Kakita Tatsumaru's page

Thanks to both of you.

I'm not sure about what they do:
-Do they add the effect to try tripping or grappling FOR FREE (no action needed, build need another roll) on top of the usual effects of the attack (usually damages).
-Do they just gives you access to new actions which allow you to try to trip or grab (without MAP but still with an action cost).

Thanks in advance.

"It seems like you have a specific type of character you want to play that your GM has told you would not work well this campaign.

Maybe you would be happier not playing a Champion?"

Well the problem is being forced as playing as "good", then being nerfed for it, with no workaround.

But if you have an idea for an heavily armored tank/heal class but without roleplay problems, I'm listening.

It seems like you have a specific type of character you want to play that your GM has told you would not work well this campaign.

Maybe you would be happier not playing a Champion?

Actually, apparently my asmodeus Champion was too close of an important NPCs for his campaign, so looked for another thing which looked fun. I found Calistria to be one.

Plus for the campaign we cannot be "evil".

To Kelseus:
I will highlight the Champion rules to him, throught he is one to read rules in the most black and white fashion possible, so last time I asked failling to comply an edict or anathema is losing my class powers.

I've already tried asking him a letter to the law thing, but he already outruled it, explaining that for the sake of the rules, following the laws equal following the law of the place I'm currently am, always.

For example I asked if there was a law priority, like possibly sticking to a set of laws whathever the place I'm in (like Abadar's for example, or a few of the rules Calistria respect, or laws from which my character originates): No.

I asked if with Law skill I could try to interpret law in a fashion which would favor my POV: No.

I asked if I could in a conflict choose which side I consider as legitimates: No.

It seems like I'm kinda stuck to being a law enforcer of the place where my toes currently are, that's why I came here to see If we missed something.

So currently, my only hope is the highlight to the champion rule.

Riggler wrote:

I think the nuances of the Deity + Cause + Sanctification of a Champion makes for all kinds of cool combinations. Thus, each Champion has the opportunity to face and approach ethical dilemmas unique to them. This is a feature, not a bug.

Outright saying that placing an emphasis on one or the other (Cause, Deity, Sanctification), or placing emphasis on either Anathema or Edicts over one or the other shortchanges the opportunity to face those moral dilemmas when the come up.

Like in real life, sometimes the ethics of a situation isn't black and white. My suggestions is NOT to come here looking for black and white answers ahead of time. Dive into and play out the dilemmas at the table. It sounds like a fun opportunity that shouldn't be hardwired beforehand. I think to do so can derive yourself of a great deal of fun.

That's nice in theory, but what ultimately happens is the GM just decides. And your GMs conceptual understanding of the choices possibly differs from what you envision for your character.

I agree with whomever said that the "best" way for a GM to run things is to focus mostly on anathema. The player should use edicts as a source of guidance for the kind of character they're playing (the character should want to voluntarily follow those edicts) but if the good Paladin style Justice Champion finds themselves in an evil place, they shouldn't just go "well, I've got to follow the law and do these evil things".

Thing is that I would normally have played an Asmodeus Champion, but apparently being "bad" doesn't go for the campaign.

This is one of the rough spots of losing sight of good and evil in the remaster, work against things IMO.

Before the remaster, because Champion of Justice was at that time still called "Paladin" and having the baggage of what paladins were in previous versions of the game...my interpretation was that "evil" governments were not classified as "legitimate" nor were "evil laws".

If the law said that you had to stab an innocent child once a month, you didn't have to follow it because obviously that's an evil law.

With burying good and evil, it's harder to still say the same thing, but that's how I run it still honestly. Paladins were against "cruelty" so any government or laws that fostered cruelty could be ignored.

Also, the whole thing about "following laws" has never really made sense to me. That's something a lawful neutral person might consider doing just for the sake of doing, but lawful good emphasizes doing good over law. So if something conflicts with "doing good" then you can ignore.

All that said, I would still expect a paladin/justice champion to try to follow the law as much as possible. Like I would expect them to try to change the laws in Cheliax regarding slavery. I would expect them to try to buy slaves and free them, rather than stealing them away, and using "legal" methods to achieve their goals. Only resorting to direct violence if they're aware of especially cruel masters inflicting harm on their slaves.

I'm a Callistria Justice Champion, and I'll be playing in a northern country ruled by a Witch which seems related to Baba Yaga (apparently). After a bit of ChatGPT search, it might be Irrisen.

Do you have to respect laws even when they goes against your divinity ones?
Do you consider local authorities as legitimates if they goes against your divinity's goals?
Same about the rulers?

Also what is considered the source of your powers: yourself or your divinity?

I'm asking because I'm about to start as a justice champion in an evil country and I'm asking if such champions are actually able to act as "justice" champions even in an evil country, or if they should just limit themselves as law enforcers, because strictly by rules, that's what they look likes, which is strange considering Paizo wrote:

"The remastered version still has a cause, but the focus has shifted away from being so strict and static."
And
"More emphasis on edicts rather than an unbendable code loosens some of the restrictions on their roleplaying to allow more well-rounded, nuanced characters. There’s a better balance over “should nots” instead of all “must nots.”

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6uib0?Player-Core-2-Preview-The-Ch ampion-Remastered&utm_source=chatgpt.com

Because currently, from rules it looks a lot more "Must Not" than before, an a lot less "should not".