Remaster question about post-alignment deities (and champion)

While I know the official remaster of Champion won't be coming out until later, it's still in the game now, so for the mean time, I pose this question: can I now have a rules-legal liberator of Gorum or a desecrator of Abadar? (I've long wanted to execute certain concepts in PF2E, and the 2E alignment restrictions on certain deities proved to be something of a straightjacket on some of my character ideas.)

From the Compatibility Errata for the CRB (and APG for evil Champions):

You can choose the tenets of good only if your deity allows you to be sanctified as holy (see below). You can choose the tenets of evil only if your deity allows you to be sanctified as unholy.

Gorum has

Abadar has
Divine Sanctification: can choose holy or unholy

So, yes. Liberator of Gorum and Desecrator of Abadar both work.

Other specific combinations will have to be checked.

Edit: This (also from the Compatibility Errata) is also relevant for other deities.

If your deity isn't presented in Player Core, work with your GM to make a judgment call based on that deity's follower alignments. If your chosen deity allows any good alignments, you can sanctify as holy; if your deity allows any evil alignments, you can sanctify as unholy; if your deity allows both good and evil alignments, you can choose either; and if your deity allows no good and no evil alignments, you can't be a champion of that deity.

Really really hoping that the final Remastered version of the Champion will be open to all deities.

Really really hoping that the final Remastered version of the Champion will be open to all deities.

Same. Probably with some sort of Tenets of Neutrality or something like that. And probably all three being renamed. Tenets of Virtue, Tenets of Vice, Tenets of Balance. Something like that.

But I think that the current errata is a bit less restrictive than the original rules. There may be a combination or two that aren't possible any more, but I haven't checked. I also haven't heard anyone mention that their previous combination doesn't work and asking what to do about that.

There may be a combination or two that aren't possible any more, but I haven't checked. I also haven't heard anyone mention that their previous combination doesn't work and asking what to do about that.

Gozreh: Divine Sanctification none. Follower Alignments NG<...>

All the more reason to have Tenets of Neutral (or whatever it ends up being called) in Player Core 2.

Tenets of the Grey

Tenets of [something that isn't good or evil] could be a fine addition (or several fine additions), and possibly easier to do without an alignment system to mash up against.

Tenets of Neutrality/Balance are still kind of a nothing concept, that doesn't have a lot of real promise.

I propose Tenets of More Important Things to Care About.

Current tenets break down into L N C on their respective axis.
The only thing you cant do is not pick a side. Maybe thats just part of being a champion.
Neutral gods with no sanctification just don't use champions? they have clerics, druids, oracles and other devotees but no champions.
Lol maybe champions as a class are too ridged in their beliefs to carryout the will of a neutral god?

Not that i wouldn't want a champ of Gozreh or Pharasma but maybe they go a different way to carry out their will.

Having Psychopomp as a Champion subclass sounds interesting.

Finoan wrote:

There may be a combination or two that aren't possible any more, but I haven't checked. I also haven't heard anyone mention that their previous combination doesn't work and asking what to do about that.

Gozreh: Divine Sanctification none. Follower Alignments NG<...>

Pharasma: Divine Sanctification none. Follower Alignments LG,<...>.
Maybe there are more.

Preexisting champions of Gozreh and Pharasma are covered by this line in the Core Rulebook errata:

As an exception, if you could follow a certain champion cause before the remaster, you can still choose that cause (along with the related tenets of course) for that specific deity.

I always found the idea of neutrality meaning championing balance being a little silly. Good is winning, so now you must side with evil?
Neutrality always seemed to me to be more of.. you aren't throwing your chips in either way. You're not a bad guy. Just not particularly good either.

I agree entirely and even with Alignment having been fully and officially kicked to the curb the idea of a balance or neutrality-based Champion is, to me, an oxymoron. Champions are hardcore religious extremists devoted to their chosen Cause and the holy/unholy scripture/teachings of their Deity.

Besides, what exactly IS the design space for this other than enabling what was formally known as the Chaotic Stupid roll-player to create a Champion and end up trying to justify everything through the 4th wall meta-lens of doing whatever they want?

If someone wants to play a religious zealot swinging around weapons, wearing armor, and following a largely neutral cause they can always play the new and improved Warpriest and if even then they feel too beholden to the Anethema pushing them in one direction they can take Splinter Faith to be a wierdo heretic.

The idea of neutral champion seems odd to me too.
But perhaps a holy sanctified champ of Pharasma devoted to hunting down the undead makes a lot of sense even though Pharasma doesnt have holy as a choice.

This kind of champ i guess wouldnt take on tenants of good because they dont try to protect the living they hunt the dead.

Oh i think I got it. Neutral deities must have tenants of vengence
Vengence is what neutral people pursue not justice or dominance.

So Pharasmite champs seek out and destroy undead.

Gozreh champs go after those that poison or corrupt nature.

They have things they cannot abide and zealously seek to avenge those wrongs they seen done to their cause as their diety defines it.

Lol i dont know, maybe?

The champion subclass could be Avenger.
The tenants of Vengeance guide avengers and are shaped by their deities priorities.

Lorewise an avenger of Pharasma might be dedicated to seeking out and hunting down minions of Tar Baphon.
An avenger of Gozreh might be a Kyonin Elf seeking to root out and destroy the minions of Treerazer.

I always found the idea of neutrality meaning championing balance being a little silly. Good is winning, so now you must side with evil?

Neutrality always seemed to me to be more of.. you aren't throwing your chips in either way. You're not a bad guy. Just not particularly good either.

Maintaining the status-quo (good is winning so side with evil to balance things) is only one possibility.

Vengeance is another.

Protection could be another. It doesn't matter whether the person/group/place that is in danger is good or evil, it should be allowed to continue to exist.

It could also be a pick-your-own-reason similar to a Fury Instinct Barbarian.

The simplest is utter devotion to your deity's goals, which are far more important in the grand scheme of things than being nice or obnoxious to your neighbours.

And there is absolutely zero reason that a deity would not be able to have Champions just because they do not want their armored martial agents to get embroiled in the distracting Holy vs Unholy arm-wrestling.

It may not shock or alarm anyone who has browsed through past discussions of Champions and neutrality that I'm still in favour of neutral deities having champions that are not compelled to join a cause their deity may only tangentially support, nor that I'm still opposed to the idea of "Balance" used as a descriptor for "neither good nor evil", but I figured I'd drop by and say it anyway.

Given that the tone of the conflict has changed from "Good vs. Evil (and everyone is inherently ranked on the scale)" to "Holy vs. Unholy (as specific factions one joins)" I almost don't mind the idea of "Neutrality" being the name for the third faction, as it fits the theme of being a neutral party to two opposed factions. On the other hand, "Balance" between good and evil will never fit a neutral faction in my book--with the possible exception of particularly inscrutable aeons who are strictly managing cosmic forces, rather than moral principles. I like "Balance" in the sense of "I neither care for good nor evil but am concerned with maintenance and homeostasis of the cosmos" a bit better, albeit we may still be too fresh from the fight on removing alignment right now to fully separate the idea of neutral balance from still obsessing over good and evil.

Meanwhile, Law and Chaos may not longer be explicitly cosmic forces with their own proprietary damage types anymore, but the setting (so far) still has a plane of pure Law and a plane of pure Chaos. I don't imagine it's too controversial to imagine there might be champions who are similarly inspired by these divine forces who aren't interested in being forced to join the war between good and evil.

On the same token, it still seems weird to me to imagine that the only thing Champions are allowed to care about is either good or evil, holy or unholy. There is a lot more room in the divine wheelhouse for dedication to causes that have nothing to do with either--even for religious zealots and extremists, though the generally pejorative nature of those terms does not to me fit the nature of what I see in a typical Champion of Good of any stripe.

I propose Tenets of More Important Things to Care About.

Tenets of Mortality (Laws of Mortality)

Deities and religion are evil no mater how good a god could looks to be. All they are distant beings that mortals as pawns in their chess plays. Santification is a divine corruption and as Champion I don't accept it. It's my own forces and magic and spirit that wil protect me and the others!

Balance is not only thing to fight specially now that alignments gone. Could have several reasons to a Champion choose no be sanctified and stay away from the dispute of holy vs unholy while it keeps focus in itself, its allies, its values, its honor, its freedom, or even its deities that don't requires a sanctification.

I made the concept of a champion of mortality above to examplify how it could be but there's a lot of other possible options to do a champion without sanctification and the tenets of holy/unholy.

I hope that the designers open space for this in PC2.

On the same token, it still seems weird to me to imagine that the only thing Champions are allowed to care about is either good or evil, holy or unholy. There is a lot more room in the divine wheelhouse for dedication to causes that have nothing to do with either

That is exactly my thought. I'm thinking that a Champion that is not using Tenets of Good or Tenets of Evil isn't so much a neutral 3rd faction in that existing Good/Evil or Holy/Unholy scale. It is for Champions that are dedicated to a cause that is Something Else.

Specific Causes could be things like Psychopomp Ally - dedicated to destroying undead, Nature Warden - dedicated to protecting nature, Flowerguard - dedicated to eradicating indentured servitude and other similar forms of personal oppression, or Magistrate Watch - dedicated to protecting the people serving in government. My problem with that is that these are too specific. We don't need to have a Champion subclass specifically for Gozreh that no other deities would be interested in.

But that is the general idea. A Champion of a neutral Tenet would still be dedicated to a Cause, but it wouldn't be a Cause linked directly to the Holy/Unholy conflict.

I also think that the middleman of Tenets can just be removed. It isn't carrying much weight and is more baggage and confusion than anything else right now. Just have Champions dedicate to a Cause, such as Paladin, Liberator, or Tyrant.

Agree.
Tenets + Causes makes senses when we had alignment linked to they. The if the just remove the tenets and unify everything in causes it makes all these subclasses more simples and open space to create new champion's causes freely.

I'm going to be a bit lame and disagree.
I see the value in holy sanctified champions having values in common and the same for unholy sanctified champions.

It is probably a good thing to have those basic tenats tying together holy sanctified champions regardless of the god they follow.

There is a situation I do find odd. I am not exactly sure how this difference makes sense.

Pharasma and Gozreh have a thing and that thing is what matters to them no matter how it is maintained. But they dont sanctify.

Abadar, Irori, Nethys, and Gorum are the opposite here. They will sanctify either way. However you maintain/pursue their thing is fine.
You can uphold good tenants or evil ones as long as you promote and protect civilization for abadar, pursue perfection for Irori, do magic stuff for Nethys, or just keep punching things in the face for Gorum.

The odd thing about Pharasma is that evil making undead is the most common way the natural order of life and death is disturbed. Even though she does not seek to preserve the living she certainly would side with Holy in the destruction of the dead but doesn't offer that sanctification. She at least needs an avenger for her cause.

Gozreh needs an avenger not anything like a paladin or desecrator.

If there are tenets for something not holy or unholy they could be like you devote yourself fully to your deities cause avenging anything anathema to them. This alternative could be available to any champion in lie of tenets of evil or good. I think these kinds of champs would be more zealous than traditional ones given that they have no basic tenets to guide them outside what they get from their deity.

I don't think "neutrality" needs to be applied to unsanctified champions. At least, no more than being neutral to the fiendish vs the celestial. Otherwise, they can just be devoted to their deity. Clerics can be devoted to Erastil and follow his edicts and anethema without sanctifying, and I don't really see why champions have to be different. You could make specific causes require sanctification, but I'm not sure it is strictly necessary.

You might need a line like "You cannot select a cause with tenets that conflict with your deity's edicts and anethema, such as Asmodeus and the liberator cause. In cases where it isn't clearcut whether the tenets conflict, the GM decides." You need a bit of GM fiat, but honestly a case by case basis is better system in the long run than using broad buckets. For example, an Anethema of Tsukiyo is "inflict harmful mental effects on others as punishment." But he allowed NG followers, and therefore Reedmers. Glimpse of Redemption is pretty clearly Anethema.

Also, if we are decoupling Sanctification and Causes AND need to remaster Lay on Hands and Touch of Corruption, you could decouple those spells from causes and sanctification too. You could instead let champions choose which focus spells they get based on their deity's Divine Font. Vitality and void are not synonymous with holy and unholy, after all.

Glimpse of redemption is not a punishment. Nothing harms the target if they choose the first option.

Ched Greyfell wrote:

I always found the idea of neutrality meaning championing balance being a little silly. Good is winning, so now you must side with evil?

Neutrality always seemed to me to be more of.. you aren't throwing your chips in either way. You're not a bad guy. Just not particularly good either.

Maintaining the status-quo (good is winning so side with evil to balance things) is only one possibility.

Vengeance is another.

Protection could be another. It doesn't matter whether the person/group/place that is in danger is good or evil, it should be allowed to continue to exist.

It could also be a pick-your-own-reason similar to a Fury Instinct Barbarian.

A neutral Champion is more concerned about a cause or issue other than good or evil. As such it is almost completely open ended.

Balance, Harmony, or Status Quo is just one category of possbilities.

Another could be simply protection of a community, kingdom, lifestyle choice, or ancestry.

Then there are goal orientated causes.

In fact in their own mind, good and evil are probably completely redefined as relates to their cause. Which is why such morality discussions go nowhere. Everyone has slightly different definitions.

Glimpse of redemption is not a punishment. Nothing harms the target if they choose the first option.

I don't think that tracks.

If I (or rather, the government) say, "pay your taxes or I will put you in prison." You really can't say that being put in prison for tax evasion isn't a punishment.

Sure, if the target of Glimpse of Redemption decides to not make the attack, then they suffer no punishment. But if they do make the attack, then Glimpse of Redemption is definitely a punishment applied to them.

The Raven Black wrote:

Glimpse of redemption is not a punishment. Nothing harms the target if they choose the first option.

I don't think that tracks.

If I (or rather, the government) say, "pay your taxes or I will put you in prison." You really can't say that being put in prison for tax evasion isn't a punishment.

Sure, if the target of Glimpse of Redemption decides to not make the attack, then they suffer no punishment. But if they do make the attack, then Glimpse of Redemption is definitely a punishment applied to them.

For Glimpse, I see it as a consequence, not a punishment. The nuance might be small, but I still think it exists.

I, however, think that either the nuance is too small to make any practical difference, or that the nuance is going in the other direction.

To me that argument feels the same as saying, "I didn't kill him. My sword killed him. I was just swinging it at him and he didn't run away fast enough."

Glimpse of redemption is not a punishment. Nothing harms the target if they choose the first option.

Sapping strength (enfeebled) or clouding the mind (stupified) both feel pretty harmful to me, especially with loose definition of harmful that PF2 uses. But we don't need to get too bogged down in the corner case.

> Glimpse of Redemption is pretty clearly Anethema.
Tsukiyo's anathema > inflict harmful mental effects on others as punishment
Glimpse of Redemption > the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.
Enfeebled > You're physically weakened.

I'm not seeing how Glimpse is a harmful mental effect

I was going to say Weight of Guilt might be argued to be one, but then I remembered that "mental" is a defined trait in PF2 which Glimpse and Weight both lack. So no, I don't agree with Glimpse being anathema to Tsukiyo at all

Glimpse of Redemption and Iron Command are basically an intimidation.

> Glimpse of Redemption is pretty clearly Anethema.

Tsukiyo's anathema > inflict harmful mental effects on others as punishment
Glimpse of Redemption > the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.
Enfeebled > You're physically weakened.

I'm not seeing how Glimpse is a harmful mental effect

Try reading the description, it is pretty blatantly clear, that is, so long as we follow the official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.

Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin as visions of redemption play in their mind’s eye...

You're forcing them to hallucinate, the effect even specifically names the "mind's eye" which I can't interpret as anything OTHER than unwillful tampering with someone's mind, or in other words, a mental effect.

This has to be mind affecting and altering to work.
The typical prick evil enemy will see non magically non mind altering glimpses of redemption and call the version of themselves in the images a chump for giving up what they could take, or giving in to the weak.
It they have no remorse and seeing the weight of their sins are not heavy to them without magic forcing them to be.

As a technical matter it probably doesnt have the mental tag because the effect is enfeeble. But I will add tags in my game where they make sense, the designers do forget a lot of tags which is inevitable in a game like this.

In four printings, they "forgot" the trait? They gave it to Iron Command just fine first try. Looks intentional to me. Maybe that will change in PC2, but until then, nah. I'm not going to assume I know better in a clear-cut case like this. No mental trait = not mental, or you open the door to people claiming you can't use Glimpse on anything immune to mental because of the flavor text

Being shielded from mental effects (in the case of non-mindless mental-immune creatures) or not having a mind to comprehend the "visions of redemption" and make the right choice doesn't equate to the champion's deity not delivering the visions and consequences at all

>official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.
I'd like to see this, if someone has a link. It stinks of quoting out of context

it makes sense though.
this is a mental effect that causes a physical condition.
And yes no matter how many printings things will always be missed or mistaken

In four printings, they "forgot" the trait? They gave it to Iron Command just fine first try. Looks intentional to me. Maybe that will change in PC2, but until then, nah. I'm not going to assume I know better in a clear-cut case like this. No mental trait = not mental, or you open the door to people claiming you can't use Glimpse on anything immune to mental because of the flavor text

Being shielded from mental effects (in the case of non-mindless mental-immune creatures) or not having a mind to comprehend the "visions of redemption" and make the right choice doesn't equate to the champion's deity not delivering the visions and consequences at all

>official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.
I'd like to see this, if someone has a link. It stinks of quoting out of context

You are right on how less useful this ability would be if it didn't work on mindless creatures.

From a this doesn't make sense standpoint I actually don't think mindless creatures should be immune to feint. Anything with senses can be fooled by quick movements to mislead them, its not solely mind games.
Ive argued this before but zombies would be incredibly easy to juke out.

>official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.

I'd like to see this, if someone has a link. It stinks of quoting out of context

I'm not sure what you define as context here, but yes, there was a statement that texts of everything don't really separate mechanics from flavour, and intentionally. Even if it looks like that.

Glimpse says - Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin as visions of redemption play in their mind’s eye

It does sound strange to make a golem face the weight of its sins and become enfeebled by that happening.
A zombie or skeleton also feels weird for that to work on.

If sins are reflected on by the mind then neither have a working one.
If sins are reflected on innately by a soul, neither have that as well.
If those sins are just
If sins are a literal weight caused by the ability it wouldn't be a mental effect but then we get into can a golem sin? what if its a brand new golem? kinda messy.

The Raven Black wrote:

Really really hoping that the final Remastered version of the Champion will be open to all deities.

Same. Probably with some sort of Tenets of Neutrality or something like that. And probably all three being renamed. Tenets of Virtue, Tenets of Vice, Tenets of Balance. Something like that.

But I think that the current errata is a bit less restrictive than the original rules. There may be a combination or two that aren't possible any more, but I haven't checked. I also haven't heard anyone mention that their previous combination doesn't work and asking what to do about that.

I might be late returning to the discussion, but I feel there's value to Tenets of Neutrality (rather than balance), with the idea being that the Champion's cause transcends conventional concepts of good and evil, at least in the eyes of the Champion. The cause in question would require the destruction (or protection) of some specific foe or entity. Their code would require them to never put any sort of "lesser morality" over this cause. (To make sure this wouldn't be too loose, they may be required to check in with a superior every week or something like that for duties to perform.) In lieu of doing extra spirit damage, they'd do some other kind of extra damage (probably bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing by default to represent hitting extra hard, but could be subbed out for an elemental type if their patron offered a domain of that element). This would be more generally applicable than spirit damage, but that would be balanced out by the Champion being unable to sanctify holy or unholy.

Worth noting that unsanctified spirit damage is still fully viable for any champion, not just the holy and unholy ones.

Yes I can't see a really good reason to restrict the champions to holy/unholy when the clerics are not tied to this.