, is a contract with a higher power. Without that, a paladin is just a goody-two-shoes fighter, and the blackguard an evil bastard fighter.
The funny thing is though, since it's not a presige class like in 3.5 but a regular class, charname starts as a Level 1 Blackguard in Candlekeep, which implies that charname somehow "made a deal with the devil" under the noses of Gorion, Tethtoril and Ulraunt..
Imagine one stormy night a group of friends gather for a seance but something goes horribly wrong - instead they call up something dark and sinister. The Dark Power slaughters all your friends but holds off on you when it realizes its sense the divine spark in you. To save your friends you make a pact with it - you will follow its dictates but you are allowed free will in how you carry out this "its mission" in exchange your friends are revived (without their memories of the event) and so you become a servant to a darker power - a blackguard in secret - who might share some of the secrets texts of Candlekeep (as part of the pact as you train in secret) until that fateful day when Gorion asks you to prepare for a journey.
Of course, just as it's possible to be a good person and not be a paladin, it's possible to be an evil person and not be a blackguard. Blackguards are specifically evil warriors who draw on some dark power in order to further their goals. Doing so might corrupt them, or it might require sacrifices that harm others, or it might just be a simple "sell your soul" deal, but the blackguard doesn't much care. It's a price they're willing to pay for the power they need.
About "Evil", however, I don't think it should be "hurting others for the sake of being evil" because it doesn't make any sense logically..
(The incentive to do this is unclear, and often doesn't give the character in question any advantages - thus ironically being selfless, but in a pointless way)
"Evil" should be "selfish", I think. You will not hestitate to murder a kitten if it furthers your goals, but if it doesn't you won't go out your way to do that.
I am not sure how consistent this line of thinking is with the original intent of the D&D "Good" and "Evil", though.
She uses the power from the God of Murder to murder; taking a path down darkness few would choose or could even consider following. She does so to rid the world of evil; she will fight fire with fire. She will not rest until all the evil of the Bhaalspawn lay dead at her feet. When that lofty goal has been met she will kill the last lineage of that vile taint: herself.
People often have this weird idea that evil means you're some psychotic asshole who does whatever he wants, and that seems to include killing random folks for no good reason. In terms of D&D alignments, only chaotic evil characters can justify this. That's the reason that many P&P DMs ban chaotic evil in their games, because it can literally screw over the party.
The Blackguard took a more ground up approach, imagining what set of powers would be appropriate for the ultimate champion of an evil deity/power, much as the paladin is the ultimate (mortal) champion of a good deity/power. In some ways they look similar, and in other ways they have distinctly different feel.
An anti-paladin, with the mirror nature, is always going to be Chaotic Evil. I would expect a Blackguard, with a strict role of service to their patron, to skew Lawful Evil.
Point is, to wantonly slaughter without reason and with full knowledge of what one is doing actually does require a measure of insanity. This is why chaotic evil characters tend to be viewed as psychopaths/psychotic. Psychosis can manifest itself as attacking those around you in a fit of violent rage, although that is rare. Due to the nature of the FR, a violent and chaotic evil psychotic is likely to be thought to be influenced/controlled by an evil-aligned god who views slaughter as a good thing. Below are several such gods.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cyric
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gruumsh
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Urdlen
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Zaltec
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baphomet
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Garagos
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deities_of_Fury
A psychotic who isn't chaotic evil is unlikely to called or recognized as such. It's more likely that the delusions or hallucinations would be viewed as visions from one of the evil-aligned FR gods.
There are better ways to describe this sort of thing without zeroing in on psychosis, however. More precise ways. Like talking about how chaotic evil leaders rely on strength to intimidate others into serving them as opposed to a more organized hierarchy. For example.
I look at the alignment system similarly; there's a difference between alignment and actions. The alignment is the nature of your persona, the combined wishes, aims, goals, thoughts, ideas etc. The actions you do usually reflect that, but may also be something opposite.
Ie a lawful neutral soldier can commit really awful, "evil" crimes by only following the orders of his or her superiors without being evil.
The reason a Blackguard has to be evil is probably because he or she is considered very selfish, putting his/her own's good ahead of others, doing evil acts on account of his/her patron. Though ion my humble opinion, a blackguard could also be ie lawful neutral.
Lets say a semi-brainwashed fighter-esque man joins a cult. The cult worships some kind of demon and that demon really likes the idea of having its own small army rampaging around killing in its name. The fighter, being used to follow orders, agrees to becoming a blackguard for said demon, using its power to augments his own. Then he recieves orders to kill civilans and piss on their corpses. Is he evil?
Dunno, maybe the above scenario could never happen within FR, but I wish the alignment system was less rigid about classes. I think the system is interresting, but I dislike when it hinders RP and potential character enrichment.
I find a huge difference between alignment in D&D vs. the real world, simply because alignment is such a palpable part of the game world, with various embodiments in divine powers that interact directly in the world, and rules/spells/effects that interact directly with alignments.
In terms of real-world analysis, I don't think you can get away with saying "I am neutral, I work only for the money, not the cause". Is a hired assassin a neutral, or an evil character? An assassin that keeps taking hits from evil patrons to execute painfully, publicly, and messily only saintly government officials doing good works, as they pay the best?
While good and evil are frequently interpreted as opposites, I don't think it is as simple as just reversing everything. A person is generally 'good' if their motivation for doing deeds is good - allowing yourself to be hired to do good deeds because you need a paycheck does not make you a good person. Taking the same contract as you specifically want a contract you can live with, turning down others, even though you care only about the money and not the specific good being done, is probably a sign of a goodly character.
Evil can be manifest entirely by the deeds. If someone hires you to butcher every infant in a town, that act is evil, even if under performed under the force of law by the king who is hiring you. You cannot simply side-step moral responsibility by saying it is just another paying job - the evil in the act is sticky. Conversely, if you are hired to play santa clause, you do NOT become a saint. Good acts are not 'sticky', per my previous point
I don't buy that it is insanity. Being poor at planning isn't a mental illness, even if it is a symptom of various conditions (such as ADHD or several personality disorders). Committing any act to further their own ends isn't a mental illness either. Most of these traits listed aren't really symptoms of mental illness or complete mental illnesses of themselves.
Directly linking mental illness to being evil is a fairly bad practice and does no good for people in the real world who have real mental illnesses but who are in large part not what anyone would describe as "evil."
Plus what @jackjack said about the gap between chaotic evil and chaotic stupid and the alignment as a magnetic pole as opposed to a strict definition.
So this is what I mean when I separate actions and alignement. One can differ from the other, but just as @jackjack said, they will be drawn to eachother instinctively.