The type of judgement I was referring to is judicial judgement which is the kind that started us down this road.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just one minor example of why, despite alignments being useful for some broad purposes, I don’t like alignments being integral to classes and I am glad that, other than the champion and clerics, they have been removed from classes. Nothing, including outsiders, purely follow an alignment on a philosophical level and since alignments are a philosophical construct in the 1st place I feel I can say that. If you think about it making a judgement is lawful. It’s as close to a fact as you can get in philosophy. On the micro level you are imposing your actions, your thoughts, your order, your law on something/one and the larger the scale, societal or in the case of this game planar, the more obvious and relevant it is.
So I feel that it either should belong to a lawful alignment or marginalized to the point where no champion type has sole jurisdiction over it. Honestly I’m fine with the latter. Okay my head hurts can we leave this alone please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still advocate ditching alignment entirely for champions. The Anathema is a lot more interesting to me and seems less prone to table variance (though of course not immune, as we saw with paladins).
In my ideal set up, we wouldn’t have “Paladin Champions must be LG.” Instead, we’d go straight to “Paladin champions must abide by this anathema.” If a LE devote of Thrune wants to try and live up to the ideals of a Paladin, let them. Let them grumble about the inconvenience of an enforced morality when all they want is to kill demons. Heck, let them stack the causes they champion: if a champion takes on the cause of a redeemer and a liberator, they should get the benefits of those convictions but also be restricted by both sets of limitations. Also, Paladin hellknights.
I would accept as a compromise a version of champion causes where the champion could be of multiple alignments, like clerics, but really I do feel alignment siloing is leaving potential stories untold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.
Nethys might require one of his Champions to multi-class as a wizard or arcane sorcerer rather than restrict multi-classing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.Nethys might require one of his Champions to multi-class as a wizard or arcane sorcerer rather than restrict multi-classing.
Yeah, but even then, it feels like he'd rather have a wizard or sorcerer who multiclasses into Champion. The Champion chassis is just so martial focused. Like, training hard enough to gain weapon mastery instead of higher level spells seems like it would be "pursuing mundane paths over magical ones," and that's Anathema.
But a Champion of Gozreh who is entirely devoted to protecting nature over all else, or a Champion of Pharasma entirely dedicated to the circle of life and death or wiping out undead? That I could buy. They seem more like NPCs than PCs, but I can buy them existing.
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.
But doesn't that make sense for every other alignment as well? If you're a champion of a god, that god's tenets should be your focus regardless of alignment. You're alignment will inevitably be similar to the god's because you need a similar world-view to want to further the god's cause in the first place (well except in some really weird cases). So it comes down to, just what exactly are champions? Are they the champion of their god's ideas, or champions of an alignment who also follow a god with a similar worldview? There is room for both to fit under champion, but that needs to apply to all alignments.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly prefer the Paladin (and by extension champion I guess) as "exemplar of an alignment" than "martial representative of a specific god."
I just feel like there's more interesting creative space in "I am a person so good and noble that I am empowered by the universe" than "I am really into Erastil."
Like cultures whose religions do not involve worshiping gods (Golarion has those) should still have Champions.
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.
Aren't powers considered spells in PF2? I was under the impression that Champions and Monks were a different kind of spellcaster than Wizards and Bards, but still essentially a spellcaster.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't powers considered spells in PF2? I was under the impression that Champions and Monks were a different kind of spellcaster than Wizards and Bards, but still essentially a spellcaster.
They are indeed, though a more limited one. Indeed, in the final version they're called 'Focus Spells' rather than Powers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, thought so. I do kinda agree with prior posters that approaching Champions from an alignment based angle is off and is the main reason TN Champions aren't really possible without introducing awkwardness - if all TN Champions weren't expected to have a similar set of edicts then you could very well have a Champion that worships Nethys do Nethys things and a Champion that worships Pharasma do Pharasma things without having to impose uncharacteristic fluff on top of that.
The popular idea of TN Champions being about balance and arbitration really just does not work at all with Nethys, for example; his concerns are completely off the alignment chart, he does not care about your actions or motivations so long as they advance the field of magic. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos simply do not concern him, nor does ensuring any sort of balance between them.
I recognize the edict-per-alignment thing is mostly a compromise with the LG hardliners who otherwise lost this fight so I imagine it'd be very difficult to push even further, lol.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, the anathemas of their deity are above the tenets for Champions/ Paladins in the playtest.Indeed. As I'm in agreement with PossibleCabbage on how Champions should work, I strongly dislike this, but it's true.
Same here. I envision Champions as alignment paragons, rather than servants of a deity. Doubly so because I feel they basically merge into Clerics otherwise.
I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.Aren't powers considered spells in PF2? I was under the impression that Champions and Monks were a different kind of spellcaster than Wizards and Bards, but still essentially a spellcaster.
Yes, but I don't think they have enough spell casting for Nethys to approve of them as a Champion. If I was playing a cleric of Nethys I'd he hesitant to use a weapon at all now that cantrips are viable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am somewhat neutral on the issue (no pun intended). I think this does make it easier to role up a martial champion of a diety which doesn't rely on spells, which is a thing I like.
Yes, but I don't think they have enough spell casting for Nethys to approve of them as a Champion. If I was playing a cleric of Nethys I'd he hesitant to use a weapon at all now that cantrips are viable.I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.Aren't powers considered spells in PF2? I was under the impression that Champions and Monks were a different kind of spellcaster than Wizards and Bards, but still essentially a spellcaster.
Nethys doesn't turn away half-casters at all? If he doesn't have a problem with Magi (which he doesn't, given there's enough Magus worshipers for them to be mentioned in his wiki entry) then I don't see why he'd have a problem with Champions. Using magic to enhance your martial ability is definitely still using magic.
Nethys doesn't turn away half-casters at all? If he doesn't have a problem with Magi (which he doesn't, given there's enough Magus worshipers for them to be mentioned in his wiki entry) then I don't see why he'd have a problem with Champions. Using magic to enhance your martial ability is definitely still using magic.Yes, but I don't think they have enough spell casting for Nethys to approve of them as a Champion. If I was playing a cleric of Nethys I'd he hesitant to use a weapon at all now that cantrips are viable.I think the best suggestion I've seen for a TN champion is "pursue deity's agenda above allowing else.÷ I'm not sure how practical it is-- how do you have a martial champion of Nethys? But it makes a certain amount of sense and I think having a small pie slice of the class be zealots would be interesting for roleplay.Aren't powers considered spells in PF2? I was under the impression that Champions and Monks were a different kind of spellcaster than Wizards and Bards, but still essentially a spellcaster.
I suppose you're right. And even using a magic weapon would still qualify as using magic I guess. Still, it doesn't quite sit right with me and I can't put my finger on why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you're right. And even using a magic weapon would still qualify as using magic I guess. Still, it doesn't quite sit right with me and I can't put my finger on why.
Well, let's not get overboard with acceptance here. I mean, magi must study magic to cast spell and use their peculiar spellsword tricks, but using a magic weapon? Come on. Anyone could pick up a magic weapon and fight with it without even knowing the least bit about how it works, without furthering knowledge and influence of magic at all, without doing anything Nethys would actually appreciate. Now creating a magic weapon, sure, that's totally great. As is crafting any other magical item. But I don't think a barbarian who picks up a fiendish battle axe and uses it to do barbarian things particularly rises up in Nethys' esteem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you're right. And even using a magic weapon would still qualify as using magic I guess. Still, it doesn't quite sit right with me and I can't put my finger on why.Well, let's not get overboard with acceptance here. I mean, magi must study magic to cast spell and use their peculiar spellsword tricks, but using a magic weapon? Come on. Anyone could pick up a magic weapon and fight with it without even knowing the least bit about how it works, without furthering knowledge and influence of magic at all, without doing anything Nethys would actually appreciate. Now creating a magic weapon, sure, that's totally great. As is crafting any other magical item. But I don't think a barbarian who picks up a fiendish battle axe and uses it to do barbarian things particularly rises up in Nethys' esteem.
Ah, but you forget that Nethys is a three-sided god:
Creation,Destruction,
Marketing.
It is in that third capacity that he appreciates anyone who even uses magic items, for lo! it doth create demand, and then the Nethys worshippers who make the stuff do prosper and feast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but you forget that Nethys is a three-sided god:
Creation,
Destruction,
Marketing.It is in that third capacity that he appreciates anyone who even uses magic items, for lo! it doth create demand, and then the Nethys worshippers who make the stuff do prosper and feast.
XD
I think he appreciates those who use magic items more or less as much as Torag appreciates those who use high-quality tools and items. Sure, it helps that others get to see the advantages of good craftmanship and desire it for their own, because artisans get better wages, etc etc I'm not an economy major, but I think Torag likes way better master craftsfolks, who actually dedicated most of their life learning the tricks of their trades, whispering prayers to him under their breath while they patiently labored on their works for days and even months, trying out new techniques to get even better results, et cetera.
For another example, then the item will most often be sold. Torag doesn't really care about that, Abadar does. He thrives in the act of commerce. Using a magic weapon? Sure, why not, but fighting is mostly something Gorum will approve of (and considering you can fight for different reasons and in different ways any god could have interest in this particular combatant - Sarenrae and Iomedae to eliminate evil, Desna to kill a night hag, Cayden Cailean to defeat a tyrant, Gorum if it's during a field battle, Torag if it happens in defense of a community with sound battle strategies and tactics...).
I would say Nethys will particularly appreciate those who fight (possibly with spells) to spread the influx of magic around the world, to master it, to find new magic, to establish magocracies, to unearth powerful artifacts... you're wielding a +2 sword? Yaaay.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of get what "champion of alignment" people are coming from because I dislike how 5e makes alignment completely irrelevant, but I much prefer the "champion of a god" approach since I always required paladins require a deity in my games and because with latter its easy to remove alignments if you want to :p
|
|
I kind of get what "champion of alignment" people are coming from because I dislike how 5e makes alignment completely irrelevant, but I much prefer the "champion of a god" approach since I always required paladins require a deity in my games and because with latter its easy to remove alignments if you want to :p
Which is likely why they went with this deity requirement in the playtest.
I think the end result will be pretty easy to tweak one way or the other : if you dislike alignment, you can open the abilities to all or restrict them by deity. And if you dislike the servant of deity part, you just need to erase the anathemas while keeping the tenets
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see why "no deity" or "the spirits of your ancestors" or "the spirits that live in all things" or "an entire pantheon" can't just be class options. Like the Fury totem of the Champion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see why "no deity" or "the spirits of your ancestors" or "the spirits that live in all things" or "an entire pantheon" can't just be class options. Like the Fury totem of the Champion.
Deities aren't really a meaningful mechanical choice for a Paladin in the playtest. They give Anathema and nothing else. Removing them is thus as simple as saying you can.
There are a few Class Feats that require a deity (the one granting a Domain, most obviously), and those should remain Deity-only, but the core Class could very easily just be allowed to not pick a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe James Jacobs seriously didn't like the idea of (Golarion) Atheist Paladins, which seems relevant background.
Previously it basically was barely conceded as viable, and never really supported, so can't say I'm surprised it was cut.
I don't think some sort of technical allowance they would never flesh out and support in world is really a meaningful loss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Golarion has divine casters for people whose religion does not involve worshiping gods per se (Oracles and Shamans) so why can't we get a martial analogue of this? It seems weird to say "Oh, you can access full casting divine power through the spirits of your ancestors sure" but not to allow a martial version of the same sort of thing.
I mean, in the playtest you could be a full on militant Rahadoumi Atheist as an Angelic/Demonic blooded sorcerer and have access to every single spell on the divine list. So access to divine power clearly does not require the approval of the Gods. Likewise playtest monks can pick their ki powers to be divine spells or occult spells, and there's no god requirement there (and Champions are no more magical than monks, really.)
Or just like Champions that worship more than one deity (seriously, I dislike all the mechanical monotheism in a setting with so many gods.) Why can't I have a Paladin who worships both Torag and Folgrit?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe James Jacobs seriously didn't like the idea of (Golarion) Atheist Paladins, which seems relevant background.
Huh? When did he say that?
I haven't kept up with every post of his, but I did read the 'Ask James Jacobs' thread quite a lot back in the day (though I haven't kept up for the last few years), and every reference I can recall has him being pretty supportive of the idea of Paladins not limited to the worship of a single God.
For example
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe James Jacobs seriously didn't like the idea of (Golarion) Atheist Paladins, which seems relevant background.Huh? When did he say that?
I haven't kept up with every post of his, but I did read the 'Ask James Jacobs' thread quite a lot back in the day (though I haven't kept up for the last few years), and every reference I can recall has him being pretty supportive of the idea of Paladins not limited to the worship of a single God.
For example
Yeah to my knowledge it's Clerics of ideas that he's never cared for.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah to my knowledge it's Clerics of ideas that he's never cared for.
Yeah, that one's totally true. And has always been canonical to Golarion.
But my understanding was always that those are two sides of the same coin. He thematically sees Clerics as defined by their worship of a specific God, and having too many other Classes that is also true of dilutes that thematic niche.
Or at least that was always my understanding.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, all of Golarion Paladins have a god flavor wise, its just that mechanically they never required them (nor got their favored weapon profiencies for free)
To me, "super good guy powered by good deities" always made more sense than "You are so much of Knight in Shining Armor that you are really good at smiting evil"
And on the "why clerics can't be polytheistics", it kinda makes it less personal to me when instead of following one god's teachings you... Well, not sure how to sum it up quickly, but simply said, in polytheistic religions you DON'T follow all the gods, if you don't have a patron god, you just pray or sacrifice to appease them or hoping for blessing in their area of concern.
I don't really see how flavor of "I get my powers from my god" translates to "Okay, I shall sacrifice to wine and party god so our celebration will be great, then I will pray for love god for my love life and" :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I miss the oracles and shamans in the playtest? If not, perhaps things have changed.
I mean, the world isn't changing, the game mechanics are changing. So because there are Witches all over the place in Irrisen, we're going to get Witches back in a later book. Since there are people in the world who don't worship gods, but nonetheless had access to divine magic, we're going to need *something* to represent those people.
Like "each person follows one and only one god" is sort of the least interesting moral philosophy I could come up with, so it's a shame we can't go beyond that. Like one of my favorite PF1 Paladins was a person who believed that everything- every bird, tree, rock etc. was a god. Some are more powerful than others, but none are more worthy of respect than any other for any reason beyond "how they act/do they fulfill their purpose", and many gods were seen as engaging in activities that required correction.
I think you guys are getting carried away.
In the CRB we'll have clerics and champions of individual deities, but in later products we'll probably get patrons like groups of deities (the Godclaw comes to mind), animistic religions (Shoanti totemism, the Mwangi wendo spirits, Tian Xia Tamashigo...), empyreals for mystery cults, various archfiends, the Eldest, maybe even Sangpotshi, who knows... it's just a matter of time.
Of course if we get a 2e shaman it will fit better with shamanistic religion, for instance, but even in 1e the role was initially covered by clerics, druids, bards... add a good archetype and they could work even better this time around. Same for Tamashigo, which is sometimes described as being particularly popular among witches and oracles - we're not getting witches and oracles right out of the gates, but cleric patrons, and even general archetypes, will probably arrive in due time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I object to is building "the Champion is a martial advocate of a specific deity" into the chassis of the class, because eventually we are going to get to stick some things into that slot that aren't god-shaped.
What would be better if instead of building "Pick a god, work their anathema into your code" into the class, we had at least one non-god option available in the CRB (like "General Benevolence") so we could see how those other things are going to be implemented later.
Like it's easy to figure out "How to make a Paladin of Magdh" since Magdh is basically the same kind of thing as Irori- a deity you can worship, who has clerics, and presumably rules. All I have to do is come up with those rules, which I can base on PF1 materials. But if I'm trying to come up with a Paladin devoted to the Godclaw, well I don't have guidance for implementing the anathemas of five different deities. Or a Sangpotshi Redeemer, say. It should require minimal editing of the class chassis to make these things go from day 1.
Personally I'm on the other side of the fence - I like Champions as "martial class divinely empowered by a specific deity" and I would rather see "martial class devoted to an ideal" be something else. Since we are getting setting and mechanics integration, cases like the Godclaw are, to me, easily answered with level 1 archetype.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never understood why Paladins were ever connected to gods in the way they have been. What differentiates a Paladin who gets their powers from a god and a Cleric? One is more martial? Why would that change what they essentially are? Why wouldn't it just be a martial Cleric?
Now that we have Champions instead, it feels even more arbitrary (and as a side note, Champion is a rather weird name, since the term is already thrown around so casually in a fantasy setting. Do you suddenly gain semi-divine powers if you win a jousting tournament and become the "Champion" of a local Lord? I'd prefer something like Herald).
I absolutely believe that you can have Champions who fight for the cause of a God like Iomedae or Asmodeus or whomever, but if they gained their power from those Gods, they are a Cleric in my eyes. They follow the same rules and their power comes from the same rituals and bonds.
A Champion/Paladin/Whatever is someone who gains their power through their sheer force of will, dedication, and devotion to a cause. The techniques to achieve this is more complex than just wanting it really badly and "Boom!" you now get a fancy Aura and divine focus spells. You need to prove your devotion and make sacrifices to the cause.
But once you do? Yes, you are a guy who is literally powered by your innate goodness. The Divine goodness of the universe itself empowers you.
With that line of reasoning, though, what differentiates a Cleric and an Inquisitor?
I think there is room for more than one "gets powers from a god" class. Critically, there is a big difference between "gets full casting from a god" and "gets powers from a god but isn't a caster", that is much bigger than just "one is more martial". Fighters are not just "more martial" wizards, even though both get their abilities from intense study.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
With that line of reasoning, though, what differentiates a Cleric and an Inquisitor?
I think there is room for more than one "gets powers from a god" class. Critically, there is a big difference between "gets full casting from a god" and "gets powers from a god but isn't a caster", that is much bigger than just "one is more martial". Fighters are not just "more martial" wizards, even though both get their abilities from intense study.
Assuming that champions have the deity-worship requirement or theme, there's a pretty huge array of "gets power from a god" themes out there that don't really overlap. Juggernaut from the X-Men comics gets his power from a god and could theoretically be built as a CN champion of Cyttorak with various focus powers related to being unstoppable or causing significant damage to barriers and shields. It's not a concept that I think most people would play a cleric for.
(None of that is a comment on what the champion class may or may not actually look like, just a note that "empowered by a god" has a huge array of distinct potential manifestations, many of which would not look or act like a cleric at all.)
Thanks for saying what I was trying to say much more clearly. :)
Also, I think there is a more general problem with saying a character is powered by the "divine goodness of universe". We know that evil champions will exist; are they powered by the "divine evilness of the universe"? Is the universe both divinely evil and divinely good? Is it also divinely lawful and divinely chaotic? What about divinely neutral?
For that matter, what makes something divine if it does not involve any actual divinity i.e. gods?
Big, sweeping questions, I know, and probably out of scope of the champion conversation, but those are the sorts of questions that are informing my opinion of wanting champions to be tied to gods.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought of non-deity-specific paladins as being more like oracles---their powers do come from divinities (or other Great Powers), but not just one, and it's not necessarily clear which ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought of non-deity-specific paladins as being more like oracles---their powers do come from divinities (or other Great Powers), but not just one, and it's not necessarily clear which ones.
Personally, my take was always that Paladins (and Oracles) both directly tapped into a divine source. For Oracles, getting hit full blast by the fundamental ineffable truths of the universe without the ability to turn it off kind of messes you up (hence the curse), whereas for the Paladin the bandwidth was a lot lower and only maintained via strict personal discipline.
So my preference has been (long before Pathfinder was even a thing) that Paladins are more *like* gods than servants of the same. Sure, they can worship whatever god they want but that relationship is no more special than a Fighter or a Rogue worshiping whomever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With that line of reasoning, though, what differentiates a Cleric and an Inquisitor?
I think there is room for more than one "gets powers from a god" class. Critically, there is a big difference between "gets full casting from a god" and "gets powers from a god but isn't a caster", that is much bigger than just "one is more martial". Fighters are not just "more martial" wizards, even though both get their abilities from intense study.
That's an erroneous comparison to make though.
A Fighter and a Wizard may both study, but they're studying completely different things in very different ways. Paladins and Clerics literally do the same thing but get a drastically different result. It'd be more like studying as a Fighter and somehow that has a chance of also just giving you a Barbarian rage instead.
I realize this is also a flawed analogy because gaining an ability through study and gaining an ability through being given it by a deity are qualitatively different, but it is a closer comparison.
Also, to clarify, I totally understand that the idea that a god can only give power to a person one way is silly. For the purposes of character ideas, a god can give favor however you want. Nethys might look favorably upon some guy who helped save a particularly important magic item and so gifts him with an instinctual understanding of the mechanics of magic, thus turning him into a level 1 wizard.
But from a design standpoint, why would you want two different classes that have the exact same flavor when you could have them be their own thing? Doesn't that offer more design space and potential for different character types?
And as for "what about anti-paladins?" question, well why not? There are a dozen different answers I could come up with for that question. Why can't the universe have an innate fundamental goodness AND an innate fundamental evilness? Law and Chaos too? The universe is vast and complex and doesn't follow our ideas of what a thing is or should be. The idea that only God's can be divine doesn't even make sense to me, but to be fair, I'm also a pagan, so my mindset is probably not the norm in that regard.
I dunno. I don't have a problem with the concept, but I do know one of my main players who is in almost all of my games thinks I'm crazy and doesn't understand how someone can be a Paladin of good if a God of goodness doesn't grant it to them. It's probably just a matter of YMMV.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for saying what I was trying to say much more clearly. :)
Also, I think there is a more general problem with saying a character is powered by the "divine goodness of universe". We know that evil champions will exist; are they powered by the "divine evilness of the universe"? Is the universe both divinely evil and divinely good? Is it also divinely lawful and divinely chaotic? What about divinely neutral?
For that matter, what makes something divine if it does not involve any actual divinity i.e. gods?
Big, sweeping questions, I know, and probably out of scope of the champion conversation, but those are the sorts of questions that are informing my opinion of wanting champions to be tied to gods.
Well, in Pathfinder, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all fundamental forces of the universe. Just like a Kineticist can channel elements from the Elemental Planes, a Champion without a deity might channel the fundamental Law and Evil of Hell, or the Chaos and Goodness Elysium.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in Pathfinder, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all fundamental forces of the universe. Just like a Kineticist can channel elements from the Elemental Planes, a Champion without a deity might channel the fundamental Law and Evil of Hell, or the Chaos and Goodness Elysium.
This.
Alignment is a law of the universe, something more powerful even than the Gods. Drawing power from your steadfast and extreme devotion to it, by being so Lawful Good (or whatever Alignment) that you resonate with that Alignment on a conceptual level so hard that it imparts real power, has thematic resonance in a way that 'this is just another way Gods empower people' doesn't quite match (especially given the weirdness of Champions having more behavior restrictions and yet no more power than Clerics).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Neutral champions seem he most straightforward to me. Instead of chasing some bizzare cosmic principle with no relevance, you take up a cause that's relevant to you, your friends and family, that has a direct impact on you. Alternately the religious focus takes care of this for you- you want what your god wants, though Nethys would indifferently frown at you for not pursuing magic.
Monte Cooke's Arcana Evolved had a 'champion of a cause' variant that mechanically dealt with this that might be relevant.
The low crusader prestige class in the inner sea guide is another good example. Normal folks stuck in the fight against the Worldwound.
For all the ink people spill over True Neutral, I find it puzzling. It's the most straightforward alignment, one that actually reflects people as they are. They care about things that threaten or impact them and theirs, the rest is just petty philosophical navel gazing. This gives TN characters room for families, personal goals and all the things that actually motivate people, rather than esoteric stuff that only interests nuns, monks and philosophers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Neutral champions seem he most straightforward to me. Instead of chasing some bizzare cosmic principle with no relevance, you take up a cause that's relevant to you, your friends and family, that has a direct impact on you. Alternately the religious focus takes care of this for you- you want what your god wants, though Nethys would indifferently frown at you for not pursuing magic.
Monte Cooke's Arcana Evolved had a 'champion of a cause' variant that mechanically dealt with this that might be relevant.
The low crusader prestige class in the inner sea guide is another good example. Normal folks stuck in the fight against the Worldwound.
For all the ink people spill over True Neutral, I find it puzzling. It's the most straightforward alignment, one that actually reflects people as they are. They care about things that threaten or impact them and theirs, the rest is just petty philosophical navel gazing. This gives TN characters room for families, personal goals and all the things that actually motivate people, rather than esoteric stuff that only interests nuns, monks and philosophers.
And you don't think that someone who cares about personal goals and their family and is in all respects an ordinary person, having for some reason paladin-like powers, is at all weird?
I mean, paladins get their powers by swearing an oath, sticking to a code, embracing good and law, and in Golarion following a deity. Hence they receive powers beyond their normal training at arms and sundry mundane, learnt skills.
If you don't swear an oath, don't stick to a code, don't embrace an alignment other than neutrality... okay, so what's special about you? As you say, ordinary people are mostly like this. They're not interested in "navel-gazing" (for the most part), they "only" want to be safe, free, healthy, loved, and the same for their loved ones. Common people everywhere want this. Hell, animals want this. And this, correct me if I'm wrong, is a good definition of neutrality.
So how is it that this behavior deserves special powers more than someone who actively swears to uphold and personify more or less abstract/relative (but also fundamental, at least in PF and D&D) laws of the multiverse like law and good?
Everyone wants to live a good life. You don't become a paladin for that.
You sacrifice yourself for the good of your fellow person, you fight to free them from tyranny, you're honorable and never break your word, you protect them from who wants to harm them?... Now that's a paladin.
Not a commoner chopping wood for their fireplace.