Chewing on Champions


Advice

1 to 50 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Conversations and arguments about alignment and alignment based character classes are inevitable. There are people from all walks who like or dislike aspects on a wide range of intensities. This thread isn't here to say how things are or should be, but just a place to talk about it without derailing the excellent What Do We Know thread.

That being said, I do have some thoughts...

One thing that seems likely is that Pathfinder 2e is going to be more integrated with setting and rules than 1e was. Or at least, that is what I'm going to be assuming for this conversation.

So what do Champions want? Since they are alignment focused, but not specifically religion focused, maybe they want the material world to be more like the plane that exemplifies their alignment?

Not so much physically, mind. I doubt that even the most devout Chelaxian Diabolist wants their villa to wind up like one of the estates of Hell. I mean more in the line of philosophy and ideals.

Paladins for example, could champion virtue and defend the weak partly because that is what would make the world more like Heaven where the purpose of strength and security is to increase benevolence.

The Anti-Paladin might not like particular parts of the Abyss, but might admire a world where self-indulgence is the highest virtue and being strong enough to take what you want and crush anybody who stops you is the only thing that matters.

Diabolists, Tyrants, Hellknights and the like pursue what C.S. Lewis' Screwtape would call "the realism, dignity, and austerity of Hell" and won't tolerate the delusions, flippancies, and waste of other philosophies.

Primarily though, the thing that got me wanting to make this thread was the Neutral Champion types.

Lawful Neutral Champions take after Axis. Everything has a place and a correct way of doing things. They support civilization over savagery, knowledge over ignorance, stability over change, but aren't particularly concerned with whether these things are good or bad. Harmony above all, even above mercy or cruelty.

Chaotic Neutral Champions take after the Maelstrom and embrace both freedom and mutability. The world is a place of boundaries and limitations that must be tested and overcome, but mastery and openness to change is highly individualistic and both getting in the way of others and letting others drag you down is to be avoided. The only reason to mess with another is to break their shackles, even if they are comfortable and content in them.

But the True Neutral Champions... those are the mysterious ones to me. The ideals of the Boneyard would be what they walk along side, but "balance" is hard to work with. It can be internal for sure, but a philosophy of moderation in all things (including moderation) doesn't make for a crusading sort of outlook. Champions in general should be pretty proactive, but somebody going about the world trying to balance a metaphysical ledger is its own kind of awkward.

A True Neutral Champion might not be concerned about balance to much as conflict or dichotomies.
Dichotomies are most easily seen with Pharasma. The living and the dead should not be messing about with each other or seeking to unnaturally prolong their state, so those TNCs who are of a Pharasmin bent go after undead and immortality seekers with equal vigor.
They might also be convinced that the Great Beyond is an inherent danger to the Material Plane and try to preserve the world's neutrality in the cosmic conflicts by beating down any intrusions as if even an angelic host being around for too long is like a brushfire.

The world of Golarion is a delicate place and forces assail it from all sides. A True Neutral Champion might not care if a particular area is good or evil so much as whether it is Good or Evil. If one city is steeped in corruption and crime, but it is all mortal failings then why bother? But if another city is propped up by celestial influence or someplace has Proteans constantly stirring up the landscape or humans and fae keep wandering back and forth along the First World borders, then a TNC might become quite bothered indeed.


Also, in my head-canon Paladins and Anti-Paladins got the names in Golarion because they started the whole mess. Heaven started empowering Paladins to combat the threat of Rovagug and the Abyss, which started empowering Anti-Paladins as a cancerous reaction to being poked at.

Then Asmodeus said "enough of that or I'll start making divine champions myself" and nobody else really wanted that. But then he inspired Hellknights because those don't count as divinely powered and the Chaotic Good powers drizzled a little Chevalier action here and there because they cheat a bit as well.

Now I guess that agreement is dissolving and Champions of all stripes are learning how to do the Paladin's thing their own way. Probably Asmodeus and the CG powers alike both inspired their development, but in a backhanded, "I totally didn't do that" sort of way, assuming that of COURSE the Champions on their side are going to come out on top.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So for my part, the point of generalizing paladin into champions (of which paladins are the LG variant) is lost if we don't get a single class that covers all the bases. If we have to wait for non-LG champions to be "designed" -- and it sounds like we do -- if kinda feels like they may has well have stuck with different classes.

With that out of the way, LG, LE, CG, and CE champions make immediate sense to me; variants of N less so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

So for my part, the point of generalizing paladin into champions (of which paladins are the LG variant) is lost if we don't get a single class that covers all the bases. If we have to wait for non-LG champions to be "designed" -- and it sounds like we do -- if kinda feels like they may has well have stuck with different classes.

While I see where you are coming from, it is likely the same as having to wait for extra sorcerer bloodlines or rogue rackets. If the classes are using the same chassis and we are just waiting on flavors, then cutting a few of them makes more sense even just for space purposes.

I agree in general that the more neutral aspects that a characters alignment has, the less likely they are to have the conviction necessary to be a Champion, but it is still fun to think of what such a class might look like.

It isn't a deal breaker so long as they are envisioned in a way that could sound fun to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So in the playtest Paladins *were* religion focused (which was a change from PF1, and a thing I did not like.) Has this changed?

Like my #1 request during the playtest (that wasn't monk related) was "please allow space for atheist paladins, animist paladins, paladins who don't think much about the gods at all, polytheist paladins, pantheist paladins, questioning palains, etc."


Aren't they still religious? Now you just get to pick from among all the deities and get the toolkit.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So in the playtest Paladins *were* religion focused (which was a change from PF1, and a thing I did not like.) Has this changed?

FWIW, the Oblivion Oath Champion is very religion themed: a NG Death Warden Dwarf Redeemer of Pharasma.

(The Death Warden heritage seems like it might have an anti-undead theme.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

True neutral champions are certainly the big question mark. I kind of would rather leave them out honestly. If you want to be a champion, you have to pick a side. The only thing that could possibly be their shtick is 'balance,' and that makes me twitch like crazy. I've yet to see the concept of balance treated as a goal, not go down a really absurd path. It might be doable, but I doubt it. The other neutrals I can totally see though. Lawful Neutral being dedicated solely to the concept of law. Order must prevail. I could see the LN champion be the Hellknight, but that seems problematic in that hellknights can really be any Lawful. And it's a specific organization, so a Prestige Archetype makes a lot more sense for Hellknights, but taking a Lawful champion class as their base might be the most common. Chaotic Neutral would be harder. Maybe all about freedom, but in a different way than the Liberator. More of a freedom from the constraints of good and evil than just fighting oppression. But that might just result it it becoming the Murderhobo Champion.

I am a bit concerned about setting each alignment with one path and one outlook each. There's a lot of room inside each alignment for different approaches. Redeemer is the one that really bugs me here. It just doesn't follow from being Neutral Good at all. Sure that is one thing a champion of neutral good can be interested in, but so could lawful and chaotic good champions, so why is it locked to only NG? And a NG champion could have other focus just as easily. Probably because the main NG god is also the god of redempion, but they're not the only god for NG champions to follow. The Oblivion Oath Champion is a redeemer of Pharasma, which kind of shows the problems with making NG all about redemption. Pharasma is a perfectly valid choice for a NG champion... but has absolutely nothing to do with redemption. She just doesn't care, she just wants to make the (soul) trains run on time. A NG Pharasman Champion could be focused on putting down undead, but that's not the focus of the redeemer. Perhaps there should be more than one flavor of champion for different alignments, so instead of 9 versions, there can be any number of them.

I do think it might have been a better approach to make each flavor of champion the champion of one whole aspect of alignment, so Paladins being the Champion of Good, allowing LG, NG and CG. Anti-paladins would then be Champions of Evil allowing LE, NE and CE. Then you could have Champions of Law and Champions of Chaos. Neutrality, I'd probably just leave out because as I said above, I feel champions need to pick a side. This could go with the above idea of many types of champions. You could pick one that's Any good or one that's LG in specific or whatnot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

With true neutral being either the "Balance" or the "Indifference" theme, TN Champions will have to stand for balance to make sense.
I mean, a Champion of Indifference is basically The Dude.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My preference would be for there to be champions focused around Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. So eight versions. I don't think there needs to be a true neutral one.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

I think there is room for a TN Champion, but I would prefer if they waited for a good justification for the subclass before making one. Champions need a cause to champion so until the devs can figure our a good cause for TN that makes sense, Id prefer they didn't force the TN champion just to complete the grid.

That said, I also wouldn't mind books later in the edition cycle doubling up on alignment Champions.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

A LG Paladin can be completely neutral on both the Bacon-Vegan axis and the Pirate-Ninja axis. He doesn't lack conviction; his conviction just doesn't manifest in either of those arenas. In like fashion, a True Neutral Champion can have convictions galore; they just have nothing to do with the alignment axes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think a TN Champion of Balance works in most campaigns. It would have to be clear that the ideal of Balance is a metascale (on the level of cities or higher) one, not a micro level in the moment one. In most APs/Campaigns some great evil is threatening higher level balance and thus the TN Champ would naturally fall in line with most parties in combating that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But like what does the true neutral champion actively want to promote?

Like the LG, NG, CG champions agree on wanting more goodness, but they may disagree on how to get there. Similarly the (hypothetical) LG, LN, LE, champions want more law but are divided as to how to achieve it. Much the same are the Evil ones and the Chaotic ones.

But the true neutral champion doesn't really want to promote more of anything, they just answer excesses in any direction with an equal and opposite force. It's not exactly an inspiring thematic chassis for a class.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will gleefully refer to any protean-emulating CN champion as a 'Fauxtian' ;)

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

True Neutral Champions will be the Lawful Good Paladins of this edition: a source of endless debate for the 10% of the player base while the other 90% just rolls with it and doesn't ever encounter all the "but, if you were, in order to maintain absolute balance between good and evil, to choose between stopping a bunch of paladins from torching a goblin orphanage or preventing a flock of succubi from running a charity auction for ill kids, WHAT WILL YOU DO????" issues.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean "the rest of the party is doing too much good, so I will do an equal amount of evil to balance the scales" is a recipe for some games no one is going to enjoy much.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean "the rest of the party is doing too much good, so I will do an equal amount of evil to balance the scales" is a recipe for some games no one is going to enjoy much.

Which makes it perfect type of contrarian for sake of being contrarian character that some people will discuss to death even if they won't ever play or see one at the table.

Cref: Paladins in Skull 'n' Shackles, good characters in Hell's Vengeance, Thrune loyalists in Hell's Rebels, orcs in Giantslayer etc. etc.


I could see there not being a singuler true netrual, but several each championing a unique cause, like say personal perfection where the concerns of alignment are distractions towards the true goal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean "the rest of the party is doing too much good, so I will do an equal amount of evil to balance the scales" is a recipe for some games no one is going to enjoy much.

Which is why it should be macro level. The TN Paladin can rock around with the Good party and not have to constantly be a dick about it because usually good parties are fighting some out of order evil entity.

I can see TN Paladins doing things like Banishing Good and Evil Outsiders alike for meddling though and some might not like that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, I'm reminded of at least one kind of TN outsider: the aeons. A champion emulating them, for instance, would most of all advocate the cause of preserving the correct functioning of the universe and stop those who try to alter its laws for too long and on too big a scale. Preserving existence, more or less dispassionately, even if that might mean today evil has to win (which neutrals would normally still oppose on the mere basis that good is better than evil).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

We are the hub.

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. There are realms where each reign supreme. Good has overcome all villains and threats. Evil has conquered every nation and person. Abodes of unbroken Law or unfettered Chaos. No challenges remain to the triumphant philosophy.

Yet life always moves on from these. Making a new realm where the board is reset, the victor undecided, and the players gathered again to vie for dominance between opposing creeds.

How many wars have been won? How many paragons of each cause raised to unparalleled greatness, never thereafter to be bested? And the flow of the multiverse creates ever more worlds where the game plays out again.

To reach conclusion is to cease. We understand that. We are the hub the wheel turns around. The hub the world turns around. If balance is lost, the turning ceases. We, True Neutral Champions, make the world go round.


Roswynn wrote:

Wait, I'm reminded of at least one kind of TN outsider: the aeons. A champion emulating them, for instance, would most of all advocate the cause of preserving the correct functioning of the universe and stop those who try to alter its laws for too long and on too big a scale. Preserving existence, more or less dispassionately, even if that might mean today evil has to win (which neutrals would normally still oppose on the mere basis that good is better than evil).

Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.

I’d look at the gods. If they can build something that could follow Gozreh, Nethys, or Pharasma, then they’ve got a decent TN Champion. Dunno what that looks like, personally, but we’ll see eventually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

Wait, I'm reminded of at least one kind of TN outsider: the aeons. A champion emulating them, for instance, would most of all advocate the cause of preserving the correct functioning of the universe and stop those who try to alter its laws for too long and on too big a scale. Preserving existence, more or less dispassionately, even if that might mean today evil has to win (which neutrals would normally still oppose on the mere basis that good is better than evil).

Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.

I’d look at the gods. If they can build something that could follow Gozreh, Nethys, or Pharasma, then they’ve got a decent TN Champion. Dunno what that looks like, personally, but we’ll see eventually.

Exactly. One can have convictions even if they don't map directly onto one of the eight non-TN alignments. In P1E, the alignment domains were only four out of what? twenty? thirty? total domains. And yet, all of those others represent forces and aspects of the universe that people can only ever be "Ho hum" and "Meh" about?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

Wait, I'm reminded of at least one kind of TN outsider: the aeons. A champion emulating them, for instance, would most of all advocate the cause of preserving the correct functioning of the universe and stop those who try to alter its laws for too long and on too big a scale. Preserving existence, more or less dispassionately, even if that might mean today evil has to win (which neutrals would normally still oppose on the mere basis that good is better than evil).

Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.

I’d look at the gods. If they can build something that could follow Gozreh, Nethys, or Pharasma, then they’ve got a decent TN Champion. Dunno what that looks like, personally, but we’ll see eventually.

I could see the Pharasma champion being an undead hunter (I wanted to be a ranger with undead favored enemy, but I had better charisma than wisdom).

As for the champion of Nethys:

Aspiring champion: Oh great Nethys, I desire to be your champion.

Nethys: Do paladins...sorry I mean champions even cast spells in 2e? [sudden mood change]. Any "champion" of Mine better be a full caster or ELSE. [sudden mood change again]. A champion of Nethys? Cool, we can always use another wizard.

Aspiring champion: I am not so good at studying, but the ladies love me and I have a strong right arm.

Nethys: Bards are full casters in 2e, and you sound like you would make a good one.


I could see the TN Champion main motivation being Fairness


Lavindar wrote:
I could see the TN Champion main motivation being Fairness

I’m not sure about that. Fairness is philosophically tied to, if not just another word for, justice which is pretty law aligned. Pharasma kinda breaks the mold on that front which is why I say not sure. (Sorry I’ve spent all semester in a political ethics class. Please don’t make me go any further down that road. That class drives me nuts.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This may be really out there, but I could see a TN Champ being nature/druid-y themed. Nature has no alignment, and a protector of the wilds as a more defensive rather than a ranger's offence focus seems a natural fit (pardon the pun)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I propose the name Arbiter and the role of a peacekeeper, negotiator, and impartial judge for the TN Champion. They can be given a cultural role that is quite niche in that they can be relied on to act and asses things fairly, and as we all know; Compromise is best when both sides come to the table and leave with an unhappy resolution, be it a dispute between "the rightful law" and bandits, Clerics of opposing faiths, custody disputes, the whole lot.

ar·bi·ter
/ˈärbədər/
noun
noun: arbiter; plural noun: arbiters

a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the military acted as arbiter of conflicts between political groups"
synonyms: adjudicator, arbitrator, judge, umpire, referee, assistant referee, linesman, line judge;
mediator, conciliator, intervenor, intercessor, go-between, negotiator, peacemaker
"officials insist that they are merely arbiters between companies"
a person whose views or actions have great influence over trends in social behavior.

I think it makes perfect sense for them to be included, but MMMV.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:


I agree in general that the more neutral aspects that a characters alignment has, the less likely they are to have the conviction necessary to be a Champion, but it is still fun to think of what such a class might look like.

So, I'd actually challenge that assumption a smidge. Neutral + (other alignment) generally doesn't mean a character is splitting their attention between "being neutral" and adhering to that other alignment, it typically means that the character is wholly dedicated to the (other alignment) portion without diluting it with other concerns. You can see this in the definitions of alignments like Neutral Good in the CRB; a neutral good character pursues being good without a bias for or against order.

From that perspective, it's actually the classic paladin who is diluting her mission statement. Every time she has to choose between Law and Good there's a possibility that she fails one or the other, unless she can discern a narrow middle ground where both are totally satisfied. Compared to a NG champion who can (theoretically) pursue the cause of good wholeheartedly without needing to make accommodations for order, the NG champion is much more likely to be able to embrace the purity of their cause and truly dedicate themselves to something. They have the ability to embrace a purity of conviction that is not complicated by needing to support multiple ideals.

Or at least that's my opinion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In that context than a neutral champion would make more sense in the context of following a deity than as an independent agent.

A neutral champion of pharasma enforces the tenements of pharasma with no regard to order, chaos, good, or evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I propose the name Arbiter and the role of a peacekeeper, negotiator, and impartial judge for the TN Champion. They can be given a cultural role that is quite niche in that they can be relied on to act and asses things fairly, and as we all know; Compromise is best when both sides come to the table and leave with an unhappy resolution, be it a dispute between "the rightful law" and bandits, Clerics of opposing faiths, custody disputes, the whole lot.

ar·bi·ter
/ˈärbədər/
noun
noun: arbiter; plural noun: arbiters

a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the military acted as arbiter of conflicts between political groups"
synonyms: adjudicator, arbitrator, judge, umpire, referee, assistant referee, linesman, line judge;
mediator, conciliator, intervenor, intercessor, go-between, negotiator, peacemaker
"officials insist that they are merely arbiters between companies"
a person whose views or actions have great influence over trends in social behavior.

I think it makes perfect sense for them to be included, but MMMV.

Thats exactly how I was thinking when I said about Fairness, but you put it way better than I could


1 person marked this as a favorite.
14 sided die wrote:
This may be really out there, but I could see a TN Champ being nature/druid-y themed. Nature has no alignment, and a protector of the wilds as a more defensive rather than a ranger's offence focus seems a natural fit (pardon the pun)

I'd suggest the Rangers' focus would be more stealth and ambush - Robin Hood, Tarzan, for example - where the 'Champion of Nature' would be the person who challenges the enemies of Nature openly - a la The Green Knight.

The one that isn't interested in nature is more like a wandering sword-for-hire, less interested in the cause they're fighting for than perfecting their personal skills - stepping a little into the Monk's sandals, in some ways.


QuidEst wrote:
Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.

Sorry, what about the axiomites and the inevitables? Also, where did you learn this? It completely escaped me, and I'm trying to pay close attention to all developments (failing badly, apparently).

Aaanyways... I was exploring some possibilities.

A champion of neutrality could fight against all outsiders, insisting that mortals need to make their own choices and fight their own battles for good or ill.

They could want to follow the natural order (which is neither good nor evil, natural events lacking a morality, as arguably do animals) and try to persuade communities to live in harmony with it, protecting it, emulating it.

They could be diplomats who need to avoid picking a side to be trusted by all in finding a relatively peaceful resolution to problems.

Other than this, a champion of neutrality... is very difficult to envision. Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.
Sorry, what about the axiomites and the inevitables? Also, where did you learn this? It completely escaped me, and I'm trying to pay close attention to all developments (failing badly, apparently).

Axiomites and Inevitables still exist, they'll just be focused on less. There are often multiple types of Outsider for a particular Alignment, after all, I mean look at Demons and Qlippoth.

As for where this is mentioned...I actually don't remember where this was first noted. I do believe it's commented on in the Concordance of Rivals product thread among other places, IIRC. It's correct in any case.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Axiomites and Inevitables still exist, they'll just be focused on less. There are often multiple types of Outsider for a particular Alignment, after all, I mean look at Demons and Qlippoth.

As for where this is mentioned...I actually don't remember where this was first noted. I do believe it's commented on in the Concordance of Rivals product thread among other places, IIRC. It's correct in any case.

Mmm, maybe they want to focus on aeons because they're unique to PF. Inevitables aren't, while axiomites are but they're also tied to inevitables.

Anyways thanks for the clarification.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Aeons are getting promoted to the primary LN outsiders in PF2.
Sorry, what about the axiomites and the inevitables? Also, where did you learn this? It completely escaped me, and I'm trying to pay close attention to all developments (failing badly, apparently).

Axiomites and Inevitables still exist, they'll just be focused on less. There are often multiple types of Outsider for a particular Alignment, after all, I mean look at Demons and Qlippoth.

As for where this is mentioned...I actually don't remember where this was first noted. I do believe it's commented on in the Concordance of Rivals product thread among other places, IIRC. It's correct in any case.

Here are a few posts turned up by a search of James Jacobs's recent posts for "aeon," in chronological order:

Post #1, Post #2, Post #3, Post #4

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Mmm, maybe they want to focus on aeons because they're unique to PF. Inevitables aren't, while axiomites are but they're also tied to inevitables.

That's precisely correct, as they've said as much.

Roswynn wrote:
Anyways thanks for the clarification.

No problem. I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The problem is that "balance" is not Neutral. It's Lawful.

Look at the Neutral Gods: Literally Nature, the natural cycle of life and death, knowledge for the sake of knowledge but how you use it is up to you, Time and invention.

It's hard to have a single class that can encompass all of this. The problem is if you go for balance you are straying in to Law and if you go for entropy, or constantly switching sides, you are falling into Chaos.

In humans, Neutrality is the expression of a person being neither good nor bad, not lawful or chaotic, but just going about their business. It's awfully hard to CHAMPION "it's a living."


Joe M. wrote:

Here are a few posts turned up by a search of James Jacobs's recent posts for "aeon," in chronological order:

Post #1, Post #2, Post #3, Post #4

Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's precisely correct, as they've said as much.

No problem. I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Thank you guys, it was before I started checking the forums again - appreciate!


Okay. Before I get started I’d like to say that I’d greatly appreciate feedback from anyone at Paizo on this topic as some of this will go into reasons why I have never played a PF or even pre-5e D&D Paladin. (In 1 of the 2 games of 5e I’ve played I did try an oath of the ancients paladin and quite liked it. Maybe it was the wording, much more open ended “thou shalts” than restrictive sounding “thou shalts” plus “thou shalt nots”. Eh, maybe it’s just me.)

(Tentatively walks down that road.) I don’t think that a TN champion should be a judge/arbitrator. It isn’t neutral at all. You are deciding which party is in the right/good and which is in the wrong/evil. You can argue semantics or that they are constructs (which they are) but philosophically they are the same. Even the act of imposing justice is in its nature lawful and because you will side with who you believe is in the right (which you as the judge deem better than the other so:good) it can be strongly argued that any judge is, whether they like it or not, lawful good by the standards of the society. The game uses a pretty western standard of morality and understandably so but philosophical theory can still hold. Even if I am proven wrong on the TN champion I feel that at least this is something to think about. We could also talk about CN and CE champions should totally work towards a decline into the state of nature and how CG champions really shouldn’t (Locke said that the SoN is better than some governments, but not that it was good.) But then again, let’s not.

EDIT: Sorry I went off track there but in short. Given the enforced moral standards set by Paizo and the above, judges should only be of lawful alignments.


I don't think it would be too hard to mechanically and fluffwise apply "you are trying to become like a type of outsider" to champions. That solves the TN problem, since you are trying to be like a psychocomp. Want to be LG, be like an archon (unless they are going to be downgraded like Inevitables--it would be kind of funny if angels end up being the big LG types in PF2 like in 5e*). Of course, the LN champion might be pretty weird trying to be like an aeon.....

* It seems like a lot of the issues with Inevitables are also issues with Archons: no real world mythology like angels/devils/demons and they are WotC OGL (limiting use in novels and other media).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

True Neutral divine champion ? Common sense

Beware of the extremes, as they blind you to reality

See the worth in every position but do not let it steer you away from your own path

When others act against you, seize their unbalance and use it against them. They are blinded where you are not


4 people marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
Look at the Neutral Gods: Literally Nature, the natural cycle of life and death, knowledge for the sake of knowledge but how you use it is up to you, Time and invention.

It does definitely seem like the Pathfinder definition of "true neutral" at least insofar as the deities which represent it is "a specific thing or activity, without really worrying about the morality of it."

Like Nethys, 3 of the Eldest, Brigh, and Nivvi Rhombodazzle are true neutral. None of those entities are interested in balance even a little bit (I mean, nobody knows what Ng wants, but if it was anything simple or easy to pin down someone would have figured it out.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
EDIT: Sorry I went off track there but in short. Given the enforced moral standards set by Paizo and the above, judges should only be of lawful alignments.

I must disagree with this. Judgment in a formal context is certainly usually Lawful, but arbitrating a dispute in a less formal manner doesn't seem particularly Lawful to me, and making judgments in the colloquial sense certainly isn't.

Chaotic people have some things they think are right and wrong just the same as Lawful people do, they just prioritize differently (prioritizing freedom over security or the individual over the group, for example). I can easily imagine a CG priest asked to arbitrate a dispute making very specific judgments and being quite vehement about them.

Now, I don't tend to think judgment is very True Neutral either, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as inherently Lawful.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mechagamera wrote:
I don't think it would be too hard to mechanically and fluffwise apply "you are trying to become like a type of outsider" to champions. That solves the TN problem, since you are trying to be like a psychocomp. Want to be LG, be like an archon (unless they are going to be downgraded like Inevitables--it would be kind of funny if angels end up being the big LG types in PF2 like in 5e). Of course, the LN champion might be pretty weird trying to be like an aeon.....

I really wished for something like this when we were in playtest space. I called them Knights : Archon Knights, Devil Knights, Demon Knights ...

Emulating the abilities of a specific kind of outsiders and their alignment and ethos.

I will see how I can build such a character or class in PF2


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, I don't tend to think judgment is very True Neutral either, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as inherently Lawful.

Like Pharasma's whole deal is "sort souls so that they are headed to those planes with which their energy is most compatible", so that the engine which is creation keeps on running. It's less "reward/punishment" and more "sorting eggs by size."


Sorry. Yes I went into political theory mode too hard there.

Yes, everyone makes judgements but I still feel that having judgement in itself as an ideal strong enough to be part of the core of a champion code would only be appropriate for the lawful alignments.

Liberty's Edge

Raylyeh wrote:

Sorry. Yes I went into political theory mode too hard there.

Yes, everyone makes judgements but I still feel that having judgement in itself as an ideal strong enough to be part of the core of a champion code would only be appropriate for the lawful alignments.

Depends on how we define 'judgment', I suppose. I mean, all Good Alignments have to fight Evil and defend the innocent. That's inherently judgmental in a sense, since you have to decide who's Evil and who's innocent.

But that's only by one definition.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole conversation has helped solidify my view that I think the entire approach to Champions is completely backward. The assumption has been to start with an alignment and than assign a role. That's inevitably going to be arbitrary and limiting, and cause all sorts of passionate disagreements that are completely unnecessary. What makes much more sense is to start with the role and than figure out which alignments fit it. So instead of "The Redeemer is the NG Champion", you'd have "The Redeemer is a Champion who can be NG." If I end up playing PF2, I'll probably suggest a house-rule to try to do that. Redeemers would be Any Good, Paladins would probably be LG or NG (maybe Any Good, I'd have to see the final version and confer with the rest of the group. Maybe even LN, but I'm thinking probably not), Liberators would probably stay CG, but I could potentially see including NG and maybe even CN with a slightly different focus. There would probably be a Lawgiver or whatever that covers any Lawful, some kind of chatotic thing, a Tyrant for LE and possibly NE, Antipaladin for CE and possible NE, maybe a Corrupter or something for any evil, ETC. There's a lot of room for multiple types to overlap on alignment. And this way, there might actually be a way for a TN champion not to be absurd, a role based approach can have roles that don't care about any particular form of morality and instead are focused on a task.

1 to 50 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Chewing on Champions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.