There! Forked, just like I said I would! Let's see if anybody has anything to talk about here now that the outrageous word has been replaced with something more palatable!
Can such a thing exist ?
A class all about maintaining the balence between good and evil law and chaos ? could such a class even function or would the paradoxcial descision required drive most True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s Insane ?
with "Smite Other" ;) anything outside of a true neutral is fair game for balencing hehehe.
Or is a True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] just another name for an existing class ? if so which class would you conisder to be a True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] if such a thing can even exist.
The warrior for balance has always been classically the stomping grounds of druids and the like. I think a character of any class in The Green Faith for Golarion would be a good example as well.
Ages ago in Dragon magazine there was an article that detailed a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of each alignment. There were two for true neutral that I think they were called Paramander and Paramandyr. One strove to maintain the balance of good v. evil while the other, in a more zealous role, attempted to enforce the balance by slaying those of extreme alignments.
I thought these were very cool and most, if not all - depending on the campaign, could be very workable. However, I have no recollection of their powers.
I think this link may be the article in question, but since it was so long ago that I read it I don't really recall.
http://members.tripod.com/Lord_Eadric/[Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s/[Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s.html
Check it out for yourself - I hope you find it helpful.
Back in the day for a home game I created a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of neutrality. It was a tad extra work for the GM but it worked well. Most encounters are of like aligned creatures. If encounters are mixed, the GM calculated the average alignment of the encounter, weighing higher CR creatures more. The [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] would become opposed to the alignment of the encounter. If the encounter is neutral, the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] losses all [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] abilities except for armor and weapon proficiencies. When attacking neutral creatures it is up to the GM to determine weather atonement is necessary.
As someone who likes [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s of different alignments, I still find the idea of a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of balance to be philosophically and mechanically inelegant.
I have written a true neutrality-friendly [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] variant that gets to choose a smite target from the ranger's favoured enemy list, or can select the ability to smite followers of an opposed deity or organization at GM discretion. It also swaps DR 5/ and 10/evil for DR 2/- and 4/- and when smiting can stun a foe on a crit, instead of banishing outsiders. It otherwise plays as either a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] or anti[Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], without the aura of good/evil, detect evil/good, or alignment-based spells.
Another mechanical option would be to replace Smite with the cavalier's challenge, but I think that makes the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] a little too generic. Even if we remove alignment I think the class needs a focus on a particular divine mandate, and that means smiting something specific as opposed to just challenging whatever happens to be in front of them at the moment.
I will refrain from going too deeply into TN balance=masochism.
Being able to smite anything that isn't N is too powerful compared to other [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s. In fact, you could call it unbalanced (does the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of balance automatically fall because of unbalanced class design?--Just kidding).
What you could do is that each day or maybe before each combat, the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]'s player rolls a d20. 1-5 all the alignment-related powers/spells only affect evil, 6-10 it only affects chaos, 11-15 it only affects law, and 16-20 it only affects good. Over time, assuming you aren't using loaded dice, you should be balanced. Of course, life will be hard, but 1) TN balance=masochism, and 2) you are playing a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], so hard is good.
A guy I used to play with back in the day (15yrs ago) was playing a AD&D druid (even farther back, the 80s). Then druids had to be NN and all about maintaining balance. His character took that to mean the party had to be of diverse alignments. He would kill PCs to make sure there were a balance of alignments in the group.
If by [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] you mean a holy warrior dedicated to the idea of maintain cosmic balance then yes you can have a true neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], just not the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] class. I have to agree with many of the other posters that think that should not be a called a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]. I think the reason that most people think of any holy warrior being a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s is because in 1st edition the only holy warrior was the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]. This has led to the idea that all holy warriors are [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s.
There are several classes that could make a decent champion of balance. A warpreist with the champion of the faith archetype would be perfect except that you have to choose from law, chaos, good or evil for your alignment focus. If you could convince your GM to allow you to choose neutral and only affect creatures with no neutral component to the alignment that would be perfect.
The best legal choice would probably be an inquisitor. They have the ability to detect any alignment at will. Bane can work as a good stand in for smite evil. You won’t have the sheer combat ability of a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] but you will have better utility. Considering that you are supposed to be eliminating anything that gets too powerful that is probably not a bad thing. [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s only have to worry about evil outsiders; you will have to deal with all 8 of the other alignments.
Inquisitor is the best fit for a Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)].
Judgement being a more reliable, more versatile Smite Evil, Bane being a quicker, more splashable Sword Bond, better Spells and Spell list, and a Domain/Inquisition to tie things together and define builds.
The Inquisitor looses out on the awesome self healing and condition immunity of a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], but at later levels they can cast "Heal" so it's not entirely a wash. The loss of [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] saves can be huge depending on Point Buy, but Judgement of Purity combined with the coveted Stalwart ability (which, unlike Evasion, is not easily obtained as a Ring) can greatly help stymie the gap.
On the other hand, Inquisitors get tons of skills and out of combat ability, as well as a ton of feats, all of which [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s are in deficit of. With Solo Tactics, teamwork feats can provide a very large gain.
So, [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s are one of the best designed martial classes around. But Inquisitors are arguably one of the best designed classes period. Spellcasting, damage, buffing, skills, and out of combat use, Inquisitors have it all.
Can such a thing exist ?
A class all about maintaining the balance between good and evil law and chaos ? could such a class even function or would the paradoxical decision required drive most True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s Insane ?
with "Smite Other" ;) anything outside of a true neutral is fair game for balancing hehehe.
Or is a True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] just another name for an existing class ? if so which class would you consider to be a True Neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] if such a thing can even exist.
From 3.5 Dragon magazine #110 there is an article "Champions of the Divine [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s of other alignments" by none other than James Jacobs which has a true neutral pally known as the Incarnate.
Instead of detect magic they can detect creatures with an alignment subtype.
they get some basic elemental attack abilities rather than healing
they get to smite any extreme alignment
they can rebuke outsiders
they get an elemental companion rather than a mount
they get commune with nature as a spell like ability
& they get a more Druid like spell list
Does the game really need another class for people who just want to hit monsters and not think to hard about right or wrong? Not really. Morals can mean a lot of things, but without needing to adhere to a code of morals, what is the point of a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]? Any worthwhile [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] code can be conceptualized as LG.
The worst thing that might happen is that players are going to make apathetic [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s, who just go around being shameless opportunists, doing jobs for tyrants and then saving orphanages all the while getting paid and paying lip service to "Balance", and of course they are contributing to 'balance' by not fighting consistently for one side. Or even worse saying "I'm TN, I just don't care. Oh look, monsters! I smite them!" This takes out the entire fun and point of the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] class, which is to be zealous and moralistic, and the challenge of playing a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] is to have a harder road to walk, and have deep convictions that aren't easy to live up to. Example, you are obliged to accept a surrender, even though killing will benefit you more. You are obliged to not steal, even though it would be so easy and profitable. That is what makes the class engaging to play. The [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] should not gain extra smiting powers and saves because they took the easy option of accepting payment for mercenary work and running away when it got too hard.
If a player came to my game asking to make a TN [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], I would assume they want to be able to smite good and law and chaos as well, and have no actual moral restrictions or imperatives, which is a recipe for a s*+~ character, both for storytelling purposes and for mechanical balance. They could have just as easily made a cavalier or a fighter, or a warpriest, but then chosen [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] because it seems more powerful.
My stipulation for making such a TN [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)], which I would do very hesitantly, is that they need to pick a deity or ideology with a very strong, demanding and specific ideology, and that ideology must be relevant to the campaign at hand. Then the smiting only be opposed to that deity's specific portfolio. For example, a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of Pharasma would get smite undead / Smite fateless. If we aren't playing a campaign about undead and or people who time travel to alter history and the future, where people create undead a lot and it is accepted and useful, then clearly your character isn't going to be relevant to the story. A [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] of the Green Faith should have "Smite Civilized", and being in town should be disgusting.
In these campaigns, we might as well have rearranged our morality so that being a good person meant acting in accordance with your fate, or tearing down civilization, no matter how enticing it might be go renegade. We can do this with many ideologies. Does a [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] need to be chaste? In some settings chastity is virtuous. You might conceptualize chastity as being denying of humanity and evil. It doesn't matter, but the campaign should have an idea of something to call "good", that should be difficult to live up to completely, and can be made up of enforceable edicts and ethics that can be turned into a code.
If [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] players aren't required to live up to a code, one which doesn't benefit them (and therefore can't really be called 'good' at a stretch), then you haven't added anything to the game, you've only taken away the thing that makes the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] it's own thing. What good is that?
nemophles: Smite is easily done as those that have no neutral alignment component. That means LG, LE, CE, CG. Only 1 more than smite good.
As to the rest, a code of conduct is a code of conduct no matter the alignment. I fail to see why LG would be the only valid one.
What kind of acts would make this Scion of Neutrality [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] fall? Doing the same thing too many times on a row? Or doing anything ever with any effect? I wouldn't use these dual extremity smites because it doesn't actually lend the class or the player a position other than apathy or opportunism. The players have to come up with an actual ideal, and "I just love neutrality" does not make for a good [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] code; It doesn't actually lend itself to any position on any moral dilemmas, and leaves the players the freedom to just do whatever. Smiting specific opposing ideologies is an effort to maintain actual flavour for a potentially deflavoured class.
Of course there are codes of conduct that aren't LG. I provided instances of codes that aren't LG in my post. It is a challenge to come up with a neutral [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] code that is worth having in your game. Go on, come up with some, like I did, and contribute the thread.
I reckon the value of the class, and the [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s code, is that it should be difficult and require sacrifice and vigilance and trials. My entire post was saying that you could come up with some, but most of the worthwhile TN codes you come up with are codes that could be called LG or CE if you adjust the setting slightly.
...
Ok, I just decided what makes them fall. It's if the TN [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] ever does anything nice to anyone while some authority figure tells them to, because that's lawful good. But also if the do anything nice to someone while someone tells them not to, because that's chaotic good. If they do something nice, they need to do it specifically while nobody has any opinion on whether they should or not.
Or, they are doing something from an internal emotional state, which is chaotic. But if it helps anyone, then that's CG, so they fall. And if it hurts anyone, that's CE, so they fall. They need to only follow emotions that have no effect on anyone, or specifically hurts someone while helping someone. And of course, they need to include their own welfare in the equation, or else they could be acting self-interestedly, which is evil.
So, maybe they act emotionally, killing one person and saving another!
Oh, but you see, That is what adventurers do all the time anyways. Slay a dragon, get it's gold. Dragon loses, adventurers win. Rob a bank, get gold. Bank loses, PCs gain gold. Catch a bank robber. Robber loses, bank wins. Get into a bar fight. Win or lose, someone wins and someone loses.Some things are not zero sum games. Trading for example. Everyone wins. That's good. But he can't smuggle, because that'd be chaotic. And if he doesn't smuggle, that'd be lawful. SO he has to smuggle sometimes. Just like every other opportunistic adventurer that ever existed in this game. Oh, what a strict and powerful code they must follow.
In all honesty, a "good and evil are both valid points of view; the truth lies somewhere in the middle!" [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] would be a solid Lawful Evil. Trying to keep the balance between Good and Evil is terrible, morally-speaking, because...well, it's Evil. This is why aeons are so poorly thought-out. They are the actual extraplanar embodiment of the "save an orphanage, burn one down, TN" philosophy. I only give them a pass because monsters (especially godly or planar ones) tend to break the rules more.
But a human? Nah, that's evil.
That said, I could see a TN [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] (and I'm using "[Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]" as a generic term for "divinely-powered warrior with a strict code") who's dedicated to inaction. Sure, Evil sucks, but conflict between Good and Evil just leads to more suffering. Better to just let the "devil you know" be than try to exterminate or fight them and cause more trouble doing so.
A TN [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)] like this wouldn't exactly be dedicated to balance, but they would be dedicated to maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is balance. They would advocate leaving a dictator in power, or allowing orcs to continue raiding small villages...just as long as nothing escalates in one direction or another. It's a highly questionable outlook on life, but it is a consistent philosophy, and it's basically the opinion of Neutral: Do no awful harm, but don't do a ton of good, either.
A "Paragon" class could be nice, with different names, codes, and abilities for different alignments. LG could be the most restrictive, and they're [Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)]s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Lawful Evil "balancekeeper" would be a kind of fun character, actually. They could wear a trilby and lecture other party members to be more moderate in their views. "Excuse me, JUST PLAYIN' DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE, let's not kill that devil over there."
Neutral isn't an "OP" alignment. It's slightly better, but not much (the benefits are pretty situational). In fact, evil is probably still better off in actual gameplay, since when you put aside the "theorycraft", having the option of committing evil acts gives your PCs a lot of flexibility when devising tactics.
Also, bear in mind I'm just porting this over from a derailed thread. I think the idea of a "balancekeeper" or "status quo warrior" class is interesting, but I'm not exactly looking for anything in particular personally.
EDIT: I also question the idea many have put forth that the only value paladins have is as a "marketing gimmick" to boost Lawful Good's popularity. I question it so hard.
Only certain divine casters like clerics. Arcane casters are not limited by alignment descriptors on spells. And clerics' specialty is definitely not summoning.
Why the emphasis on balance? I mean, sure, TN is the middle alignment, but I don't see why a TN exemplar would have any real desire to hold a balance between the alignments.
Why not just a knight who strives to walk the middle road herself and has a code that follows? Be kind to one's neighbor, but do not sacrifice yourself for the sake of strangers. Be true to oneself, but not at the expense of others. Respect the tenants of society and tradition without being bound to them and enjoy freedom without succumbing to the temptation of anarchy.
A grand mandate to hunt down those with non-neutral alignments or act as a arbiter for good and evil seems a little too grandiose (and like it would very easily lead to another alignment anyways).
Why the emphasis on balance? I mean, sure, TN is the middle alignment, but I don't see why a TN exemplar would have any real desire to hold a balance between the alignments.
Why not just a knight who strives to walk the middle road herself and has a code that follows? Be kind to one's neighbor, but do not sacrifice yourself for the sake of strangers. Be true to oneself, but not at the expense of others. Respect the tenants of society and tradition without being bound to them and enjoy freedom without succumbing to the temptation of anarchy.
A grand mandate to hunt down those with non-neutral alignments or act as a arbiter for good and evil seems a little too grandiose (and like it would very easily lead to another alignment anyways).
It does seem like it requires an exceedingly specific type of madman to personally seek out TN.
With good, people can be good because it is the 'right thing'. With lawful, you can say that anarchy is a plague that causes the land to be vulnerable to bandits, monsters, and foreign powers. With chaotic, you can say people want freedom from oppression. With evil, you can attain your goals at any cost.
So it is easy to make compelling alignments with the extremes: LG- cares for the people and as such tries to maintain order in the land; LE- believes that peace must be maintained with any means necessary; CG- Cares for the people, so he protects them from oppressive regimes; CE- Doesn't like to be told what to do, so fights against THE MAN.
What is necessarily compelling about TN? What do you strive for? And why does it need TN, instead of say...LN (which is a nice basic alignment for large, long lasting organizations)?
Typically, I would need some higher goal to justify TN and require it. Pharasma is the perfect example- she and her psychopomps are TN, because siding with any faction would mean that the others would make moves to prevent her from favoring that side when it comes to assigning souls. If she takes sides, she ends up seeing the complete disruption of the flow of souls, which leaves them all vulnerable to demons, devils, and daemons (and who knows what else?).
So if you want a "True Neutral warrior of blahblahblah", then you need a setting where he must maintain that neutral position at the threat of all out destruction. You would need a setting with a noman's land in between the territories of major aligned powers. Each side tries to enter the no man's land to find a position that would let them strike at 'the enemy', and your job would be to beat them back to where they came from.
The general point here is that TN is not somehting you personally desire to seek out, since it seems wish-washy. It is the default alignment of most humans and animals- the alignment of 'why get worked up over it?'. When you seek out TN (which implies far more agency and dedication that is usual for TN), that is because it was thrust upon you. Others created a situation where your only option was to remain TN.
Yeah, I agree that "balance" is an iffy motivator for TN. It would work quite well for a Lawful Evil character, though. A strict mathematical code of "balance" driving a mix of good and evil actions is very Lawful and very Evil.
This is why I favor my interpretation: A warrior who opposes extreme positions themselves on principal, and fights only to preserve the status quo. You could certainly still argue that that's Lawful Neutral, of course. I think it depends on how it's played.
What is necessarily compelling about TN? What do you strive for? And why does it need TN, instead of say...LN (which is a nice basic alignment for large, long lasting organizations)?
I feel like TN can stand on its own just fine. The problem I tend to see is people treat TN as a lot more high minded than it needs to be. My thoughts are this:
Neutral on the good-evil axis is appealing because it promotes enlightened self interest. You're going to look out for your friends and those close to you before others, but you're not going to sabotage someone else for those goals. You might give to charity every now and then when you have spare cash, or help someone in trouble if it's not a huge burden, but you're not going to go out of your way to serve the needs of people you barely or don't know. That seems like a pretty reasonable alignment choice to me.
Think of your average neutral person less as straddling the grey area between light and dark and more just a person who's decent enough but isn't going to go more than a little out of their way for the benefit of others.
Neutrality on the law-chaos axis has appeal for similar reasons. You generally keep your word and generally respect authority but you'll fudge small things from time to time or cut corners and excessive influence from the local government chafes you.
Seems more like just a pretty decent person and I can totally see some order preaching a "middle path" between self service and self sacrifice and between tradition and freedom.
Yeah, I agree that "balance" is an iffy motivator for TN. It would work quite well for a Lawful Evil character, though. A strict mathematical code of "balance" driving a mix of good and evil actions is very Lawful and very Evil.
This is why I favor my interpretation: A warrior who opposes extreme positions themselves on principal, and fights only to preserve the status quo. You could certainly still argue that that's Lawful Neutral, of course. I think it depends on how it's played.
That's basically my issue. Preserving the status quo and balance feels more lawful than neutral on that scale. Hunting down the four corners feels evil and so on.
It's less "hunting down" and more "mistrusting/exploiting the weaknesses of". Paladins aren't "hunting down" evil people—after all, an individual being evil is not an excuse to kill them outright.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still- it will generally be a tough sell to have someone that targets the extremes of alignment while being neutral. Mostly because of LG. The ideal Mr. Good-two-shoes: The Paladin. How can you justify attacking paladins without looking- AND FEELING- like the bad guy?
Because LG is meant to be the great binding force that helps people. You need compelling reasons to exclude them- even the land of Cheliax often has a place for them, with them with the Order of the Godclaw.
But ok- I'll give you a setting/thing with tangible philosophies rather than the vague ideals that just come out to "Well ain't TN just swell" (cause again- hard sell, since people tend to attach to specific goals more than platitudes):
Atheism. Yes, this setting has atheism, but it obviously isn't about not believing that gods exist. It is about questioning whether the gods are beings really worth worshipping, or whether they are just an unimaginably power class of outsider.
Thus, you can come to a platform- The end of outsider involvement. No more conniving devils trying to sell you monkeys paws, no demons burning villages, no angels demanding that you build up armies to throw away to defeat some distant horror. No more of any of it. Let the peoples of this world rule themselves without OUTSIDER interference.
Lets be honest- a HUGE ton of quests are about some outsider (demons or devils, usually) deciding to invade, or they decide to put the evil macguffin of doom in the woods to the south 'so it isn't misused' (and then some people seeking to misuse it burn a swath through your villages). The main reason you need angels is because demons show up- if the great evils were gone, would you need some long dead jerks telling you what to do?
Thus, you have a platform- why are you attacking the LG organization? They are summoning angels, and drawing demon worshippers (who hate them and wish to seek revenge for distant conflicts) to the land.
You see- you need a platform. Instead of just saying "those LG paladins are just no good", you need to have the circumstances set by others force your hand. Now, those "LG paladins" are "religious zealots that are drawing a conflict into our country". You are not directly fighting alignment- it is just that aligned outsiders are some of the most persistent and zealous types that try to push their agendas in your backyard.
|
I don't find a "balancekeeper" a particularly sensible concept, for reasons mentioned by other posters.
I'm also not on board with TN as anti-"extreme alignments" because I don't see LG, LE, CG, CE as any more extreme than LN, NG, NE, CN. Being Lawful or Chaotic doesn't affect how Good or Evil you are. In fact, they can moderate it in situations where the two parts of your alignment conflict - such as if a LG character is told by an authority figure to commit an evil act, or a CE character needing to organize to achieve their goals.
I do think you could make a reasonable argument for a character being opposed to aligned outsiders (including deities) on the grounds that their cosmic conflicts are overall damaging to the Material and that mortals need to be able to make their own moral decisions. Mechanically its abilities would target just outsiders or maybe characters with alignment auras (as servants of these forces) rather than simply any creature taking a moral stand. I don't think there's a good class for this.
I'm also in favour of a TN Stabby Divine Magiknights who espouse other philosophies independent of alignment, like knowledge above all or destruction of undead. (If you don't have a strong philosophy you should be an arcane Magiknight rather than a divine one.) The inquisitor and warpriest do pretty well with those, though I think it's a real shame that there's not a more general charisma-based Stabby Divine Magiknight, which is a distinct mechanical niche currently being monopolized by a very specific flavour niche.
I think the druid originally was cast in the role of "balancekeeper" because of the idea that nature is in balance but nature isn't nearly as balanced as most people think. Even if nature were in many ways balanced, balance of natural forces like predator & prey or summer & winter isn't really the same thing as balance between alignments. And because "nature" is a separate value from "alignment balance" we shouldn't use the class dedicated to the former to deal with the latter. It makes a pretty good TN Stabby Divine Magiknight who happens to be devoted to nature, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd spring for it. It's a fighting man with actual reserves. he's not healing himself with "lay on hands" his body is healing itself through Sheer will. he's not smiting something, he's swinging his weapon with extra purpose. he isn't using "detect alignment", he's sizing the boy up. Also don't laugh around his mule, or the mule might think your laughing at it.
The whole idea that chassis must always be a LG P-Word is, was, and always will be b&$%*%@s.
Making a True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)...
Okay, to start, what would such a character need to be devoted to? Based on the Ranger, Hunter, Oracle, and Shaman, nothing whatsoever. They can be, but it's independent of their class (which is as it should be). According to the Druid, nature (which, for the purposes of this, could easily fall under an ideal). According to the Cleric, Inquisitor, and Warpriest, it's either a deity (or other upper-tier Outsider entity, such as a Demon Lord or an Empyreal Lord) or an ideal.
So if a True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) needs to be devoted to anything (not that I'm convinced of that), then just have it be the same as what any other TN Divine caster that has to be devoted to something is devoted to.
Next, fall conditions. Again, Rangers, Hunters, Oracles, and Shamans have no fall conditions to speak of. Deity-Clerics and Deity-Warpriests only fall if they violate their deity's code of conduct. Ideal-Clerics and Ideal-Warpriests don't fall at all. Deity-Inquisitors and Ideal-Inquisitors both fall if they change to a prohibited alignment or slip into corruption (whatever the hell that means). Druids fall if they disrespect their ideal (nature) or move to a prohibited alignment.
So what should a True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) fall from? Probably moving to a prohibited alignment, violating the code of conduct of their deity (if they have one), or disrespecting their ideal. And again, that's if True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)s need a fall condition in the first place (BIG honking IF).
So what do their class abilities key off of? The misbegotten class (only so named because divorcing it from its concept is not a option for the purposes of this thread) deals with alignment, but should the True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!)?
Sure, why not? There are certainly cases where it would really be a stretch for a True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) of a deity or an ideal to inexplicably have abilities that help him to detect or attack entities with a certain alignment. But we already have that, anyway. Nethys cares about the advancement and preservation of magic, not helping or hindering living or undead creatures. And yet, Clerics of Nethys can channel either Positive or Negative Energy, solely because it's an artifact of the class system.
So which alignments? Why not all of them? "Eight out of nine? Overpowered!" No, no. The True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) class AS A WHOLE can detect/smite/etc. eight out of nine alignments, but any particular individual True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) is only geared for three.
True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) #1 can detect and smite good, but he's useless against chaos (you know, besides CG). True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) #2 can do all that to chaos but not anything else. And so on. Just like how neutral Clerics as a whole can channel both Positive and Negative Energy, but each individual Cleric can only do one or the other.
Same thing with the other class features like Mercies and spell lists. The class as a whole gets them all, but any individual True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!) only gets a comparable selection to what the misbegotten class gets.
It just seems like this should be relatively straight-forward. And not just for a True Neutral Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!), but any kind of Stabby Warrior Magiknight (NOT paladin!), up to and including LG.
As a concept, I think it makes plenty of sense. Let's take lemeres's idea of being opposed to aligned outsiders a step further.
Suppose one kingdom is Good and the other is Evil. Even without outsider involvement, these kingdoms naturally fall into conflict with each other. Each believes their philosophy is better and should be spread to the world at large.
How do we avoid that conflict and possible war? By ensuring that neither side feels they have the upper hand. If both kingdoms feel they are evenly matched (or better, that they are outmatched), they're more likely to keep to themselves -- the cost is too high to fight, as it is more likely to lead to mutual annihilation.
Our means to achieve that can be varied. Perhaps we simply act as informants, keeping each side aware of the other's strength -- sometimes truthfully, sometimes with lies. Maybe we work to build up the weaker side or try to tear down the stronger side. Regardless of our means, we work to make all parties feel as if conflict would bring about mutually assured destruction, so neither feels compelled to act.
Could make them devotees of aeons.
|
|
As a concept, I think it makes plenty of sense. Let's take lemeres's idea of being opposed to aligned outsiders a step further.
Suppose one kingdom is Good and the other is Evil. Even without outsider involvement, these kingdoms naturally fall into conflict with each other. Each believes their philosophy is better and should be spread to the world at large.
How do we avoid that conflict and possible war? By ensuring that neither side feels they have the upper hand. If both kingdoms feel they are evenly matched (or better, that they are outmatched), they're more likely to keep to themselves -- the cost is too high to fight, as it is more likely to lead to mutual annihilation.
This isn't really about ensuring balance between alignments, though. Such a character would be just as motivated to keep any two powerful and antagonistic nations in balance, even two TN nations.
I could see an order welcoming to anyone who is of the opinion that people should be able to have differing opinions without trying to kill each other. An adamant opponent to any fanatic whatever the stripes
...
With Smite any alignment as long as the corresponding aura is strong enough
Again, not really about alignment. People aren't always violently antagonistic towards others of opposing alignments, and some may not even want others to share their alignment - CN I think would be particularly likely not to care about others' alignments as long as they don't try to harm or control the CN person. And conversely, a TN person who hates undead may get into violent conflict with a TN or NE person who creates undead.
There are lots of ideals besides alignment that can cause destructive conflict.
|
Thinking Philosophically, I imagine the "Gray Jedi" idea being like a true-neutral knight: the idea of finding internal balance between passion and serenity. The true neutral knight would likely have a lot in common with Irori, and would likely identify with Nethys as well, as Nethys represents the duality that drives the cosmos, and Irori represents the desire for self-perfection. Irori, however, is too focused on codes, creeds, and laws, and is too limiting regarding personal allowances, and Nethys more represents a firm split between the ideas of this "Gray Knight" rather than a harmonious fusion of the two.
A gray knight would likely have his own personal motivations that likely aren't concerned with good, chaos, law, or evil, but rather with balancing himself. He allows himself to act passionately, but must also learn to temper passion with patience. He has friends and allies, but the greater concerns of the world aren't of concern to him: like the Aeons, he watches and observes, guiding fate with his own hand when the cosmos demands it (similarly to the way a Pharasman Inquisitor might deal death as fate decrees).
This order of true neutral knights could have a very secretive quality to them, and they would likely stockpile knowledge gleaned from the observant nature of their order. A knight of this devotion may even be split between arcane and divine spellcasting, with perhaps a caveat that he cannot cast aligned spells (as they push him away from self-discipline). Perhaps one thing that could make them a unique force in the world would be the ability to "drain" alignment somehow? Think Anti-Magic field, but only in regards to alignment-based effects, and the special abilities of alignment-based classes (so good/evil aligned spells, and the abilities of Paladins/Anti-Paladins simply don't work) as his version of "smiting". Perhaps this state also grants him benefits as well (what if he gained benefits based on alignments negated? A lot of paperwork, but a cool idea).
The class shouldn't have a creed or oath required, though. It would be too lawful. Instead, there are tenets by which the knights strive to live, and the only grounds for "falling" is changing alignment from true neutral. When these knights go questing, it is to test themselves, and see if they can truly maintain balance when faced with the trials of the world.
|
I could see an order welcoming to anyone who is of the opinion that people should be able to have differing opinions without trying to kill each other. An adamant opponent to any fanatic whatever the stripes
...
With Smite any alignment as long as the corresponding aura is strong enoughAgain, not really about alignment. People aren't always violently antagonistic towards others of opposing alignments, and some may not even want others to share their alignment - CN I think would be particularly likely not to care about others' alignments as long as they don't try to harm or control the CN person. And conversely, a TN person who hates undead may get into violent conflict with a TN or NE person who creates undead.
There are lots of ideals besides alignment that can cause destructive conflict.
I agree completely. I see the Smite alignment as a useful tool for such a character, not as his be all and end all. And from a design standpoint it is far simpler to use existing mechanics that have withstood both time and nerdrage ;-)
Okay, weird talk here: Maybe the Neutral "paladin"'s smitey power shouldn't even be directly damage-dealing? Maybe it should be defensive, or some sort of inconvenient debuff. After all, we're not talking about another crusader. Their goal doesn't have to be "kill the enemy". Perhaps it should just be "survive", or "get this person out of the way".
|
|
Okay, weird talk here: Maybe the Neutral "paladin"'s smitey power shouldn't even be directly damage-dealing? Maybe it should be defensive, or some sort of inconvenient debuff. After all, we're not talking about another crusader. Their goal doesn't have to be "kill the enemy". Perhaps it should just be "survive", or "get this person out of the way".
/points at my previous post