| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.
There seems to be a pervasive flaw in the default assumptions people have when thinking about neutral as an alignment that says neutrality means not having strong convictions. Or at least none that don't involve trees and chipmunks. I find that interesting.
There seems to be a pervasive flaw in the default assumptions people have when thinking about neutral as an alignment that says neutrality means not having strong convictions. Or at least none that don't involve trees and chipmunks. I find that interesting.
if I remember wasn't there a distinction between TN and NN at one point?
Start with the existing Paladin class, then:
1. Change the alignment requirement to N
2. Replace every instance of the word "evil" with the word "neutral"
3. In the now Smite Neutral ability, change "undead creature" to "elemental"
4. Change the code wording to "Code of Conduct: A "paladin" must be of neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an extreme good or evil act."
There, done.
Start with the existing Paladin class, then:
1. Change the alignment requirement to N
2. Replace every instance of the word "evil" with the word "neutral"
3. In the now Smite Neutral ability, change "undead creature" to "elemental"
4. Change the code wording to "Code of Conduct: A "paladin" must be of neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an extreme good or evil act."There, done.
but that doesn't scream an exemplar of neutrality for me. the code of conduct should be at the very core of what it means to be neutral.
if I remember wasn't there a distinction between TN and NN at one point?
Not that I recall. But the name (and definition) has flip flopped enough, I could be mistaken. Originally, there were only three alignments. Which, might as well have been dwarf, elf, and other for all they were worth.
|
Of course TN characters can have strong convictions.
Those convictions just aren't likely to be about alignment. (The "servant of balance" that hates "extreme alignments" never made sense to me personally.) And the paladin class in PF is both mechanically and thematically tied to alignment.
So in order to have a TN paladin, one needs to either shift the concept to a holy warrior of a deity who happens to have an alignment rather than the reverse, or else do this:
The Champion class from Arcana Evolved provides a possible way around that problem. That class is designed for a game that does not even have alignment. Instead, each Champion is dedicated to a cause, and his class abilities are tied to that cause. Obviously there would be no problem with such a character being of any alignment (inlcuding true neutral) unless the cause in question is unquestionably non-neutral.
I prefer the latter since it makes them more distinct from clerics, but I think it's fine to allow both clerics and paladins to serve as holy warriors of a deity. Paladins would probably end up with a "standard-bearer" function while than the martial cleric would be more of a "general/tactician."
Start with the existing Paladin class, then:
1. Change the alignment requirement to N
2. Replace every instance of the word "evil" with the word "neutral"
3. In the now Smite Neutral ability, change "undead creature" to "elemental"
4. Change the code wording to "Code of Conduct: A "paladin" must be of neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an extreme good or evil act."There, done.
But what would such a character actually care about?
But what would such a character actually care about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several points I'd like to make:
1. Let's get rid of the ugliest topic first... the political one. The idea that the white/Christian/European ideal of a holy warrior will always be LAWFUL GOOD - with all the alignment implies - gives me pause. It's obviously a far-fetched point, but it still resonates within me somehow that clerics come in any flavor, but the European paladin is ALWAYS GOOD AND KIND AND ALTRUISTIC --- it's mucky territory. Unfortunate implications arise. But I'm letting it rest there.
2. Now, onto the more practical aspect - I always thought paladins to play a specific role within their clergy. While clerics are tasked interacting with divinity (through worship, study, theology), and inquisitors are tasked with interacting with the believers (through preaching, policing, dispensing justice), I think paladins play a necessary role for every structured religion: its interaction with hostile outsiders.
The paladin could play an alignment-free role: through strength, bolster the worship of a given demigod. A lawful demigod would like paladins to protect the infrastructure of their worship (temples, cities), and smite non-believers. Why would a Lawful Good-aligned deity want this more over a Lawful Neutral or a Lawful Evil deity? They would need paladins as much as LG deities in this sense.
Chaotic deities would have less straight-forward needs for paladins - for example, a CG deity may want its paladins to demolish religious sites of rival demigods that subdue humans unfairly under their belief systems.
So yeah, I believe Neutral and Chaotic paladins can exist.
But what would such a character actually care about?Feel your pain.
Balance. Good and evil, law and chaos, are in a constant struggle for supremacy. The paragon of neutrality has the job of making sure no extreme ever gets the upper hand. He embraces the struggle and vows to keep it going.
Balance. Good and evil, law and chaos, are in a constant struggle for supremacy. The paragon of neutrality has the job of making sure no extreme ever gets the upper hand. He embraces the struggle and vows to keep it going.But what would such a character actually care about?Feel your pain.
Perhaps. As a quick and dirty summary of each alignment and possible focus:
LG - Protect the welfare of all by imposing the values of a regimented ruleset.
CG - Protect the welfare of all by imposing his own, original values - stemming from the values of a deity.
LE - Empower herself through imposing the values of a regimented ruleset.
CE - Empower herself through the debasing of other regimented rulesets.
LN - Protect a regimented ruleset itself. (Which could be "there should be balance" as well as something more material, like a magical warrior judge of sorts).
CN - Protect personal liberty from regimented rulesets. (But just for the sake of personal liberty - like a magical warrior Rand Paul of sorts.)
A neutral paladin choose a path of some kind. Let's see, there are the paladins of selfishness, ambivalence, indifference... what else? The unheeded knights, the knights of hindsight, the static order...
What makes a man turn neutral?
Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
In all seriousness, Homebrew it how you want, though the smite would be difficult to reconfigure for a true neutral paladin (perhaps you have to decide to smite one aligned faction and stay with that decision forever once chosen - i.e. if smite lawful is chosen, you can only smite lawful from that day on).
A neutral paladin choose a path of some kind. Let's see, there are the paladins of selfishness, ambivalence, indifference... what else? The unheeded knights, the knights of hindsight, the static order...
Thank you for the awesome ideas. Coming soon to a home brew near you, the Holy Order if Ennui. They will be opposed at every step by the order known as the Forge of Indifference.
It's not as if paladin is balanced around its code or alignment, if you want to house rule the code and alignment restriction off of paladins in your world, I don't see how it could hurt anything.
Originally, there were only three alignments. Which, might as well have been dwarf, elf, and other for all they were worth.
Are you sure? My memories of gaming in the 70s don't support that. From the very beginning the D&D triumvirate (Gygax, Arnesson and Kunst) were into Moorcock as well, and I think the Law vs Chaos axis was as well established as the Good vs Evil axis.
When discussions of alignment come up, I'm reminded of Kwil in the Corum books:
"Your enemies the Chaos gods are gone. With my brothers help I slew them and all their minions. For good measure we slew the Lords of Law as well. Now you mortals are free of gods on these planes."
This said, and to return to the thread, I strongly feel that paladins should always be LG. Holy warriors of other gods are fine by me, as long as we don't call them paladins and don't give them paladin powers like smite evil and lay on hands. There are plenty of cleric archetypes and variants that are martial oriented, and work very well as holy warriors of one stripe or another.
YMMV.
Originally, there were only three alignments. Which, might as well have been dwarf, elf, and other for all they were worth.Are you sure? My memories of gaming in the 70s don't support that. From the very beginning the D&D triumvirate (Gygax, Arnesson and Kunst) were into Moorcock as well, and I think the Law vs Chaos axis was as well established as the Good vs Evil axis.
When discussions of alignment come up, I'm reminded of Kwil in the Corum books:
"Your enemies the Chaos gods are gone. With my brothers help I slew them and all their minions. For good measure we slew the Lords of Law as well. Now you mortals are free of gods on these planes."This said, and to return to the thread, I strongly feel that paladins should always be LG. Holy warriors of other gods are fine by me, as long as we don't call them paladins and don't give them paladin powers like smite evil and lay on hands. There are plenty of cleric archetypes and variants that are martial oriented, and work very well as holy warriors of one stripe or another.
YMMV.
First edition D&D alignments were Lawful,Neutral, and Chaotic. The rest showed up when AD&D appeared on the scene.
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.
I can't speak for everyone, but I would just like to outfit the class features on any concept. I don't think smites and mercy powers should be locked behind Lawful Good any more than something like rage powers should be locked behind Any Nonlawful. They don't have to be called paladins, you could have multiple causes like the champion from arcana unearthed and one of those could be called paladin. Or paladin could be a prestige class of 'champion' or whatever else you could call it
That's just my druthers and if I wanted to play a warrior of Abadar with what we have I'd make a cleric or inquisitor instead of trying to pitch a homebrew class to the GM. But I wish I could also be a warrior of Abadar with a full BAB smiting chaos and removing effects from my buddies.
I admittedly don't have the long experience as many on the boards but I've always wondered why it was no stretch of imagination for every deity/alignment to have clerics but the holy/unholy warrior was alignment restricted.
Good point! If the cleric and every class were as cookie-cutter as the paladin -- "a cleric must remain NG and heal everyone in need," "a barbarian who strays from CN or knowingly follows a civilized law loses the ability to rage," ect. -- at least the paladin wouldn't stick out like it does.
Anyway, yeah, the cleric was the precedent I originally used when I dropped the paladin's LG restriction and code.
This is what I've been toying around with for my campaign; lifting the LG and CE restrictions of the paladin and anti-paladin but requiring they be the exact alignment of their deity. I see these classes as holy warriors--the hand of their deity on the Material plane. A person may choose to be a priest or cleric, but paladins are called so their alignments and ideals (code of conduct) should mirror their deities.
From one DM to another, you'll never look back. ;)
EDIT:I am still part of that group that likes the Paladin being a prestige class, but MEH, that is another discussion
Yeah, the traditional paladin concept is way too specific to be a base class. :)
Not that I recall. But the name (and definition) has flip flopped enough, I could be mistaken. Originally, there were only three alignments. Which, might as well have been dwarf, elf, and other for all they were worth.
if I remember wasn't there a distinction between TN and NN at one point?
I thought that all 'civilized' races are Lawful (or at least Neutral) under the three-alignment paradigm?
Anyhow, no, I'm 99% certain that NN has never even been an official term. There's always been a divide within TN, though: the animalistic kind of neutrality that results from being completely unable to make moral/ethical decisions, and the sentient kind of neutrality that results from the lack of strong action/belief on behalf of L, C, G, or E. Basically there's Joe Schmoe TN, and there's Joe's Dog Fido TN.
What makes a man turn neutral?
Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?In all seriousness, Homebrew it how you want, though the smite would be difficult to reconfigure for a true neutral paladin (perhaps you have to decide to smite one aligned faction and stay with that decision forever once chosen - i.e. if smite lawful is chosen, you can only smite lawful from that day on).
Instead of detect evil and smite evil/supersmite undead-outsider-dragon, you could just have smite without alignment restrictions.
They can now smite any single target but gain no extra bonuses on specific super bad guys.
For those genuinely curious about why some of us drop the LG restriction and the Code, I wrote a blog post just for you. :)
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.
Role playing options. Like I said, the traditional paladin is much too narrow. ;)
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.
Clerics are the gishes of every god. Big difference. ;)
A neutral paladin choose a path of some kind. Let's see, there are the paladins of selfishness, ambivalence, indifference... what else? The unheeded knights, the knights of hindsight, the static order...Thank you for the awesome ideas. Coming soon to a home brew near you, the Holy Order if Ennui. They will be opposed at every step by the order known as the Forge of Indifference.
In the times of antiquity, there existed the old Trahlish Kingdoms, where the fervor in mens' hearts ran as hot as those of their old gods. When the wars waged there between the conflicting faiths destroyed the kingdom, many of the survivors ventured far and wide seeking a new land where they might escape their past. They found that land, and called it New Trahl. Here they found gods less severe, and more understanding of the people who served them.
But those who remained in the old lands sought to remain true to the old ways, for the passion inspired by their gods waned not. Generations later they came in contact with the ones that left through those who protected them: the Newtrahl knights. They saw what had becomes of their former kin and conflict arose. Now they rally around the old gods and have sworn that they shall once and for all destroy these ambiguous gods and all who follow them.
Start with the existing Paladin class, then:
1. Change the alignment requirement to N
2. Replace every instance of the word "evil" with the word "neutral"
3. In the now Smite Neutral ability, change "undead creature" to "elemental"
4. Change the code wording to "Code of Conduct: A "paladin" must be of neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an extreme good or evil act."There, done.
So a Holy Warrior of Neutrality now Smites his own alignment?!?
"Stop hitting yourself!" ;-)
|
|
Balance. Good and evil, law and chaos, are in a constant struggle for supremacy. The paragon of neutrality has the job of making sure no extreme ever gets the upper hand. He embraces the struggle and vows to keep it going.But what would such a character actually care about?Feel your pain.
So why does he smite neutral-aligned creatures?
LG - Protect the welfare of all by imposing the values of a regimented ruleset.
CG - Protect the welfare of all by imposing his own, original values - stemming from the values of a deity.
LN - Protect a regimented ruleset itself. (Which could be "there should be balance" as well as something more material, like a magical warrior judge of sorts).
CN - Protect personal liberty from regimented rulesets. (But just for the sake of personal liberty - like a magical warrior Rand Paul of sorts.)
Shouldn't CG then be "protect the welfare of all by protecting personal liberty?"
Yes, a Neutral Paladin exists in Pathfinder. They are quite common in fact. They are called Hellknights.
Balance. Good and evil, law and chaos, are in a constant struggle for supremacy. The paragon of neutrality has the job of making sure no extreme ever gets the upper hand. He embraces the struggle and vows to keep it going.But what would such a character actually care about?Feel your pain.So why does he smite neutral-aligned creatures?
Sorry, I thought the answer would be obvious. The reason, of course, is balance. Good guys smite bad guys, bad guys smite good guys, neutral guys smite neutral guys.
For Smites -
LG/NG/CG - Smite Evil
LE/NE/CE - Smite Good
LN - Smite Chaos (lawful neutral cares about maintaining balance foremost)
CN - Smite Lawful (chaotic neutral cares about preserving freedom foremost)
TN - True neutral cares most about unprejudiced thought - so they would be most fervent when fighting those who are attempting to impose their worldview as the dominant - be it chaotic anarchists or lawful tyrants, be it for altruistic, ideological or egoistic reasons.
So how to represent this?
I think the best way would be by giving TNs a form of Counter-Smite, allowing them to Smite anyone with the Judgment/Domain/Smite/Channel Energy features.
The reason, of course, is balance.*Gasp!* Did you just use the "b" word?!? That must be why the Paizo forumites hate True Neutral so much. To paraphrase Gorbacz, the forumites have decreed that Bal@#&ce = wuxia = anime = MMO = munchkin = 4e!
:)
Well, I was using it in the cosmic sense not the mechanics sense. I don't really care one bit about mechanical balance. Some things are just better than others.
For those genuinely curious about why some of us drop the LG restriction and the Code, I wrote a blog post just for you. :)
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.Role playing options. Like I said, the traditional paladin is much too narrow. ;)
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.Clerics are the gishes of every god. Big difference. ;)
Clerics aren't gishes. Clerics are goshes.
==Aelryinth
Well, I was using it in the cosmic sense not the mechanics sense. I don't really care one bit about mechanical balance. Some things are just better than others.The reason, of course, is balance.*Gasp!* Did you just use the "b" word?!? That must be why the Paizo forumites hate True Neutral so much. To paraphrase Gorbacz, the forumites have decreed that Bal@#&ce = wuxia = anime = MMO = munchkin = 4e!
:)
I could be wrong, but I think 137ben is poking fun at people who seem to see red when they hear 'the b word,' by drawing a ridiculous connection between two completely unrelated uses of the word. ;)
For those genuinely curious about why some of us drop the LG restriction and the Code, I wrote a blog post just for you. :)
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.Role playing options. Like I said, the traditional paladin is much too narrow. ;)
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.Clerics are the gishes of every god. Big difference. ;)Clerics aren't gishes. Clerics are goshes.
==Aelryinth
Oh my gosh, why does every god need a gish?!
What makes a man turn neutral?
Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?In all seriousness, Homebrew it how you want, though the smite would be difficult to reconfigure for a true neutral paladin (perhaps you have to decide to smite one aligned faction and stay with that decision forever once chosen - i.e. if smite lawful is chosen, you can only smite lawful from that day on).
Instead of detect evil and smite evil/supersmite undead-outsider-dragon, you could just have smite without alignment restrictions.
They can now smite any single target but gain no extra bonuses on specific super bad guys.
also smite undead-outsider-dragon is called a ranger with favored enemy... not necessarily as good but still basically the same thing.
Also, clerics can do a lot of the paladin stuff with feats if I'm not mistaken... and they're generally better on the magic abilities end, though yeah they don't get a free sword that is on fire.
I could be wrong, but I think 137ben is poking fun at people who seem to see red when they hear 'the b word,' by drawing a ridiculous connection between two completely unrelated uses of the word. ;)Well, I was using it in the cosmic sense not the mechanics sense. I don't really care one bit about mechanical balance. Some things are just better than others.The reason, of course, is balance.*Gasp!* Did you just use the "b" word?!? That must be why the Paizo forumites hate True Neutral so much. To paraphrase Gorbacz, the forumites have decreed that Bal@#&ce = wuxia = anime = MMO = munchkin = 4e!
:)
I got it. But better safe than sorry, ya know. Sometimes it's better to try to head them off at the pass.
Lay on Hands is the big problem here though.
Smite represents the paladin's fervor for her beliefs. A TN paladin that stands for SCIENCE! could Smite Dogmatic, for example.
But Lay on Hands is the biggest offender.
For the Good paladin, Lay on Hands represents the altruistic "greater good" approach to their beliefs.
For the Evil paladin, Touch of Corruption represents the egoistic "power makes right" (not as catchy as "might" but more broad) approach to their beliefs.
What about the Neutral paladin? In which way could their beliefs manifest, if all they care is about ideals?
I propose that the Neutral paladin should have, instead of Lay on Hands or Touch of Corruption, something like this:
Surge of Inspiration (Su)
The Lawful/True/Chaotic Neutral paladin with Charisma 12 or greater can grant a target a vision of truth by touch. The target receives a +1d6 insight bonus on a single mental-based skill for one minute. A target can only have one Surge of Inspiration effect active at the time.
Then, it could get modifiers and feats - like for example, allowing a character to ignore negative ability bonus on that skill, affecting a second skill, making it a -1d6 penalty instead, granting the paladin a similar bonus at half-strength if used on others, affecting physical skills, etc.
Lay on Hands is the big problem here though.
Smite represents the paladin's fervor for her beliefs. A TN paladin that stands for SCIENCE! could Smite Dogmatic, for example.
But Lay on Hands is the biggest offender.
For the Good paladin, Lay on Hands represents the altruistic "greater good" approach to their beliefs.
For the Evil paladin, Touch of Corruption represents the egoistic "power makes right" (not as catchy as "might" but more broad) approach to their beliefs.
What about the Neutral paladin? In which way could their beliefs manifest, if all they care is about ideals?
I propose that the Neutral paladin should have, instead of Lay on Hands or Touch of Corruption, something like this:
Surge of Inspiration (Su)
The Lawful/True/Chaotic Neutral paladin with Charisma 12 or greater can grant a target a vision of truth by touch. The target receives a +1d6 insight bonus on a single mental-based skill for one minute. A target can only have one Surge of Inspiration effect active at the time.Then, it could get modifiers and feats - like for example, allowing a character to ignore negative ability bonus on that skill, affecting a second skill, making it a -1d6 penalty instead, granting the paladin a similar bonus at half-strength if used on others, affecting physical skills, etc.
Swift action self healing is is in theme for any paladin style divine martial champion IMO. It goes along with the bonus to saves as demonstrating they are supernaturally tough and difficult to put down.
Champions are weapons to be thrown at enemies to slog it out. Not glass cannons but divine bricks who can take a beating and still smite.
It isn't, but in my opinion it undermines the flavor of Neutral.
@Voadam - That works for Good Paladins who, by the logic of good, look to expand welfare to other members through healing, improving their conditions.
Take in contrast the Antipaladin - Touch of Corruption lowers the power of enemies so that the Antipaladin becomes relatively stronger HERSELF, at the expense of others, that is evil.
The Paladin granting a mental skill bonus is in line with the idea that Neutral cares about concepts rather than ethics. A skill bonus or penalty means a creature is further or closer to truth, the ultimate goal of every Neutral character.
|
|
The Paladin granting a mental skill bonus is in line with the idea that Neutral cares about concepts rather than ethics. A skill bonus or penalty means a creature is further or closer to truth, the ultimate goal of every Neutral character.
I disagree.
A thirst for knowledge and truth is a great motivation for a neutral character. But it's not the only motivation - not even for neutral characters who have strong ideals. A TN character can value nature, aesthetics, or self-improvement (physical as well as mental). They may also be a well-intentioned extremist - the kind who fight legitimate evil but are perhaps disproportionate in punishment or otherwise do not value the life and dignity of all creatures sufficiently to be considered "good." (I've got a set of TN paladins in my current world who are single-minded lycanthrope hunters. They don't care whether the lycanthrope in question is actually dangerous to others, they're just fulfilling the divine vendetta of their patron deity.)
Of course, characters of all alignments who strongly hold a particular philosophy will consider that philosophy "true," but I don't believe that's the same thing as an independent value for "truth" which includes a desire to seek out any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Again, I like Surge of Inspiration, but would probably make it available as an archetype and/or expand it to all skills from the start. It's certainly not overpowered compared to the ability to heal yourself and remove conditions as a swift action.
also smite undead-outsider-dragon is called a ranger with favored enemy... not necessarily as good but still basically the same thing.
It's a similar mechanic but different thematically. The favoured enemy in theory represents extensive study of a particular target or prey. Smite is about invoking the power of the divine to destroy an enemy.
Anything called Holy just needs a renaming,
Actually, it's bugged me for a while that the evil divine stuff is labelled "Unholy/Profane." All religions regardless of their alignment should consider their precepts, scriptures, sites, etc to be holy/sacred (and the opposition's to be unholy/profane).
Your personal viewpoint on Holiness has nothing to do with it.
unholy, holy, profane and sacred are descriptors of alignment-based energies.
The unholy might of Asmodeus IS holy to his worshippers...but its' still black, dark, foul power from the pits of Hell, and is profane and unholy, doing no harm to evil folks, sourced from nastiness, and particularly painful to Good fellows.
If you remove alignment, then you can make everything holy as you like...but holy has ALWAYS referred to the good/light side of things historically, so you're just going to confuse people when you start mixing adjectives. "The Sacred Texts of Urgathoa" don't have the same ring as "The Profane Pages of Urgathoa", after all.
And seriously, in a universe where alignments are known and admired, having Profane and Unholy sources of power are things of PRIDE. Calling them holy or sacred will likely get you smote.
==Aelryinth
What makes a paladin turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they born with a heart full of neutrality?
10th quote of this or so...
|
What makes a paladin turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they born with a heart full of neutrality?10th quote of this or so...
I have no strong feelings one way or the other. (There, NOW I said a different quote :P)
Back on topic, I think a true neutral paladin could exist - someone completely devoted to maintaining the balance between good and evil, and lawful and chaos.
I can't tell if I'm ignorant or ambivalent, but I don't know and I don't care. There's your neutral paladin code.
|
|
Your personal viewpoint on Holiness has nothing to do with it.
...
If you remove alignment, then you can make everything holy as you like...but holy has ALWAYS referred to the good/light side of things historically, so you're just going to confuse people when you start mixing adjectives.
Google definitions:
Holy: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.
Sacred: connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Profane: relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious OR (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.
Sacrifice. From sacer, "holy." Human sacrifice. Good and light by PF standards? Holy war?
Satanism, a belief set largely defined by its rejection of another religion's teachings and thus a great target for the "profane" label, still uses the terms "holy" and "sacred" ("the Satanist holds these beings in a sacred regard") and even Christians will occasionally use the terms with reference to Satanism, as in Halloween is "Satan's Holy Day".
It's not my personal viewpoint that "holy" and "sacred" are defined outside of PF by their significance to some religion, rather than their "goodness" as judged from outside that religion.
unholy, holy, profane and sacred are descriptors of alignment-based energies.
The unholy might of Asmodeus IS holy to his worshippers...but its' still black, dark, foul power from the pits of Hell, and is profane and unholy, doing no harm to evil folks, sourced from nastiness, and particularly painful to Good fellows.
I know that's how they're used, I just don't think it adds anything to the game to alter terms generally used to indicate religious/irreligious matters to fit alignment. The [good] and [evil] descriptors work fine for representing magic powered by alignment forces (and even better, since there are descriptors for all four alignments). From a game design perspective, changing "sacred" and "profane" bonuses to "divine" bonuses doesn't remove the ability to indicate that spells are powered by the foul energies of Hell. However, it does allow the bonus type to be used for un-aligned but clearly divine spells such as Divine Favor (which currently grants a luck bonus) and prevents stacking the two bonus types, which many find un-intuitive.
Not to mention complicating the language normally meaning "pissed off a deity": if I piss on the altar of Asmodeus, have I consecrated it or desecrated it?
"The Sacred Texts of Urgathoa" don't have the same ring as "The Profane Pages of Urgathoa", after all.
I'd probably call it "The Eternal Pleasures of the Pallid Princess" (or "Eternal Pleasures" for short). More evocative.
Stacking good and evil powers is totally a thing in literature. Simon Green does it in his books all the time. One of his heroes wields a dagger blessed by a servant of God and cursed by a disciple of Satan. Cuts through just about anything.
==Aelryinth