|
basically im sick of devils and demons vrs angles. it seems like the most powerful creatures in the game are either good, or evil. what about neutral alignments?
it seems to me, when looking through both the magic items section and classes i didnt see a single "arbiter" type weapon, or even better an "arbiter" pc class.
an arbiter is basically a winged paladin no healing abilities but in there place the most powerful form of smite. one that isnt hindered by morality. their smite dosent descriminate over good evil law or chaos.
now i really want to play this type of character, because they are my favorite supernatural, mythological creature/character type.
so does anyone have a character, other then an inquisitor, or magical items that they feel would match this play style? i cant seem to make a character that could match a paladin in combat.
Cavalier? No wings but their challenge is basically a "smite everything" ability.
I also don't care for the idea of good vs evil. IMO an enemy being good vs evil is a point of view thing from the perspective of my character. Smite shouldn't only affect a specific alignment, it should affect anyone with opposing views from mine.
|
|
Cavalier? No wings but their challenge is basically a "smite everything" ability.
my issue with the cavalier is that they are non magical. im looking for a kind of neutral paladin that is pathfinder source material. i was told about hell knights just now, but they are a prestige class and i would never make it to the prerequistes in my current campaign. we have a very , very slow leveling game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are LG by design in Pathfinder so you're pretty SOL unless you hunt around for 3PP material or make your own.
The Hellknight PRC might be kind of fun for you. More of a Law vs. Chaos feel to it.
Neutral characters power vary with; a)Neutral "Unaligned"/"Don't care" or b) Neutral "maintaining the Balance".
Well I know the deadly Tarrasque is actually Neutral. So not all the most powerful creatures are evil/good.
On the other hand, considering it's 3 INT, I think it just wants to live and survive.
EDIT: upon further curiousity search, there are other insane neutral creatures:
Behemoth, Tempest
Behemoth, Thalassic
Behemoth, Thunder
|
I dunno, good vs. evil is sort of iconic, as is the Paladin's smite ability being alignment based (since it originates from the idea that a man imbued with a faith in his god/goddess can channel that faith to banish corrupted, i.e. evil, beings). But, I gotta admit, Inquisitors are also fairly good for this...
also, i know Proteans don't have too much diversity and strength, but Inevitables, who are the epitome of law without thought of morality, are pretty dang strong, at least on the level of demons and angels, etc.
I'd second the Inquisitor. Sounds like exactly the type of character you want. Bane on command is more flexible then any smite.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think 'maintain the balance' is either insane or just lawful neutral or lawful evil.
You have a strict code by which you think existence should function and you go murder things to make sure the world adheres to it, even if they are good.
You're probably lawful evil and in denial.
|
|
no to the inquisitor, its a bad class that bullies people with class features. bane just isnt enough of a reason to justify the class, and the extra Role-play abilities are very lack luster(imo)
but i came up with a close version of what i was looking for with RL help and trailos giving me a starting point.
im going with a LN assimar
cleric , no diety
1 selective channel
3 extra channel
4(f)channel smite
5 versitile channeler
with 9 channels a day for 2d6 at 5th using positive or negative gives flexability for encounters. then for single target characters i channel smite for directed damage after moving.
the game shouldnt go past 6 or 7 so i think this character will be good enough for the game.
my friend contacted me and told me that a synthesist summoner would also be a good fit for this character.
I still think 'maintain the balance' is either insane or just lawful neutral or lawful evil.
You have a strict code by which you think existence should function and you go murder things to make sure the world adheres to it, even if they are good.
You're probably lawful evil and in denial.
Weeeeelll, remember if you're TN you're probably fairly advanced on philosophy, as well as grounded in realism.
Good tends not to be all that aggressive, and generally doesn't threaten neutrality, it tries to convert it. Good is easily balanced by giving them someone to fight, i.e. the evil. Also, Good people make the better neighbors because they don't steal your stuff, kill you in the night, overtax you, and burn your forest down around you.
So, no, you generally don't go killing your Good neighbors. You do let the anti-paladin know that sleepy homlet has nice pickings there, he goes and raids it, kills off Good people intruding into nature's space, and the outraged community gets together and offs the decadent fiend-worshipping schmuck...or maybe you wrap yourself in righteous vengeance to take the glory and win the trust of the Good people and go off him with pleasure yourself.
That's what True Neutral does. Remember you aren't trying to rule or dominate, you've got your own set of standards, and you're going to uphold them. If it requires being somewhat two faced and merciless at times, well, what do you expect of Neutrality?
==Aelryinth
You may want to look at the Elric! Game, now Dragon Empires ( pfsrd compatible). Their whole cosmology is Law vs. Chaos
"Kiff, what makes a man go neutral? With good and evil, you know where you stnd, but you never know when a heart is full of...neutrality. "
"I have no strong feelings one way or the other."
"If I die, tell my wife...(dramatic pause) hello."
Futurama, as always, answers all questions with humorous examples. I don't like playing a gray blobman that doesn't have any passion. I'd rather hear stories about the first quote-ee. The dumb blonde with extreme views on law. Yes, everyone hates Zap, but you have to admit, the fatman, and others like him, certainly shake the universe up a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weeeeelll, remember if you're TN you're probably fairly advanced on philosophy, as well as grounded in realism.
Good tends not to be all that aggressive, and generally doesn't threaten neutrality, it tries to convert it. Good is easily balanced by giving them someone to fight, i.e. the evil. Also, Good people make the better neighbors because they don't steal your stuff, kill you in the night, overtax you, and burn your forest down around you.
So, no, you generally don't go killing your Good neighbors. You do let the anti-paladin know that sleepy homlet has nice pickings there, he goes and raids it, kills off Good people intruding into nature's space, and the outraged community gets together and offs the decadent fiend-worshipping schmuck...or maybe you wrap yourself in righteous vengeance to take the glory and win the trust of the Good people and go off him with pleasure yourself.
That's what True Neutral does. Remember you aren't trying to rule or dominate, you've got your own set of standards, and you're going to uphold them. If it requires being somewhat two faced and merciless at times, well, what do you expect of Neutrality?
==Aelryinth
You just described an evil character.
There are no forces of neutrality beyond a handful of druids and such. Because neutrality is not a "Force" in the same was as good/evil and law/chaos.
Do order vs chaos then, if you want to play with moral relativism, where good and bad is just based on perceptions, and the winner is just, and the loser is made vile. Kinda like real life.
|
Paladins are LG by design in Pathfinder so you're pretty SOL unless you hunt around for 3PP material or make your own.
Also, if the DM is lenient enough maybe a LG OR LN Paladin that is a Law vs Chaos type of mechanic instead of Good Vs. Evil. Same concept different monsters. Could be a fun mechanic change for a game.
You just described an evil character.Weeeeelll, remember if you're TN you're probably fairly advanced on philosophy, as well as grounded in realism.
Good tends not to be all that aggressive, and generally doesn't threaten neutrality, it tries to convert it. Good is easily balanced by giving them someone to fight, i.e. the evil. Also, Good people make the better neighbors because they don't steal your stuff, kill you in the night, overtax you, and burn your forest down around you.
So, no, you generally don't go killing your Good neighbors. You do let the anti-paladin know that sleepy homlet has nice pickings there, he goes and raids it, kills off Good people intruding into nature's space, and the outraged community gets together and offs the decadent fiend-worshipping schmuck...or maybe you wrap yourself in righteous vengeance to take the glory and win the trust of the Good people and go off him with pleasure yourself.
That's what True Neutral does. Remember you aren't trying to rule or dominate, you've got your own set of standards, and you're going to uphold them. If it requires being somewhat two faced and merciless at times, well, what do you expect of Neutrality?
==Aelryinth
No, I didn't.
He didn't torch the thorp. He just let the anti-paladin know...and fiendish nature took its course. He just didn't intervene and stop it...that's Neutrality. Evil would be swooping in during or afterwards to enjoy the act.He then saw advantage in taking the credit for killing off the anti-paladin...it earns him respect from his angry neighbors, earns him loot, and gets rid of an unnatural bastard. Win all around for him.
He's not conquering, converting, subjugating...and the only person he kills is the same person the good guys would kill, albeit for different reasons.
If he was Evil, he would use this as an excuse to expand his power and influence over his neighbors by one means or another. No, he's rebuffing the intruding Good folk, getting rid of a rapacious wild card, and strengthening himself against further incursions in doing so.
If he gave the good heroes the location to the anti-paladin, much the same effect would occur, but he'd get less loot out of it.
It's neutrality. Not preventing a massacre isn't evil...otherwise, we'd all be sinners for not going over and giving Syria and the Sudan what for.
==Aelryinth
Playing Neutral is boiled down to Food, Family and Fight.
A Neutral character does what he has to to survive, but he doesn't actively seek to bring others down to do so. This also means establishing a territory/means of survival. Territorialism is behind Neutral aggression.
Neutral characters tend to be loyal first to family, then community, then king. The latter is highly mutable, which is why Neutrals are accused of leaning with the wind and being of dubious loyalty. If you aren't family, they just aren't attached to you and have no problem shifting with the times if it allows them to continue on with a minimum of effort/change/
Neutral characters fight to have or hold onto what they have, and generally don't give a rat's ass about some fight over the horizon, unless it's going to personally benefit them. They leave others alone and expect the same, they deal with threats that get in their way, but don't hold grudges much against those that don't seek to do them personal harm.
Threats to any of the above can be dealt with viciously, but without the kind of sadism that typifies evil. Money is a good motivation...if they don't get paid, they don't do the deed, but they generally won't overstep their bounds.
Neutral can be hard to play, because it's more about not caring about anything but your own interests, but not actively seeking to put other interests down. You just leave what you don't care about alone as you do your thing, and don't care about grandiose events that don't concern you or those you care for.
==Aelryinth
while inquisitor seems somewhat tailor made for your request.
consider this alternative.
take a Ranger with the Spirit Ranger archtype (no pet, extra spells and daily divination abilities) and play it as a servant of Pharasma.
You can pick what ever weapon path works best for you (two handed weapons maybe?) you and the GM could probably tweek the spell list a bit to swap out some nature type spells for better flavor and re imagine the favored enemy to be some kind of permanent smite.
Another idea to keep in mind is that a neutrally aligned character with respect to good and evil is not necessarily indifferent or interested in "maintaining the balance" (a far more absurd notion than maintaining the balance between law and chaos -- something that I think we all strive for to some extent). A lawful neutral character values order over consideration of good vs. evil; similarly, a chaotic neutral character values freedom most highly. A true neutral character probably does not care about good, evil, order, or freedom -- but he probably does have some sort of allegiance that he will fight to the death for. That allegiance just happens not to match up with any of the alignment extremes.
no to the inquisitor, its a bad class that bullies people with class features. bane just isnt enough of a reason to justify the class, and the extra Role-play abilities are very lack luster(imo)
If you don't like it, you don't like it, but I do find it puzzling since it pretty much has everything you want. Anything more specific about what's wrong with it? "Bad class" tells us nothing and I don't get the "bullies people with class features" (oddly I've heard the same thing about the paladin).
That said, your choice of a melee oriented cleric also makes sense, and there's a lot you can do there. I'd check out some of the cleric archetypes to see if you can tweak your concept further.
It also occurs to me an oracle could be used there... you'd have to bring in a lot of the law flavor yourself but there's no reason why you can't. Oracles of Fire, Air, and Dark Tapestry also have wing-like revelations. If you want a planar feel, take the Planar Oracle archetype. This would be more of a spellcasting oriented kind of crusader but it's another option.
I think good/neutral/evil is about how big your "in" group is. If you care about everyone then you are at the extreme end of good. If you care only about yourself then you are at the extreme end of evil. Neutral is in between those extremes.
I picture a Neutral character being very loyal to their friends and ruthless towards their enemies.
Also +1 on Inevitables being the enemy you are looking for. LINK
Neutral does not promote any alignment. The character directing the blackguard to a hamlet is promoting evil. It doesn't matter if he promotes all four extremes equally, he is not neutral.
By that standard, someone bearing an amulet of Asmodeus stopping you on the road for directions to the nearest thorp is evil.
So, no, he's not being evil. Someone giving directions to an Asmodean is probably dooming the town, but he's saving his own friends and family...or maybe the priest just wants a place to rest for the night.
Maybe that anti-paladin isn't going to go in there and butcher everyone. Maybe he'll just take it over and set up shop, work it into a growing empire, or just tax it to feed his hungry minions (minions gotta eat). Maybe he won't do anything.
Neutral people pass along information all the time. It's like blaming a smith for making the weapon used in the murder...the one doing the murder is the evil one.
Telling a young overconfident fool that a dangerous beast lurks in a glade, and he goes out to hunt it, pisses off the grey render, which follows his trail home and devastates the thorp, results in the same thing as the anti-paladin...is that evil now, too?
Manipulating others around you and staying in the middle is pretty much the definition of neutrality.
==Aelryinth
Standing in the middle and letting conflicts of others blow past, either on purpose or by directing them past you, is extremely neutral.
And what you call promotion he calls using the weapon he has available.
BTW, to the OP, the Proteans, the CN outsider types, have as their stated goal to reduce all of Creation back to formless chaos. Basically everything they do is to that end...lie, cheat, steal, murder, war, whatever. None of it with evil tendencies, because they are only seeeking to return the universe to the state it should be in, and that includes the horrifically ordered matter the PC's are made of, too.
==Aelryinth
|
I used the "Inevitable, Lhaksharut" from beastiary 2 as a main antagonist for a recent steampunk game. He needed the party to travel to another universe to kill a chaos creature, but had no way to send them. Is consciousness was manifesting in London as a giant machine and when he became strong enough he was going to teleport them across space and time, destroying all of London in the process. The party managed to find another way out of that universe, hoping that their escape would prevent the Inevitable from bothering with it all anymore.
I'm always interested in exploring cross-genre games. This one sounds like a blast. For contemporary-style rules, where'd you get your base? D20 Modern? What about the Steampunk rules?
|
|
Standing in the middle and letting conflicts of others blow past, either on purpose or by directing them past you, is extremely neutral.
No, it's manipulative, which Neutral does not have a monopoly on. Neutral characters are in no way required to 'balance' things or manipulate people any more than any other alignment.
Neutral characters can be apathetic, or they can just be easygoing. They are 'generally honest, but can be tempted' and 'may lack commitment'.
You keep harping on one kind of character like that is the only character it could be.
You know, I think I'm with Zapp on this one:
"I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."
If I were a paladin, and believe me I'm not, I wouldn't want to associate with someone who was just waiting for me to die so he could strip my gear. But then again, paladins are jerks too...
Standing in the middle and letting conflicts of others blow past, either on purpose or by directing them past you, is extremely neutral.No, it's manipulative, which Neutral does not have a monopoly on. Neutral characters are in no way required to 'balance' things or manipulate people any more than any other alignment.
Neutral characters can be apathetic, or they can just be easygoing. They are 'generally honest, but can be tempted' and 'may lack commitment'.
You keep harping on one kind of character like that is the only character it could be.
I don't believe he's ever said the character he's describing is the only character that Neutrality could be...just that it's a good example of neutrality (and honestly, I believe him).
You are the one claiming he's evil, when the example character hasn't (IMO) done anything evil.
If passing information to an anti-paladin is evil (as you claim), what do good and especially neutral people do in his place? I presume that good would fight the anti-paladin (although of course, a different kind of good might well try to redeem him, and/or be a pacifist).
But how do YOU feel a neutral character should act towards an anti-paladin? Particularly, how does it differ from a good person's behavior towards one?
What I want to know is if there is any way to remove good and evil entirely. It seems like a large reason why it's here at all is so that players don't feel bad about regularly committing genocide."Oh, it's just a goblin, it doesn't have a wife and kids, and it certainly isn't a productive member of society. Let's bash it's brains in and rob it's corpse!" That's profiling.
How would you possibly begin to remove good and evil as alignments from Pathfinder?
MAGUS!
Imbuing their weapons with +1/+2/+3 or various properties is pretty much smite neutral/smite everything.
They can cast spells, and yes they can cast fly. A pair of nice magical wings.
The magus is what you're looking for.
|
What I want to know is if there is any way to remove good and evil entirely. It seems like a large reason why it's here at all is so that players don't feel bad about regularly committing genocide."Oh, it's just a goblin, it doesn't have a wife and kids, and it certainly isn't a productive member of society. Let's bash it's brains in and rob it's corpse!" That's profiling.
Different expectations and all that, but that strikes me more as "evil vs evil" at best rather than anything involving good actually being good.
What I want to know is if there is any way to remove good and evil entirely. It seems like a large reason why it's here at all is so that players don't feel bad about regularly committing genocide."Oh, it's just a goblin, it doesn't have a wife and kids, and it certainly isn't a productive member of society. Let's bash it's brains in and rob it's corpse!" That's profiling.
How would you possibly begin to remove good and evil as alignments from Pathfinder?
Exactly. Also, it seems like some people are unable to step back from modern "ethics" born from an era of extreme wealth and comfort, to promote equality across genders, cultures and race, bereft of any prejudice, valid or not.
It simply does not apply when you have monsters roaming the countryside eating your babies. Good and evil aren't simply a question of ethics and morals in pathfinder, they are forces that define the cosmos.
|
|
You are the one claiming he's evil, when the example character hasn't (IMO) done anything evil.
If passing information to an anti-paladin is evil (as you claim), what do good and especially neutral people do in his place? I presume that good would fight the anti-paladin (although of course, a different kind of good might well try to redeem him, and/or be a pacifist).
But how do YOU feel a neutral character should act towards an anti-paladin? Particularly, how does it differ from a good person's behavior towards one?
No, I specifically said he is NOT evil. He's promoting evil.
A neutral character would avoid dealing with the antipaladin, where as a good character would work against him.