| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we've got a goblin ration (a small, free, fun product) coming out tonight/tomorrow.
It features a paladin alternate class called the "Forsworn". Forsworn are virginal female paladins who are gifted with the companionship of a unicorn. They feature enhanced spell-casting abilities at the cost of some of their martial abilities and draw from a more druid-ish spell list to show their dedication to nature. Not a woman? No problem! You can either play as a eunuch or use the rules for a "challenger". Challengers are the male counterpart of a forsworn who gain a Pegasus mount rather than a unicorn.
So! If you ever wanted to ride a unicorn, and we know you have, be sure to pick up the Forsworn goblin ration this weekend!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From your description I am getting a Arthurian Legend feel. Definitely an interesting concept.
Very much so. The forsworn kind of have to swear off love and physical pleasure (hence why they are mostly female). It draws a lot from early Christina mythos and Arthurian sources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casts summon mikaze.
This fills me with fear and revulsion. Still...
|
Well I'm definitely curious. :D
I can't help but see this as an easy-in for Valdemar-style Heralds... Definitely checking it out now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not warrior women who make eunuchs?
Not warrior women who make eunuchs?
how else are you gonna get unicorn rider fights ;)
Not warrior women who make eunuchs?
I didn't say that ;-)
Please tell me all that is flavor text and not actual class requirements ...
Forsworn must indeed be females and Challengers male. The option is presented for eunuchs as well as fluff that talks about male forsworn in passing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bleah. Base classes shouldn't have restrictions like that. It's as ludicrous as 'dwarves can't be wizards'. Prestige class I could see, but as a base class? Bad call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can totally respect your view. It came up a lot when we were designing and playtesting this alternate class for paladin.
We would have listed it as an archetype, though the nature of the mechanical changes that occurred made it important to designate it as an alternate.
We decided to draw from the wealth of mythological resources pertaining to the concept of the divine female and in particular, the Abrahamic exaltation of the virtue of purity.
As society doesn’t hold the same view on male virginity, it was a difficult topic to work with.
We actually dedicate three paragraphs after the class entry to the concept of the male female dynamic, the nature of the gender based restriction, and the concept of a male forsworn. Unfortunately, a lot of the lore on unicorns (including Paizo’s own references to befriending one) precludes males from riding one- hence why challengers have a pegasus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is now live on DriveThruRPG! (Link)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WOW
Sorry for the triple post here but this has quickly become our fastest moving free product ever. Would you guys like to see support/expansion for this in the future?
Odd. It should be the druid spell list.
I will update that tonight. Thanks for the catch.
(Time to go whip some editors!)
(Time to go whip some editors!)
not it
Hmmm. Too bad; no Paizo download?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Too bad; no Paizo download?
Awesome, done and done!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Too bad; no Paizo download?now there is
Thank you. And LRGG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm this is gonna be a shock to the males who wanna ride unicorns... So does the book includes castration rules? :)
Druid spell list, not cleric.
This causes them to play more akin to rangers who also lack 0th level spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the gender restriction, and don't think it's inherently bad per se, but I can just be honest with how I would use this as a DM (since no one else in my group ever does, I usually am the one who ends up ruling on everything).
The flavor of this class is too great for me to ignore. I could just as easily see hermetic, male elves with unicorn companions and brash, headstrong amazonian warriors charging around on pegasi, and I have no doubt that I will use both at some point in the future. The little disclaimer at the end explaining your reasoning for why you chose the restrictions that you did was great, I thought, but I personally think it could have been done as well to just say "This is the way we envisioned the class, but you might feel differently! Just read this as a suggestion then and feel free to interpret those parts more suitably to your playstyle if your DM approves it" or something. it's just a restriction that, clearly, some people can frown at and imo that extra line or two could have given you an easier out. I'm also just am not one to restrict my players to what's sort of a triviality if they genuinely like a class.
It's a very fun archetype though, and one I've been searching for... um, for a number of years now. Thanks a ton, this really is something I'll use for the rest of my pathfinder days.
I have a few questions about the forsworn...
1) Obviously, you can't receive your power from any of the "sex-positive" deities like Arshea, Lymneris, or Shelyn, correct?
2) It says "any good alignment", as opposed to the paladin's typical Lawful Good. This would modify a lot of class features, so why doesn't the PDF say how that works?
3) I know this is kind of a graphic question, but I think it bears asking: what happens if the forsworn is sexually assaulted? Since the class has a virginity requirement, some sadistic or debased villains might try to take away the forsworn's class abilities by having the PC get grappled/hold person'ed/whatever and raped. Granted, the GM probably shouldn't be including that kind of content in the game without every player's consent for fear of trigger warnings or general disgust. But as it stands, in Pathfinder lore one of the core player races' entire reason for existing is because of orcs' tendency to rape humans, so it's not like Paizo is shying away from that theme.
But under rules as written, would you interpret being raped as a breach of the forsworn's code (that would be victim-blaming, in my opinion) or would it just be seen as another variant of "being struck by enemies"?
So I've been thinking about this class all weekend, and even talked with a friend about it. I still stand by my assertion that this is a fantastic level 1-5 class, but when I was thinking about "What next" I started to run into a wall.
So, little exercise:
Assuming we have 5 level 7 adventurers (the same level a normal paladin could substitute a unicorn in without any trouble at all), we might have the following:
Level 7 paladin: with 3 highest stats of 18 str, 16 cha, 12 con; they also have full pally abilities, 2 mercies, and access to level 2 cleric spells. Their BAB is +7/+2. Their mount is level 2.
Level 7 forsworn: with 3 highest stats of 18 cha, 16 str, 12 con; they also have most paladin abilities, but no lay on hands at all. They can channel positive energy a BIT more often, and have access to level 3 druid spells. Their BAB is -4 to the normal paladin (+5). Their mount is level 7.
Not the worst difference, particularly if the forsworn chose unicorn. They are largely comparable at this point, but here it starts to diverge:
Level 7 (forsworn 2/cavalier 5): serving as their party face, they chose 18 cha, 16 str, 12 con; they have level 2 paladin abilities, cast level 1 druid spells instead of lay on hands (with 5 druid spells per day), and add Divine Grace to all their saves. However, they also have significantly more effective abilities for their mount and their attack abilities, depending on their order. Their BAB is +6/+1, unbuffed and without their Challenge or Banner active. Their mount is level 7.
Level 7 (forsworn 1/druid 6): this person has no interest in +cha. They simply want the magical beast as a companion, so they have +18 wis, +16 con, +12 cha; they can cast 2 sets of level 1 druid spells, with access to orisons as well as level 3 druid spells. They can also wild shape 2/day, woodland stride/trackless step, and have a BAB +4. Their mount is level 7.
Level 7 (forsworn 2/sorcerer 5): same as any +cha who goes pally, with one huge difference - by going sylvan-blooded, they can continue to max their magical beast mount. They choose 18 cha, 16 int, 12 con. They have Divine Grace, cantrips, the ability cast both arcane and divine spells (Druid level 1, Sorcerer level 2), bloodline powers, and an Animal companion that's only -3 levels below them... if they didn't take Boon Companion, in which case it wouldn't matter. Their BAB does not matter and their mount is level 4.
At first glance, these are still almost equal, except the others all advance quicker than the pure forsworn. The pure paladin continues to now not only advance his cleric casting, but his lay on hands, his companion, and doesn't suffer the same restrictions on accepting touch spells, chastity, or way of life.
The cavalier/forsworn advances the most defining feature of the class - the mount - while the pure forsworn's mount starts to fall off since there is no further synergy added to help it out. The decision to be the party face helps keep their high +cha relevant, and they get +2 skills on the pally while retaining not only better BAB, but a full-level mount too.
The druid/forsworn advances one of the most compelling reasons to stay forsworn, the druid spell progression, but also does it faster, better, and with nearly the same BAB that can be augmented by wildshape. The companion is the same level as them and their druid spell progression will go father, faster, while they remain at most 1 BAB behind.
The sorcerer/forsworn advances sneaks in double duty for their high cha with Divine Grace, gets bonus spells on their level 1 druid spells AND their own arcane class, advances their better spellcasting class while being backed up a tiny by with access to all level 1 druid spells, and has a permanent companion that they can ride, buff, and have tank for them as-needed. Their spells advance further, faster, and their companion continues to advance with them regardless.
Essentially what I'm saying here is that when I was trying to tell my friend how cool this class was, the only builds I'd made were ones focused on escaping the class as soon as possible. Particularly for the challenger, who - even if you made it so they have to have forsworn level 4 to get full mount status, there is still every reason to leave immediately since the class essentially stops giving any abilities at all, with the removal of Lay on Hands. Switching to Ranger (again, only -3 to your companion while still getting access to druid spells) or Animal Domain cleric are also both more intelligent alternatives to leveling a pure forsworn. I just feel that adding anything at all to later forsworn levels - lay on hands -4 even - would make it more comparable.
On top of that, my friend kept complaining about the female forsworn, and I also realized that I had completely relegated them to "unplayable" and had only been looking at male forsworn due to the easier restrictions and lower possible max level to escape; however, bringing them back into the picture adds a new problem. The pegasus advancement stops at level 4, while the unicorn caps out at level 7. Granted, they're two difference creatures and the unicorn is far more powerful than the pegasus, but... the unicorn is also far more powerful than the pegasus. I understand that the greater RP restriction is mean to perhaps compensate for this, but what impetus does that give the player to choose this over the generic unicorn mount they could receive either through substitution or the leadership feat? Why would a female player/someone playing a female character want to take a female forsworn simply for the unicorn, instead of wanting a pegasus? is there anything that precludes the existence of female challengers?
The person I talked to was incensed that the class be so gender restrictive, and while I personally don't care because I cherry-pick what I want and am not afraid to argue, edit, and cut whatever I need to (because I am of the belief that if the DM allows 3rd party material in the first place I might as well go for the gold), I can see why they described the class as "nothing but a DM headache". The questions asked here already, I think, help illustrate that, but more than rape and sexual harassment, Pathfinder is a giant, magical world. Here are some instances I can immediately see causing trouble:
A NG healer sees the forsworn fall unconscious and, while they know about the forsworn's oath, it is not something they are willing to compromise their own desire to save a life for. The healer touches her to save her life. Being unconscious, the forsworn does not get a choice and must accept the touch spell. Is her oath broken?
A CG person thinks her oath is pathetic, and willfully seeks to subvert her oath at every opportunity. This isn't an evil act, they just hate her and despise her ideals, keeping wholly withing the realm of CG; they take the opportunity to deliver touch effects at every opportunity. What is the status of her vows?
A party member falls unconscious in a burning spider lair. Her vows dictate that she is not able to touch them, so... what? Does she leave them to die? Choosing her own skin over a party member who trusted her to look after them? I personally would consider leaving someone to die on the sole basis of a Good-aligned oath would be entirely against the purpose of being good-aligned and would be a straight-up evil act of selfishness. What is the status of her oath if she grasps them and clutches them on her unicorn as they ride away? What is the status of her oath if she abandons the person to die because she just doesn't want to go through the hassle of atonement? How true to her word is she being if she's just like "well I'll blow another 1k gold on atonement, same as last week"?
A forsworn falls in love with a bard and gets charmed into sexual activity. She was not in full control of her actions at that point, but the fact that she agreed suggests it wasn't "something she would never consider doing" or whatever the final line of charm states; what is the status of her oaths?
... how is it different from if she was raped, but (for whatever reason), experienced pleasure during the rape?
... does it matter if she purposefully failed the will save?
... what if the sex occurs through the use of dream magic, and did not occur physically?
... what if she just has an erotic dream about the bard, without any magic or anything underhanded at all?
... what if it happens without the knowledge of the unicorn? can the unicorn tell?
... what if she was not aware that it was "sexual activity" at all? and it's an instance of her innocently participating (such as standing naked for what she assumes is modeling) while the other person "gets off" in whatever way they choose? What is the status of her oaths?
A forsworn is super tired and falls asleep on a bed. One of her companions comes and falls asleep next to her. It is not sexual in any way, however she just spent the night curled up with another person. What is the status of her oaths?
... what if they wake up spooning?
... what if it was the companion who fell asleep first, and the forsworn was so tired she didn't notice when she stumbled into bed?
... what if part of her did notice, but it wasn't strong enough to stop her from collapsing?
... what if they're both under the effects of a sleep spell at the same time?
... what if it's another instance of the companion needing her to physically interact with them in order to save their life? For instance, hypothermia, HER delivering a touch spell, etc.?
After all that, I really can't help but think "a rules headache" is pretty accurate. The vows a female forsworn must abide by in order to get a unicorn are just crazy strict. I can't imagine why a woman would choose that instead of the other options to get a unicorn that are available and/or just choose to be a challenger instead. Just as there is no reason to stay in the class - at all - there is also no reason, imo, to play a female forsworn as-is, with those vows in play. Beyond the rules that need to be explained about different situations with the vows, it is at heart an idea originating from an extremely misogynistic time where women were valued solely for virginal purity and considered property of men - their fathers or their husbands - and "soiled goods" were worthless. There is no real way to make that non-sexist, but I understand the value of using that trope and I don't disagree with its use in pairing virginity with unicorns. I think where a message might - completely unintentional, I'm sure - be sent is in the fact that women taking this class have to face these incredibly restrictive, incredibly frustrating rules while men, who "can't control themselves" and/or "just have a harder time" are given a free pass to the pegasus without any mention or defining of their vows at all. The flavor text, at least, suggests that they don't have to face any restrictions on their behavior whatsoever, while also implying that women cannot be challengers at all.
I don't know how intentional that was, and I don't know if you (or anyone) feels that it matters at all; I just think it's a way it could potentially be read and that it does run counter to a lot of the societal changes that have occurred in the last few years. In making this about gender, in making this about sex specifically, I think it gets opened up to questions that as a designed would be hard to answer (such as attempting to explain how rape works or why women have to work so much harder than men when in theory it's supposed to be easier for them), and puts the designer in an untenable position. That's just me though, I dunno, maybe it's a discussion people are interested in having. I stand by my decision to say that it's an excellent level 1-5 class that stands to potentially be insanely iconic.
sorry for the extra post (especially after that long and probably totally unnecessary one), but it also occurred to me to look at some other classes, like Beloved of Valarian from 3.5:
Specifically, this line, "All of Valarian’s beloved must be chaste and must dedicate herself wholly both to good and her unicorn companion. Should a beloved of Valarian ever willingly couple with a mortal, the unicorn leaves her company without hard feelings or regret" which to me is far more appropriate and explanatory; there's also another explanation for unicrons somehere that says something like "unicorns need someone who can dedicate themselves fully to them, and thus must leave when a mortal is distracted by their family, thus giving rise to the myth that unicorns can only partner with virgins" somewhere, although I have no idea where that's from (or even if it's from pathfinder material at all). Still, I thought it was another, more expansive interpretation of the unicorns+virginity archetype that fits in very well. Your own mileage may vary. I'm just really enthused about this class and think it's absolutely fantastic material.