BG and Paladin playstyle

[CptJonas]

Hi there!
I have played both paladin, and BG....And one thing bothers me...
They are quite similar classes....Just polar oposites in theit alignments...
Then why they have different playstyles? Or more like...Why there are playstyles (not classes) limited by alignment?
Its just my idea...but...Why dont we have path for paladin which gives us ability to play casting sword buffing evil guy? And why dont we have path for BG which gives us ability to play fighter of diety who can summon big monster to fight along side you as good guy? Could it be done? Whats your look on this?


(PS: sorry if this is too much as suggestion....I just wanted to know if more people feel the same )

[Sartain]

I suppose the mechanics could be reworked to create "Paladin" path which instead requires evil alignment and mirrors the Blackguard class, while creating a version of the Blackguard that allows any alignment and more follows the idea of a Favoured Soul-type class.

Question is, would it be worth it since we already have systems in place for that, namely the Paladin and Blackguard classes as they are now

[CptJonas]

I suppose the mechanics could be reworked to create "Paladin" path which instead requires evil alignment and mirrors the Blackguard class, while creating a version of the Blackguard that allows any alignment and more follows the idea of a Favoured Soul-type class.

Question is, would it be worth it since we already have systems in place for that, namely the Paladin and Blackguard classes as they are now

Sure..but its alinment locked...You cant for example play paladin build in UD...
And same...you cant be good guy and surface and play BG.....It would be great to play good BG and run around with celestial/angel..
(Celestial summons are quite underused anyway)

[CosmicOrderV]

This is something I hope gets addressed in the future. Though I feel like, understandably, it wont happen soon. How certain classes play and the powers they get, contrasted with the theme and motif of said class, creates some inconsistencies. BG at the moment cant make up its mind whether it's a melee warlock, or evil paladin.

[Beard Master Flex]

I would love this!

To me the Blackguard is one of the most fun classes to play in game right now - I'd much prefer to be a good guy though!

[Kuma]

This game's never strived for equality over balance, it's just not the style. I'd also find it a little MMO-y to have the only real differences between classes be aesthetic.

"BG at the moment cant make up its mind whether it's a melee warlock, or evil paladin."

i mean that's kind of exactly what they are tbh, they combine elements of both. they're in a great space right now.

[CosmicOrderV]

At the risk of sounding curt, I think your view is a little short-sighted, Kuma. What I mean by that is, aesthetic ought to mean more than just flavor. In an immersive world, what we see and interact with, ought to be symbols for larger ideals and systems. They should be representations of whatever psuedo-physics are at work in this fantasy universe. By dissociating aesthetic from mechanics, inconsistencies are created. This in turn undermines the credibility and immersive nature of the world.

There's nothing MMO'y about that. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This is the sort of depth and universal intrigue that really only happens at the Dev level. It's like wondering what the science at work behind spell-casting is, to which someone shrugs and goes, "It's magic" as if there's no point trying to understand anything. That's the laziest cop-out ever. We're more creative than that. Arelith is held to a higher standard than that. That's what makes it so great.

[Ork]

At the risk of sounding curt, I think your view is a little short-sighted, Kuma. What I mean by that is, aesthetic ought to mean more than just flavor. In an immersive world, what we see and interact with, ought to be symbols for larger ideals and systems. They should be representations of whatever psuedo-physics are at work in this fantasy universe. By dissociating aesthetic from mechanics, inconsistencies are created. This in turn undermines the credibility and immersive nature of the world.

What?

[Aodh Lazuli]

At the risk of sounding curt

No, I don't think anyone who knows what the word means would describe your post as curt.

[CosmicOrderV]

Thanks, Aodh. It can be tough to pin down the tone of a comment. I started off with that statement, just to help clarify the tone I was intending.

As for Ork, where's the hangup at?

[MoreThanThree]

Paladin: Burst DMG melee DPS
Blackguard: Bust DMG melee DPS w/ summons to provide cavalry-type support and sneak attack to encourage flanking

As it stands, the blackguard is the more dynamic option.

[CptJonas]

Paladin: Burst DMG melee DPS
Blackguard: Bust DMG melee DPS w/ summons to provide cavalry-type support and sneak attack to encourage flanking

As it stands, the blackguard is the more dynamic option.

Well yeah...BG is more PVE oriented, and Pala is more on PVP side....

[Ork]

I'd argue that the paladin and blackguard are not simply inverses of a similar coin. Let's look at the books
First, the paladin:

The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil—these are the three weapons of the paladin. Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin’s path, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal, and to smite. In a land of scheming wizards, unholy priests, bloodthirsty dragons, and infernal fiends, the paladin is the final hope that cannot be extinguished.

Paladin is a force for good and law. There is a high bar to be met to qualify as a paladin, and are an enduring hope that good can prevail on Faerun.

Now for the blackguard:

Blackguard, also referred to by some as the antipaladin, is a specialized prestige class on Faerûn that epitomizes pure evil. Nothing short of a mortal fiend, they are quintessential black knights, carrying a reputation of the foulest sort. Consorting with demons and devils while serving dark deities, blackguards are hated and feared by all. They usually lead legions of undead, evil outsiders or other monsters to conquer under their own guide. Occasionally guards might end up as wandering purveyors of chaotic destruction, attacking with honorless guile or flat out smiting the forces of good that stand in their way.

Blackguard are a force for evil that consort with fiends in service to a dark deity. Blackguards lead legions of undead, evil outsiders or monsters to conquer.

Let's simplify it. Paladins use their individual purity to pursue good and law. Blackguards use outsiders or undead to pursue evil. Thematically in the forgotten realms universe, they are both aesthetically and mechanically different.

[CosmicOrderV]

Something that has to be considered when building a world, especially a fantasy setting with magic, is what the limitations are inside the system. What conditions and circumstances are required to achieve what effect. It helps keep the world balanced, and grounded, such that we can suspend belief. When the rules around these things become trivial or inconsistent, balance is broken. This leads to the events inside this world being taken less seriously, because the audience has not built an appreciation or obtained an understanding of what consequences or effects the system has.

That said, let's look back at the SRD quote ork gave regarding Paladins. In short, they're a force of 'good'. Notice how "the will to uphold law" is only one aspect of their theme? Yet, it's taken-by-the-letter, and there's a lawful good requirement. But let's ask why? Couldn't one be a champion of these values, but not a Paladin? If a Paladin were Chaotic, would they be any less a champion of 'Good' ? I'll come back to this question.

Now let's look at the "Anti-paladin." It epitomizes pure evil. No chaotic or lawful requirement here. Just Evil. And just because the SRD mentions them associating with fiends, or leading undead, that gets taken-by-the-letter again, having them literally summon such creatures. Couldn't one consort with fiends, and lead undead armies, just being a normal Fighter? These things are a manifestation of what being a blackguard usually looks like, but not actually what it is. What a blackguard is, is one who draws their power from embodying a metaphysical force: Evil.

Back to Paladins. What are they? One who embodies a metaphysical force: Good... but only if it's Lawful? In name, these two classes are supposed to be counter balanced, but it stops there, in name only. Mechanically, they aren't very similar. The mechanics don't reflect the theme. Despite their themes being two-sides of the same coin.

This is the sort of inconsistency I have been referring to, and hope to see addressed at some point in the server's future. When these little details all start to line up, all the metaphysical symbols of a fantasy world start to play off each other, and start to open up far-reaching, fun, consistent role-play about the nature of life in said fantasy world. It becomes cathartic for similar choices and ideas we have to make in our daily lives. In short, it becomes immersive.

[Baron Saturday]

Without diving into a point-for-point discussion, I'll say that my belief is that the mechanics of the class should enable the core RP of the class, and conversely that mechanics are guided by said core RP. For paladins, NWN seems to have generally used the SRD description, "The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil." Note that all three elements are considered to be of equal importance - thus Lawful AND Good, not just Good. The third column of paladin RP, "the power to defeat evil," is the one most paladin abilities are centered around (most notably Smite Evil) and the one that guides the main changes Arelith has made to the class - specifically in the form of buffs to Bless Weapon and Holy Sword. Ultimately Arelithian paladins exist, mechanically and thematically, as a force of opposition to evil.

Worth noting that NWN in general seems to have focused very heavily on Good v. Evil and largely ignored the Law v. Chaos aspects of the setting, which can be plainly seen in the Protection from Alignment spell line. If I were to make any changes to the Paladin class, I would probably lean towards emphasizing their devotion to Law and opposition to Chaos, perhaps by expanding Smite Evil to also affect Chaos, or giving Bless Weapon a damage bonus vs Chaos.

The Blackguard, meanwhile (and I think it's important that NWN ultimately calls the class the Blackguard rather than the Anti-Paladin) occupies a more general role as the creator of evil in many forms. I'm not sure what changes I would make to the Blackguard class, since I generally feel like it's in a good spot at present, both mechanically and in allowing for a flexible range of RP.

I'm curious what mechanical changes you think should be implemented, COV, since you clearly have some specific opinions about what conceptual spaces both classes should occupy.

[Ork]

Something that has to be considered when building a world, especially a fantasy setting with magic, is what the limitations are inside the system. What conditions and circumstances are required to achieve what effect. It helps keep the world balanced, and grounded, such that we can suspend belief. When the rules around these things become trivial or inconsistent, balance is broken. This leads to the events inside this world being taken less seriously.

How in the world can you argue that because paladins and blackguard have different mechanics, our setting is taken less seriously? Your position is mindblowingly hyperbolic & dramatic.

Paladins receive their immense power from lawful and good deities. Blackguards receive their power from having a non-hostile encounter with an evil outsiders per SRD, not from a dark deity. That's not a condition required on Arelith, but that is the prerequisite of 3.5.

Paladins get power from gods, Blackguards get power from significantly weaker evil outsiders.

[CosmicOrderV]

First, I want to thank Baron for some constructive feedback.

My hope and intent in continuing this thread, is to open up discussion around and point out inconsistencies with, the ideas and implementation of class concepts. I aim to accomplish it through an all-encompassing approach, primarily focused on world-building features, as they relate to maximizing immersion and story-telling potential.

So Ork, you may want to excuse yourself from the thread, because I can't promise your mind won't be blown again.

If Paladins "receive their immense power from lawful and good deities," what exactly is a cleric? Especially one who... receives their power from a lawful and good deity. This class concept becomes redundant, and therefore inconsistent. Why is it that a person serving a lawful good deity would receive one set of powers, entirely different (ie: a different class) than someone else who is doing the exact same thing? A question of Paladin vs. Cleric.

Now onto blackguards. They receive their power through encounters with evil outsiders? What exactly does that even entail? A standard Fighter might have a simple 'encounter' with fiends, then continue along his way with no magical powers gained. This sort of concept just has very weak justification. If one has a non-hostile interaction with a dragon, can they become a Drakenguard? (I just made that term up to prove my point). Moreover, isn't this concept what a warlock is meant to represent? Associating with and drawing power from outsiders, by binding their soul to such an entity. That's definitely a warlock.

No matter how you cut it, these concepts don't line up super well. And please, don't get me wrong, either. I don't intend to portray this as a desperate issue. If I had to offer an analogy, I'd say that at this present time, the concepts around magic, classes, and alignment, are like a puzzle. Sure, if we put similar pieces up next to each other and stand far away, maybe squint a bit, it all looks like a cohesive picture. But if we look a bit closer, there's some cracks. I'm just hoping to bring those cracks to attention, in hopes that they might get addressed in the future.

Addressed how, though? Baron asked this question, offering some good points along the way, and personally I think it could be done a few ways.

I agree with you Baron, that I like the Blackguard not oft being referred to as the anti-paladin. I think it fits far better as the martial version of a warlock. Meleelock? Sure. I would, however, reflect alignment requirements for warlock in the blackguard's requirements. Remove the Evil, and have it be any non-good. Might be fun to also have every 3 BG levels count as one warlock level, for the purposes of eldritch blast damage and spell pen. I would personally even remove Dark Blessing and Smite Good from BG. Replace them with something more thematic (e.g.: instead of Dark Blessing, give them 3 bonus Hit-Points per level, and the feat Slippery Mind--Instead of Smite Good, give a 10min cooldown function to curse a target, dealing small bonus damage or vampric regen against that specific target). CHA bonus towards saving throws and Smiting, should stay with Paladins only, especially if Paladins eventually had no alignment restriction. Whoa. That suggestion seemed to come out of nowhere, didn't it? Mind blown. Keep reading! Before I switch topic though, I would personally even open up warlock/BG to any alignment, and add the option of celestials. Let's consider this: perhaps the great tree in the sky that separates the heavens and the hells, limits great bodies of power from interacting with the Prime too much. This much is supported canonically, it's why Avatars exist. Let's take it a step farther though. Warlocks have to bind their soul to an outsider, usually less than reputable ones. If such a method exists though, why wouldn't goodly outsiders do the same? In fact, maybe the only requirement of the warlock process, is that one be bound to an entity who can more closely influence the Prime. Gods are out of the question, because of the balancing forces that be, preventing them from directly interfering with the Prime. This is why Gods use their clergy. So what's a lesser power to do? The conniving would-be gods, like archfey, fiends... and aspiring celestials? They resort to whatever methodology is involved in binding a soul into warlockdom. So a warlock doesn't need to identify with, understand, or even like their patron. It's a business arrangement for power. Naturally this sort of thing lends itself to disrepute. Power corrupts. But that's not to say some might not occasionally use it with positive effect, or for good reasons.

Now back to Paladins. I'll posit this: While a paladin might strongly associate with a deity, that's an association based on similar metaphysical energy, and not one required for power. Notice how many of the Paladin's features rely on Charisma? Charisma being the attribute that represents a force of personality, and self-awareness. So a paladin's association with a deity is through that deity's portfolio--the divine, metaphysical ideas that the deity represents. Not so much the deity, as an entity, them self. This might mean, of course, that the paladin would be beholden to the entity that wears the divine mantle he or she identifies with. If my paladin is all about quenching undead, fostering new life, and protecting the lives they cherish, then it makes sense that the church of Lathander would likely try to get involved. Through a force of personality, my paladin is tapping into the divine power of the portfolio that Lathander currently holds. Maybe the church just wants like-minded allies, or maybe they want to make sure the divine mantle of Lathander isn't being misused/misrepresented. Either way, it preserves the idea of what a Paladin is, while still segregating it from that of a cleric. With clerics of course being a more empathetic relationship, based around being able to discern the will of their god (Wisdom), and because of that relationship with their specific entity, they are granted powers from that entity, related to the divine portfolio that entity holds. So there you have it, Paladins vs. Clerics.

As for mechanics, this should probably mean that paladin loses its Lawful Good requirement. I would think something like, Any Good, would be more suitable for the time being. But truth be told, I don't see why a Paladin couldn't be of *any* alignment they wished. If a Paladin is one who derives divine power from a force of will, being strongly attuned with deity's portfolio, then that means ANY portfolio, and therefore, ANY alignment. Again, I understand this sort of thing would take time and isn't a desperate need, but having Paladin be of any alignment, and slightly tweaking some of their skills (like having a -command that toggles Lay On Hands between healing, or inflicting wounds--reworking Smite to effect targets of any opposing alignment, not just evil, or simply give them both Smite Good and Smite Evil), would be the perfect match.

[Aodh Lazuli]

If Paladins "receive their immense power from lawful and good deities," what exactly is a cleric? Especially one who... receives their power from a lawful and good deity. This class concept becomes redundant, and therefore inconsistent. Why is it that a person serving a lawful good deity would receive one set of powers, entirely different (ie: a different class) than someone else who is doing the exact same thing? A question of Paladin vs. Cleric.

You seem confused. Clerics and paladins are not doing the same thing. They have access to and make use of very different manifestations of their god's power - with a very little overlap.

[Ork]

So to paraphrase, you're arguing that paladins should be of any alignment and blackguards should be of any alignment. You're petitioning to removing the components that drive those classes' roleplay. In effect you're arguing against 3.5 D&D.

[CosmicOrderV]

You seem confused. Clerics and paladins are not doing the same thing. They have access to and make use of very different manifestations of their god's power - with a very little overlap.

I mean, it's easy enough to claim that, but could you please explain it at all?

So to paraphrase, you're arguing that paladins should be of any alignment and blackguards should be of any alignment. You're petitioning to removing the components that drive those classes' roleplay. In effect you're arguing against 3.5 D&D.

Hopefully it doesn't sound too sarcastic to refer to you as a 'friend' Ork, but I'm trying to find some neutral language that keeps things on the level. At which point I say, my friend, that you seem like someone who is very set in their ways. Just because something changes, doesn't mean it's bad. Part of my argument is absolutely that 3.5 had a couple issues ( especially NWN's implementation of it), but more than that, my argument is advocating for one of the greatest aspects D&D has to offer. Homebrew. The ability for DM's (or Dev's in our case) to create a more perfect world. Arelith has already done it in some small ways, and will no doubt continue. If anything, I feel like my argument is to create a conglomerate of editions, all rolled up into one, taking the best from each and making it our own. Ours will just predominately be 3.5.

[Sartain]

While you guys throw words at each other like this is a university 1st semester oral exam, I'd just like to mention that Paladins are, in fact, not limited to serving Lawful Good deities. Both Helm and Sune have Paladins in the Forgotten Realms and there's probably a few others as well that I forgot

[TimeAdept]

So to paraphrase, you're arguing that paladins should be of any alignment and blackguards should be of any alignment. You're petitioning to removing the components that drive those classes' roleplay. In effect you're arguing against 3.5 D&D.

If he's not I totally am, there's a reason every single RPG system since the end of 3.5 has utterly removed the dated concept of single alignment locked holy classes, DnD and beyond.

Paladin is simply "Crusader", Holy Warrior.

Blackguard is simply "Eldritch Warrior". It's the melee version of Warlock just like Paladin is the melee warrior version of Cleric, and Ranger is the melee warrior version of Druid.

[Beard Master Flex]

So to paraphrase, you're arguing that paladins should be of any alignment and blackguards should be of any alignment. You're petitioning to removing the components that drive those classes' roleplay. In effect you're arguing against 3.5 D&D.

If he's not I totally am, there's a reason every single RPG system since the end of 3.5 has utterly removed the dated concept of single alignment locked holy classes, DnD and beyond.

Paladin is simply "Crusader", Holy Warrior.

Blackguard is simply "Eldritch Warrior". It's the melee version of Warlock just like Paladin is the melee warrior version of Cleric, and Ranger is the melee warrior version of Druid.

I agree!

I've always felt that classes are more or less just a mechanical chassis with which to build your character, within reason.

Plus blackguards are hella fun to play! Would love to see some Neutral ones with Slaadi summons or some good ones with Hound Archons or Deva's.

[CptJonas]

First, I want to thank Baron for some constructive feedback.

My hope and intent in continuing this thread, is to open up discussion around and point out inconsistencies with, the ideas and implementation of class concepts. I aim to accomplish it through an all-encompassing approach, primarily focused on world-building features, as they relate to maximizing immersion and story-telling potential.

So Ork, you may want to excuse yourself from the thread, because I can't promise your mind won't be blown again.

If Paladins "receive their immense power from lawful and good deities," what exactly is a cleric? Especially one who... receives their power from a lawful and good deity. This class concept becomes redundant, and therefore inconsistent. Why is it that a person serving a lawful good deity would receive one set of powers, entirely different (ie: a different class) than someone else who is doing the exact same thing? A question of Paladin vs. Cleric.

Now onto blackguards. They receive their power through encounters with evil outsiders? What exactly does that even entail? A standard Fighter might have a simple 'encounter' with fiends, then continue along his way with no magical powers gained. This sort of concept just has very weak justification. If one has a non-hostile interaction with a dragon, can they become a Drakenguard? (I just made that term up to prove my point). Moreover, isn't this concept what a warlock is meant to represent? Associating with and drawing power from outsiders, by binding their soul to such an entity. That's definitely a warlock.

No matter how you cut it, these concepts don't line up super well. And please, don't get me wrong, either. I don't intend to portray this as a desperate issue. If I had to offer an analogy, I'd say that at this present time, the concepts around magic, classes, and alignment, are like a puzzle. Sure, if we put similar pieces up next to each other and stand far away, maybe squint a bit, it all looks like a cohesive picture. But if we look a bit closer, there's some cracks. I'm just hoping to bring those cracks to attention, in hopes that they might get addressed in the future.

Addressed how, though? Baron asked this question, offering some good points along the way, and personally I think it could be done a few ways.

I agree with you Baron, that I like the Blackguard not oft being referred to as the anti-paladin. I think it fits far better as the martial version of a warlock. Meleelock? Sure. I would, however, reflect alignment requirements for warlock in the blackguard's requirements. Remove the Evil, and have it be any non-good. Might be fun to also have every 3 BG levels count as one warlock level, for the purposes of eldritch blast damage and spell pen. I would personally even remove Dark Blessing and Smite Good from BG. Replace them with something more thematic (e.g.: instead of Dark Blessing, give them 3 bonus Hit-Points per level, and the feat Slippery Mind--Instead of Smite Good, give a 10min cooldown function to curse a target, dealing small bonus damage or vampric regen against that specific target). CHA bonus towards saving throws and Smiting, should stay with Paladins only, especially if Paladins eventually had no alignment restriction. Whoa. That suggestion seemed to come out of nowhere, didn't it? Mind blown. Keep reading! Before I switch topic though, I would personally even open up warlock/BG to any alignment, and add the option of celestials. Let's consider this: perhaps the great tree in the sky that separates the heavens and the hells, limits great bodies of power from interacting with the Prime too much. This much is supported canonically, it's why Avatars exist. Let's take it a step farther though. Warlocks have to bind their soul to an outsider, usually less than reputable ones. If such a method exists though, why wouldn't goodly outsiders do the same? In fact, maybe the only requirement of the warlock process, is that one be bound to an entity who can more closely influence the Prime. Gods are out of the question, because of the balancing forces that be, preventing them from directly interfering with the Prime. This is why Gods use their clergy. So what's a lesser power to do? The conniving would-be gods, like archfey, fiends... and aspiring celestials? They resort to whatever methodology is involved in binding a soul into warlockdom. So a warlock doesn't need to identify with, understand, or even like their patron. It's a business arrangement for power. Naturally this sort of thing lends itself to disrepute. Power corrupts. But that's not to say some might not occasionally use it with positive effect, or for good reasons.

Now back to Paladins. I'll posit this: While a paladin might strongly associate with a deity, that's an association based on similar metaphysical energy, and not one required for power. Notice how many of the Paladin's features rely on Charisma? Charisma being the attribute that represents a force of personality, and self-awareness. So a paladin's association with a deity is through that deity's portfolio--the divine, metaphysical ideas that the deity represents. Not so much the deity, as an entity, them self. This might mean, of course, that the paladin would be beholden to the entity that wears the divine mantle he or she identifies with. If my paladin is all about quenching undead, fostering new life, and protecting the lives they cherish, then it makes sense that the church of Lathander would likely try to get involved. Through a force of personality, my paladin is tapping into the divine power of the portfolio that Lathander currently holds. Maybe the church just wants like-minded allies, or maybe they want to make sure the divine mantle of Lathander isn't being misused/misrepresented. Either way, it preserves the idea of what a Paladin is, while still segregating it from that of a cleric. With clerics of course being a more empathetic relationship, based around being able to discern the will of their god (Wisdom), and because of that relationship with their specific entity, they are granted powers from that entity, related to the divine portfolio that entity holds. So there you have it, Paladins vs. Clerics.

As for mechanics, this should probably mean that paladin loses its Lawful Good requirement. I would think something like, Any Good, would be more suitable for the time being. But truth be told, I don't see why a Paladin couldn't be of *any* alignment they wished. If a Paladin is one who derives divine power from a force of will, being strongly attuned with deity's portfolio, then that means ANY portfolio, and therefore, ANY alignment. Again, I understand this sort of thing would take time and isn't a desperate need, but having Paladin be of any alignment, and slightly tweaking some of their skills (like having a -command that toggles Lay On Hands between healing, or inflicting wounds--reworking Smite to effect targets of any opposing alignment, not just evil, or simply give them both Smite Good and Smite Evil), would be the perfect match.

Just point to Paladins.....these days (later editions) paladins doesnt actualy get divine powers from their diety. They are not just more melee clerics...They got their powers for sheer conviction and belive. Simply put...they belive their gods give them powers so much (and they have so much charisma - power of personality, and wisdom) as they gets super powers. More on the line of Monks more then clerics.

[Ork]

you seem like someone who is very set in their ways. Just because something changes, doesn't mean it's bad.

I have no issue if paladins or blackguards change. I am arguing that these classes are distinctly different and not inverses of a similar coin. I love how 5e changed paladins to be more paragons of a respective alignment instead of shoehorned into LG. However, Paladins are not good blackguards and blackguards are not evil paladins. That's my only position in this thread.

Blackguards historically in 3.5 have been "pact"-like individuals. The requirements for their prestige class requires a friendly encounter with an evil outsider. I'd agree that warlocks and blackguards have a lot in common, and also agree that blackguards are more akin to a melee-lock than a evil paladin. However, the difference is that a blackguard knows the nature of their patron. Warlocks may know or may not know, and how their "pact" arises can be very broad and open to interpretation. Blackguards however must make friendly contact with this outsider which leads me to believe they're willingly pacting to this fiend that has taken interest in them. Of course that's open to interpretation, but I think it at least validates the evil alignment restriction.