|
The Judgments of Resiliency and Smiting both contain components that key off alignment. For resiliency, the neutral inquisitor can't pick an alignment based DR and keeps only DR/magic. For Smiting, the neutral inquisitor can't strike as if aligned. While striking as good isn't hard to come by, why buck the tradition of giving neutral divine characters the choice of what their Good and Evil counterparts can do?
A neutral inquisitor? Why did he pick up the job in the first way? Just think about the meaning of the latin word inquisitor. It means persecutor/ investigator.
A neutral inquisitor? Why did he pick up the job in the first way? Just think about the meaning of the latin word inquisitor. It means persecutor/ investigator.
Are you implying that Gozreh, Pharasma, and other Neutral deities cannot have Inquisitors? Also, the translation of "inquisitor" from the base Latin simply means "one who inquires / one who seeks information by questioning". There's absolutely nothing in the Latin that carries any anti-Neutral subtext.
Neutral folks -should- be punished... get off the freaking fence! >.>
EDIT: Yeah, what Name Violation said!
(Nevermind that I don't believe "true" Neutrality as presented in D&D/PF is actually possible, but that's not something to get into in this thread...)
|
Neutrals already have the perk of being immune to many spells and taking half damage from spells that their good or evil allies might suffer from. Why should they get extra goodies?
Indeed, they are immune to smite, holy, unholy; take reduced damage from holy word, chaos hammer, blasphemy; they don't take a -2 on attacks against prot from good, evil, law or chaos. You take the good with the bad.
I just noticed neutral summoners have a similar issue with their magic attacks power.
|
|
We're at war. Pick a side.
I'm sure this was meant for humor, but it's a silly statement. Plenty of groups profit off of conflict without being "on" a side. My Inquisitor of Besmara wants there to be conflict for the sake of it, and especially if it leads to battles on the sea. Her allegiance is every changing, so long as the end result only leads to more conflict.
And those who posted about the perks of neutrality are right. But the inquisitor specifically loses something for being neutral that a neutral cleric or any other neutral class doesn't, while gaining all the listed perks of neutrality.
Would be cool if a N church had NE inquisitors to deal with members who go too NG, and vice-versa.
We're at war. Pick a side.I'm sure this was meant for humor, but it's a silly statement. Plenty of groups profit off of conflict without being "on" a side. My Inquisitor of Besmara wants there to be conflict for the sake of it, and especially if it leads to battles on the sea. Her allegiance is every changing, so long as the end result only leads to more conflict.
Sounds CN to me, honestly. Armed conflict is anything BUT orderly. Ex- Old Deities and Demigods book had 2 greek gods of war, Athena (LG) and Ares (CE), representing the different aspects of battle and military life. Just illustrating the breadth of published opinion on the subject :)
Good thing I'm Chaotic Neutral then. ;)
Yup yup :) The way it was posted made it sound as if you were trying to play True N, but this makes MUCH more sense.
So, for those who don't want to punish the neutral inquisitor, what would be the correct answer?
Should they affect all non-neutral alignments? I would think this would be a bad solution. All good inquisitors can affect only evil, and vice-versa, but neutral inquisitors cculd affect BOTH good AND evil? Too much.
So they would have to pick one, right? Well, this is a bad solution too. "Hey, everybody, I am Neutral and I stand for balance and justice for all, but nevertheless, I will Judge and Smite all those evil bastards just for the heck of it!"
That hardly sounds like a "Neutral" world view to me.
So, what's the solution? How do you un-punish these neutral inquisitors?
As for me, I say you don't. Maybe everyone else (well, not paladins, and not monks, and not)... OK, maybe almost everyone else has the right to be Neutral. Maybe they can even pick sides. But not Inquisitors. Sure, inquisitors could be True Neutral if they want, but then they are giving up some of their class potential. If they want the full potential, then they need to side with evil or good, at least a little, in order for those class abilities to have something to trigger off of.
Side note: this post mainly concerns itself with the good/evil alignment axis, since I don't think the law/chaos axis has as much sway with this class.
It seems like a Neutral Inquisitor values something outside the Moral or Ethical axes. Maybe, for example, a GM could allow an Inquisitor of Nethys to use their alignment-based powers on those that are specifically enemies of Nethys, or who are violently opposed to magic use.
That should be a houserule, not an actual rule. Personally, I'm kind of fine with those on the fence missing out a little on some things.
|
|
Good thing I'm Chaotic Neutral then. ;)Yup yup :) The way it was posted made it sound as if you were trying to play True N, but this makes MUCH more sense.
Understood. I posted originally to protest the fact that I couldn't align evil or good, but expanded to the poor true neutral people who can't even get chaotic like me.
Neutrality, to me, has nothing to do with morals or ethics specifically. It is holding a specific goal or tenet as holy/desirable regardless of alignment restrictions. Using an Inquisitor as a witch hunter for example. Good witches, bad witches, it's all the same to him. A hedge witch causing dischord in a small town, or a witch working for a king, doesn't matter witches is witches. They all need to burn.
I'd just have the inquisitor pick which side he wants it to work as, like a cleric. If he wants to be neutral he can pick L,E,G,C and smite as if he had that alignment even if he does not. Hardly overpowering.
|
|
Neutrality, to me, has nothing to do with morals or ethics specifically. It is holding a specific goal or tenet as holy/desirable regardless of alignment restrictions. Using an Inquisitor as a witch hunter for example. Good witches, bad witches, it's all the same to him. A hedge witch causing dischord in a small town, or a witch working for a king, doesn't matter witches is witches. They all need to burn.
I'd just have the inquisitor pick which side he wants it to work as, like a cleric. If he wants to be neutral he can pick L,E,G,C and smite as if he had that alignment even if he does not. Hardly overpowering.
So taking the perks of the alignment smiting etc. without the penalties from abilities that target chao, law, good or evil? i don't agree thats balanced, the neutrals enjoy better defences due to their sitting on the fence alignment, it makes sense they should miss out on the perks to compensate.
So taking the perks of the alignment smiting etc. without the penalties from abilities that target chao, law, good or evil? i don't agree thats balanced, the neutrals enjoy better defences due to their sitting on the fence alignment, it makes sense they should miss out on the perks to compensate.Neutrality, to me, has nothing to do with morals or ethics specifically. It is holding a specific goal or tenet as holy/desirable regardless of alignment restrictions. Using an Inquisitor as a witch hunter for example. Good witches, bad witches, it's all the same to him. A hedge witch causing dischord in a small town, or a witch working for a king, doesn't matter witches is witches. They all need to burn.
I'd just have the inquisitor pick which side he wants it to work as, like a cleric. If he wants to be neutral he can pick L,E,G,C and smite as if he had that alignment even if he does not. Hardly overpowering.
The penalties you speak of are imaginary. Neutrals get better defenses against what? A handful of rarely used spells? Oh my. Unless there are large amounts of paladins smiting away your evil characters then you are not in harms way. 1/3 of the alignments are neutral on the good/evil axis. Remember that a neutral cleric of a neutral deity can EITHER channel positive or negative, can cast spells of any alignment without penalty, and is still immune to the smite/holy word type spells or at least subject to lesser punishment.
Allowing a character class that, let's remember doesn't require you to be any particular alignment, to actually USE its class abilities? No, not overpowered. Not in the least. Sorry. He should have to pick, however. If he is a TN inquisitor of a NG god then he should judge as though he were NG.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For the TN character, why not allow him to smite the four extremes (LG/LE/CG/CE)? Sure it might seem like he gets one more, but in most gmes your foes are not going to be good and evil.
Besides, can you imagine a TN inquisitor riding off to war.
|
|
The penalties you speak of are imaginary. Neutrals get better defenses against what? A handful of rarely used spells? Oh my. Unless there are large amounts of paladins smiting away your evil characters then you are not in harms way. 1/3 of the alignments are neutral on the good/evil axis. Remember that a neutral cleric of a neutral deity can EITHER channel positive or negative, can cast spells of any alignment without penalty, and is still immune to the smite/holy word type spells or at least subject to lesser punishment.
Allowing a character class that, let's remember doesn't require you to be any particular alignment, to actually USE its class abilities? No, not overpowered. Not in the least. Sorry. He should have to pick, however. If he is a TN inquisitor of a NG god then he should judge as though he were NG.
Channeling energy is not an alignment based thing. You are channeling positive or negative energy, not good or evil energy. You heal good and evil people both. The comparison is weak at best.
Regardless, you are obviously free to house rule around it if you don't like it.
The penalties you speak of are imaginary. Neutrals get better defenses against what? A handful of rarely used spells? Oh my. Unless there are large amounts of paladins smiting away your evil characters then you are not in harms way. 1/3 of the alignments are neutral on the good/evil axis. Remember that a neutral cleric of a neutral deity can EITHER channel positive or negative, can cast spells of any alignment without penalty, and is still immune to the smite/holy word type spells or at least subject to lesser punishment.
Allowing a character class that, let's remember doesn't require you to be any particular alignment, to actually USE its class abilities? No, not overpowered. Not in the least. Sorry. He should have to pick, however. If he is a TN inquisitor of a NG god then he should judge as though he were NG.
Channeling energy is not an alignment based thing. You are channeling positive or negative energy, not good or evil energy. You heal good and evil people both. The comparison is weak at best.
Regardless, you are obviously free to house rule around it if you don't like it.
Not...really. Good clerics or those of good gods can ONLY channel positive energy. Evil clerics or of evil gods can ONLY channel negative energy. Therefore channeling IS an alignment based mechanic.
OMG that neutral cleric gets a choice OVERPOWERED. It's a completely apt analogy. We're talking about the perks and drawbacks of playing one alignment over another. If you're going to keep an inquisitor from using a class-defining ability just to punish him for not "choosing a side" in some imaginary alignment war, why not do the same to the cleric? As with the cleric, though, the inquisitor of neutral disposition should pick how he wants his class ability to function, as does a cleric. Being able to judge everyone would be stronger.
|
|
Not...really. Good clerics or those of good gods can ONLY channel positive energy. Evil clerics or of evil gods can ONLY channel negative energy. Therefore channeling IS an alignment based mechanic.
Which type of channeling you have access to is based on alignment but channeling has nothing to do with alignment. It heals or harms regardless of alignment. Smite on the other hand is targeted at a specific alignment.
A good cleric could benefit just as much from channel negative as an evil cleric. A good inquisitor would get zero benefit from smite good.
OMG that neutral cleric gets a choice OVERPOWERED.
OMG it's hyperbole!!
|
why not let rangers take favored enemy EVERYBODY while you're at it. then they could follow up with FE EVERYTHING, and the FE NOTHING just in case the dm gets tricky.
the class isnt really fair to neutrals, so just dont play a neutral character. picking a side isnt neutral.
if they get to judge anything i'd say it should be neutrals only. "Take that you indecisive puppy. I'll teach you to be like me"
true neutral shouldn't be judging things. thats not very true neutral, thats lawful. Neutral shouldn't be picking on things willy-nilly, thats chaotic.
Not...really. Good clerics or those of good gods can ONLY channel positive energy. Evil clerics or of evil gods can ONLY channel negative energy. Therefore channeling IS an alignment based mechanic.Which type of channeling you have access to is based on alignment but channeling has nothing to do with alignment. It heals or harms regardless of alignment. Smite on the other hand is targeted at a specific alignment.
A good cleric could benefit just as much from channel negative as an evil cleric. A good inquisitor would get zero benefit from smite good.
OMG that neutral cleric gets a choice OVERPOWERED.OMG it's hyperbole!!
A good cleric cannot use channel negative. A good inquisitor cannot smite good. A neutral cleric has to choose, why not let a neutral inquisitor choose? Or at least base it on the alignment of his deity, which may or may not be his own?
Why is this such a bad thing? Other than just being sarcastic you haven't really answered this question. Why would it be such a bad thing to let a neutral inquisitor who worships a lawful deity, for example, "smite" chaotic creatures even if he himself is not chaotic?
|
why not let rangers take favored enemy EVERYBODY while you're at it. then they could follow up with FE EVERYTHING, and the FE NOTHING just in case the dm gets tricky.
the class isnt really fair to neutrals, so just dont play a neutral character. picking a side isnt neutral.
if they get to judge anything i'd say it should be neutrals only. "Take that you indecisive puppy. I'll teach you to be like me"
true neutral shouldn't be judging things. thats not very true neutral, thats lawful. Neutral shouldn't be picking on things willy-nilly, thats chaotic.
This.
I don't personally see it as being overpowering, mechanically, to let a neutral inquisitor choose which alignment to smite.
However, as soon as your character decides "I'm gonna smite those smug, uppity, high-horse riding lawful jerks" he is making a commitment to opposing law. That's explicitly NOT neutral. Same for any other alignment: by picking who to smite, you are taking up an opposition to them.
While a lot of players run their TN characters as apathetic and convictionless, that is not the only way to play it.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Couldn't you see *that* kind of person taking up a sword and opposing the overzealous enemies of balance? I'm not sure how you would go about balancing it mechanically against differently aligned inquisitors, but it's not wholly unreasonable. I think that if TN inquisitors miss out on some of the better class features, Paizo might as well put an "Alignment: Non-True Neutral" requirement on the class and call it a day.
why not let rangers take favored enemy EVERYBODY while you're at it. then they could follow up with FE EVERYTHING, and the FE NOTHING just in case the dm gets tricky.
the class isnt really fair to neutrals, so just dont play a neutral character. picking a side isnt neutral.
if they get to judge anything i'd say it should be neutrals only. "Take that you indecisive puppy. I'll teach you to be like me"
true neutral shouldn't be judging things. thats not very true neutral, thats lawful. Neutral shouldn't be picking on things willy-nilly, thats chaotic.
This.
I don't personally see it as being overpowering, mechanically, to let a neutral inquisitor choose which alignment to smite.
However, as soon as your character decides "I'm gonna smite those smug, uppity, high-horse riding lawful jerks" he is making a commitment to opposing law. That's explicitly NOT neutral. Same for any other alignment: by picking who to smite, you are taking up an opposition to them.
You guys all seem to have this very specific, wishy washy vision of what neutral can and must be. Hating that the cops throw their weight around doesn't make you chaotic, no more than dislikeing looting makes you lawful.
How about this? The inquisitor is the dirty underbelly of the church. While the priests, who are NG, are all doing goody two shoes type things, the inquisitor is rooting out corruption. Sometimes his hands get bloody. He's N, and while he works for the greater good (he smites evil) his soul is tarnished in the process. He is tormented by his acts but sees that they must be done.
The game has 9 alignments. Not 2, not even 4, but 9. I hate this "if you're not good you're evil" bullpuckey. There's a huge grey area, and it's called neutral. Someone TN can still favor good without himself being at all altruistic or noble or self-sacrificing. Maybe it's what he strives to, maybe it's what he is trying to get away from, or maybe he's indifferent but sees good/evil/law/chaos's virtues from a point of rational detatchment.
I agree, meatrace, but I see the TN inquisitor as less of a philosophical problem and more of a mechanics problem. If they can smite everyone, then that isn't fair to inquisitors of other alignments. If they can't smite anyone, then there's no point in taking the class.
Personally, I'd say they get to pick one point on the axis (Law/Chaos/Good Evil) at character creation which cannot be changed. After all, True Neutral characters aren't perfect and can still hate people of certain alignments without losing their neutrality. What if an inquisitor's childhood village was annihilated by demons and he wants to exterminate as many as he can? Naturally he'd decide to Smite/Resist/etc Evil. But maybe he's perfectly fine with the NE necromancer in his party. Maybe he pays his taxes to the LE emperor without much fuss. Maybe, he even allies with some devils to oust a particularly irksome demon. Once you start thinking outside the "True Neutrals cannot oppose anything without an alignment shift" box, the idea of a TN inquisitor becomes a little less blasphemous. ;D
|
|
A good cleric cannot use channel negative. A good inquisitor cannot smite good. A neutral cleric has to choose, why not let a neutral inquisitor choose? Or at least base it on the alignment of his deity, which may or may not be his own?
Smiting is an alignment based class power.
Channeling is not.
If evil clerics got the ability to make it rain flowers and good clerics got the ability to grow grass that wouldn't make raining flowers or growing grass alignment based class features.
Why is this such a bad thing? Other than just being sarcastic you haven't really answered this question. Why would it be such a bad thing to let a neutral inquisitor who worships a lawful deity, for example, "smite" chaotic creatures even if he himself is not chaotic?
First, I don't think I've been sarcastic at all in this thread beyond commenting on your ridiculous hyperbole.
If you want you or your GM think it's cool to let a neutral inquisitor choose one or the other I don't think it's broken, I just don't really think it's appropriate.
The way I see it (and apparently the designers agree) smiting is something that involves conviction. Neutral is a decided lack of conviction, you aren't committed to destroying evil, you are perfectly willing to sit aside and let it happen. From the rules -> "She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. " If you are neutral you have taken the stance of sitting by the sidelines. If you are smiting evil then you are decidedly not on the sidelines.
I agree, meatrace, but I see the TN inquisitor as less of a philosophical problem and more of a mechanics problem. If they can smite everyone, then that isn't fair to inquisitors of other alignments. If they can't smite anyone, then there's no point in taking the class.
Personally, I'd say they get to pick one point on the axis (Law/Chaos/Good Evil) at character creation which cannot be changed.
Good, since that's precisely what I have suggested multiple times now :)
The way I see it (and apparently the designers agree) smiting is something that involves conviction. Neutral is a decided lack of conviction, you aren't committed to destroying evil, you are perfectly willing to sit aside and let it happen. From the rules -> "She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality."
Excuse me, sir. You dropped the second half of that rules entry.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Now explain why that kind of person couldn't be universally opposed to uppity aligned folk and smite them silly.
The way I see it (and apparently the designers agree) smiting is something that involves conviction. Neutral is a decided lack of conviction, you aren't committed to destroying evil, you are perfectly willing to sit aside and let it happen. From the rules -> "She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. " If you are neutral you have taken the stance of sitting by the sidelines. If you are smiting evil then you are decidedly not on the sidelines.
Ugh. No it isn't. They are an agent of a CHURCH why not let them smite the church's enemies? Otherwise you have to change the rules to disallow neutral members of a good church altogether. Being neutral is NOT lack of conviction whatsoever. It's a lack of conviction towards one alignment or another, which I don't see as such a debilitating malaise as you. I play neutral characters with very strong convictions, and that's a roleplay choice. Their convictions just don't have anything to do with altruism vs. cruelty. Think of it as they are hunting down enemies of his church, which happen to be evil. That's the whole feel of the inquisitor.
Channeling energy is a class ability, right? And its use is based on alignment of the user right? Hence it is an alignment based class ability. It doesn't matter whether one targets x or y, it has to do with the player's access to it.
Again, I'm not saying an inquisitor should be able to smite anyone, but just the enemies of his church depending on where that falls. Denying an inquisitor a class ability IN TOTAL because of his alignment which is largely a roleplay thing, dispite the fact that the class doesn't restrict against said alignment, is stupid. That'd be like saying you can be a lawful barbarian but if you do, you can't rage.
Good, since that's precisely what I have suggested multiple times now :)
Gah, sorry. Most of these posts sort of blend together in my brainmeats. Didn't mean to seem like I was jacking your idea, just adding a +1 to "the most sensible way to deal with unaligned PCs."
|
|
The way I see it (and apparently the designers agree) smiting is something that involves conviction. Neutral is a decided lack of conviction, you aren't committed to destroying evil, you are perfectly willing to sit aside and let it happen. From the rules -> "She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality."Excuse me, sir. You dropped the second half of that rules entry.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.Now explain why that kind of person couldn't be universally opposed to uppity aligned folk and smite them silly.
Except by choosing to smite only one type of person you are no longer neutral, you are no longer committed to the balanced path but to punishing one specific path.
Personally,
I like the idea of a TN inquisitor being able to smite any character who doesn't have a N component to his alignment. As stated above, it gives them theoretically one additional alignment more than a Good or Evil or Law or Chaos, but... that's really not that big a deal. I will probably houserule this in my games.
*sigh* My houserule book got tossed out with 3.5's conversion to PF and dropped down to a half-page.
The APG is going to expand it back out to at least 3-4 pages. :(
Inquisitors are innately partisan. Since in the default D&D campaign alignment represents your moral, and cosmological stand, it makes sense to me that purely neutral inquisitors might suffer a little.
I mean, whose doors are you going to bust in? Who are you going to deny the need for badges to?
1)no they're not, otherwise there would be some sort of alignment requirement.
2)your church's enemies. You know, the people you work for, who you are inquiring on the behalf of, etc.
Does a Neutral church even have many enemies? They are, you know... neutral. Just sayin'.
Does a Neutral church even have many enemies? They are, you know... neutral. Just sayin'.
Pharasma is True Neutral. Her church is enemy to any and every undead.
You know it's funny... I still have a hard time thinking of Pathfinder's deities and not of the 3.5 Greyhawk gods. I haven't learned the names of many of them aside from Sarenrae and Iomodae (or however you spell her name), and that's only because in the one Golarian setting our group plays in those are the two gods the Paladin and the Cleric worship. I was thinking a neutral church in terms of like Boccob, honestly. My knowledge of Golarian specific deities is sketchy at best. Still, wouldn't you (assume) a deity who strongly opposes undead would be good aligned?
Still, wouldn't you (assume) a deity who strongly opposes undead would be good aligned?
No. She doesn't oppose undead because they're evil (especially since she also opposes undead who are not evil); she opposes undead because she's the Goddess of Death and undead are a mockery of her domain.
Does a Neutral church even have many enemies? They are, you know... neutral. Just sayin'.Pharasma is True Neutral. Her church is enemy to any and every undead.
Thanks!
And yeah overall it's just a fault in the alignment system IMHO. There may be good undead (in theory) but Pharasma or whomever is an enemy to them. The neutral inquisitor would chase them down. I wish the mechanics let them "smite" all undead. But alas...
Q: Should we punish Neutrality?
A: Maybe.. maybe not...
|
|
Why punish neutrality? Inquisitors are extremists. That's why. Wanna play neutral? don't whine when good and evil start fighting each other while ignoring you... you're neutral: why the heck did you manage to get in a battle anyway? Your totally balanced self should have seen it coming ten miles off so you could have had the time to setup an overpriced lemonade stand to refresh both forces of good and evil...
Why punish CG, NG, LN PCs by not allowing them to be paladins, etc. blah blah blah... Like the above poster said: pick a freaggin side! ;)
Why punish neutrality? Inquisitors are extremists. That's why. Wanna play neutral? don't whine when good and evil start fighting each other while ignoring you... you're neutral: why the heck did you manage to get in a battle anyway? Your totally balanced self should have seen it coming ten miles off so you could have had the time to setup an overpriced lemonade stand to refresh both forces of good and evil...
Why punish CG, NG, LN PCs by not allowing them to be paladins, etc. blah blah blah... Like the above poster said: pick a freaggin side! ;)
I know that this is said in good fun, but it's this precise kind of mindset that keeps fantasy fiction from becoming more than it is. As much as I love the KOTOR games, I hate having to pick a side. What's wrong with having a goal and going about achieving it pragmatically?
I hereby nominate myself as the neutral paragon!
Your totally balanced self should have seen it coming ten miles off so you could have had the time to setup an overpriced lemonade stand to refresh both forces of good and evil...
Please don't drag the True Stupid alignment into this. It's just as poor an example of alignment as Lawful Stupid, Stupid Evil, and Crazy Stupid.