They should have put a Shadowknight class in ToB!

Undead Killer · Post by **Undead Killer** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 10:34 pm

A shadowknight would be good for people who want an evil paladin. Saravok could have been a shadowknight in BG1 and ToB. That would have fit his evil ways.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 10:48 pm

Originally posted by Undead Killer:
A shadowknight would be good for people who want an evil paladin. Saravok could have been a shadowknight in BG1 and ToB. That would have fit his evil ways.

Why? Saverok isn't a "fallen" type--he never would have joined any paladin order. He's entirely interested in what's in anything for himself.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 10:57 pm

He's an in-your-face-takes-no-guff-from-anyone-does-as-he-wants type of guy.

Meerlight · Post by **Meerlight** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 7:10 am

The whole evil Paladin thing just doesn't work for me.... Why not just be a very evil assassin? Isn't that a symbol of pure evil and darkness? What about an evil berserker? An evil Berserker/Cleric?

Stoner Cold · Post by **Stoner Cold** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:24 pm

the idea of an evil paladin is of an evil fighter who worships an evil god an is therefore granted special powers. i dunno what they would be, but they would be evil versions of a good paladins abilities.
eg. instead of lay on hands, it might be larlochs, but for more damage and no save.
protection from evil might be doom instead.
see where im going?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 5:18 pm

Originally posted by Stoner Cold:
the idea of an evil paladin is of an evil fighter who worships an evil god an is therefore granted special powers. i dunno what they would be, but they would be evil versions of a good paladins abilities.
eg. instead of lay on hands, it might be larlochs, but for more damage and no save.
protection from evil might be doom instead.
see where im going?

Well, yes, but even assuming we went along with the idea, Saverok doesn't qualify. He only worships himself. Even in death, his only thoughts for regaining life are to bully others and wreck havoc.

kumarajeeva · Post by **kumarajeeva** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 6:04 pm

Its a good idea to have evil paladins but
i dont think Sarevok would be suited. He's
too selfish. The paladin is supposed
to have a cause to believe in thats greater than himself. If Anomen fails his quest he may be better suited to become a shadowknight.

Originally posted by Undead Killer:
A shadowknight would be good for people who want an evil paladin. Saravok could have been a shadowknight in BG1 and ToB. That would have fit his evil ways.

incandescent one · Post by **incandescent one** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 6:22 pm

Anomen (test or no test) is best suited to flipping burgers.

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 2:00 am

Originally posted by fable:
Well, yes, but even assuming we went along with the idea, Saverok doesn't qualify. He only worships himself. Even in death, his only thoughts for regaining life are to bully others and wreck havoc.

That's not entirely true, Fable. If you take Sarevok down the good path, he ends up believing in the protagonist. He actually helps a village fight off an evil army as well. While I agree with you on the point on him not being an evil paladin, in the end, he doesn't only just worship himself, he learns and expands his look on life.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 8:51 am

Originally posted by Vehemence:
That's not entirely true, Fable. If you take Sarevok down the good path, he ends up believing in the protagonist. He actually helps a village fight off an evil army as well. While I agree with you on the point on him not being an evil paladin, in the end, he doesn't only just worship himself, he learns and expands his look on life.

@Veh, context. Check out Undead Killer's initial post: he was referring to the evil, unrepentant Saverok. That was the subject of our posts. Obviously, the reformed Saverok wouldn't make an effective "evil paladin," because he was no longer evil.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 10:34 am

Shadow knights represent the ulitmate evil because they have been corrupted. a CE assasin is just inately evil, but a shadow knight, especially a powerful one, would be not just a conquest but a statement. Imagine if Keldorn was corrupted and what a prize that would be for whatever diety claimed him from Torm. Torm would be some pissed/

btw, isn't Keldorn ending story great?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 9:20 pm

Surely the shadowkeeper can make one, or can't it? But then again, you won't be able to write "shadowknight" as a class, can you?

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:07 pm

Originally posted by fable:
@Veh, context. Check out Undead Killer's initial post: he was referring to the evil, unrepentant Saverok. That was the subject of our posts. Obviously, the reformed Saverok wouldn't make an effective "evil paladin," because he was no longer evil.

Ah yes, I see your point.