| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m surprised we’re getting some Hellknight archetypes so soon when right now, the closest a Champion can get is LG.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Switzerland.
The Advanced Player's Guide.
The Hellknight is not required to be a Champion.
But if we don't have Champions of all alignments by the time Lost Omens Gods and Magic comes out, something would be seriously wrong.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Hellknight is not required to be a Champion.
But if we don't have Champions of all alignments by the time Lost Omens Gods and Magic comes out, something would be seriously wrong.
Welp...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we get champions of good, champions of evil, champions of law, and champions of chaos... then we get champions of specific ideologies- champions of mortality, champions of the green faith, champions of rivethun, champions of some weird kind of deity, etc.
There's no need for "I am a champion for NEUTRALITY" as a thing. When you can instead have champion causes oriented around the things a neutral character would care about.
Well the thread premise seems doubly off, given APG will include Evil Champions who may become Hellknights, as well as Champions not being especially central to Hellknights (many Hellknight abilities overlapping in fact, e.g. Armor Spec although HK marginally increases it by +1).
That aside, I wouldn't be surprised to see Neutral Champions in next major player-centric core rules book after APG, along with Shamans.
I would NOT cast this as strictly about "True Neutral" Champions, as main Tenet distinction so far is just 1 Alignment component.
It's entirely possible for Neutral Tenet Champions to include wings that overlap with NG/NE Champions of Good/Evil Tenets.
We could see Lawful/Chaotic Tenets with Good/Neutral/Evil Causes, allowing alignment overlap with Good/Evil Tenet Champions.
Yet distinct themae and playstyle/mechanics... E.g. Lawful Tenet (LG) may better fit Abadar than Good Tenet (LG) i.e. Law before Good.
But I also wouldn't be surprised if we see Neutral Champions go slightly different direction than ones we've seen so far,
Having Neutrality as Tenet, but Cause not being Alignment specific, so not determining both components of character Alignment.
Instead, thematic interests like Druidism/Nature (Primal) and Soul Cycle (Occult?) are obvious moral themes semi-agnostic to alignment.
Soul Cycle is associated with Pharasma and supported by other Gods, but I could even Groetus may fit into this system:
Despite overt aversion to Soul Cycle as well as Universe generally, his CN attitude tending to Evil but not especially hostile to Good.
Some other Neutral moral themes could also work, but just those would be plenty, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welp...The Hellknight is not required to be a Champion.
But if we don't have Champions of all alignments by the time Lost Omens Gods and Magic comes out, something would be seriously wrong.
I stand by what I said -- we have a serious hole in regard to playing a typical lawful neutral Hellknight Champion.
I think it is more important that they do lawful and chaotic causes first, personally. Not only does that open TN and CN, it creates an alternative option for the 4 corners of the alignment spectrum. A lawful good character getting to choose between being a Paladin and something less focused on good would be neat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welp...The Hellknight is not required to be a Champion.
But if we don't have Champions of all alignments by the time Lost Omens Gods and Magic comes out, something would be seriously wrong.
I stand by what I said -- we have a serious hole in regard to playing a typical lawful neutral Hellknight Champion.
That's... a lot of hyperbole.
If you consider that a 'seriously wrong' and a 'serious hole' ... then every class / archtype combination that isn't out yet, but people want to mimic or cobble together from 1st ed is also the same.
Which puts your particular desire really, really low on the list.
Also, since there are no lawful neutral hellknight champions... you cannot really claim to want to play a 'typical' one.
An "examplar of true neutrality" champion is unnecessary. If you're a true neutral character, who is so strongly committed to a cause as to be a champion, then you're better off being a champion of "that cause" than "neutrality, as a concept."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is more important that they do lawful and chaotic causes first, personally. Not only does that open TN and CN, it creates an alternative option for the 4 corners of the alignment spectrum. A lawful good character getting to choose between being a Paladin and something less focused on good would be neat.
I'm definitely interested in that overlap, i.e. a LG character having option to be Paladin (Champion of Good) or option to be Champion of Law, hinging on whether they put Good VS Evil before Law or put Law VS Chaos before Good. Archon(Judge) seems cool name for Champion of Law, but not sure how that would fit into Good/Neutral/Evil Causes.
On the other hand, Champions of Law and Chaos might not necessarily need to have sub-Causes defined by Alignment (as Good Champions are), they could go in more unique directions (as people suggest re: Neutral Champions). Vigilante VS Archon VS Lawbringer indicating personal law VS affirming social law VS imposing social law ?
As to priority of doing Law/Chaos before Neutrality I can't really say, and maybe they would do both in the same product? If they had to choose priority I like the possibilities of Law/Chaos, but the philosophies of Neutrality (Pharasmin Soul Cycle, Primal Nature) would be cool to develop with champions and sort of ties in with the specific Ancestries they've developed adjacent to those (Duskwalkers and Leshies). ??? \^_^/ ????
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An "examplar of true neutrality" champion is unnecessary. If you're a true neutral character, who is so strongly committed to a cause as to be a champion, then you're better off being a champion of "that cause" than "neutrality, as a concept."
I don't think anyone disagrees. Most people, including developers the one or two times they've let slip their opinions, seem to be thinking along the same lines as Quandary above, that of causes associated with Neutral gods rather than champions of neutrality in and of itself.
Especially since it seems like Cavaliers won't be an all up class this time around, champions seem primed to absorb the Orders mechanic, with all the freedom to pick an alignment within a given order. Probably needs to be a class archetype if you also want to exclude the divine flavor, but some of the old orders might be fine without that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really curious how they're going to loosen the "deity" requirement for Champions. Since there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a champion of the green faith, or a rivethun champion, or sangpotshi champion, or an an animist champion. Some of those things are apparently written up in parallel with "gods" in the new book, but they're not deities. There's also been mention of a Rahadoumi "Champion of Mortality" who should definitely not have a deity.
|
I'm really curious how they're going to loosen the "deity" requirement for Champions. Since there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a champion of the green faith, or a rivethun champion, or sangpotshi champion, or an an animist champion. Some of those things are apparently written up in parallel with "gods" in the new book, but they're not deities. There's also been mention of a Rahadoumi "Champion of Mortality" who should definitely not have a deity.
The Laws of Mortality are in the book too. Complete with Divine ability and Divine skill ;-D
|
|
An "examplar of true neutrality" champion is unnecessary. If you're a true neutral character, who is so strongly committed to a cause as to be a champion, then you're better off being a champion of "that cause" than "neutrality, as a concept."
The PF2 Champion is definitely not defined first and foremost by their alignment. They are even further from that than the PF1 Paladin.
I regret it but it is so.
Also I can easily imagine a TN Champion as one who is not restricted nor blinded by the extremes of the Alignment axes.
Striving to keep an open mind and be aware of complexities and nuances is quite worthy IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really curious how they're going to loosen the "deity" requirement for Champions. Since there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a champion of the green faith, or a rivethun champion, or sangpotshi champion, or an an animist champion. Some of those things are apparently written up in parallel with "gods" in the new book, but they're not deities. There's also been mention of a Rahadoumi "Champion of Mortality" who should definitely not have a deity.
I feel like the easiest way to do that is just to treat those as functionally gods for the purpose of the game's mechanics.
|
|
I'm really curious how they're going to loosen the "deity" requirement for Champions. Since there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a champion of the green faith, or a rivethun champion, or sangpotshi champion, or an an animist champion. Some of those things are apparently written up in parallel with "gods" in the new book, but they're not deities. There's also been mention of a Rahadoumi "Champion of Mortality" who should definitely not have a deity.I feel like the easiest way to do that is just to treat those as functionally gods for the purpose of the game's mechanics.
Winner!!!
I feel like the easiest way to do that is just to treat those as functionally gods for the purpose of the game's mechanics.
Maybe this is just me but treating "no gods ever, no matter what" as the equivalent of "a deity" suggests to me that the thing on the character sheet or in the champion write up should not have been "deity".
Like if we knew that the game's mechanics were going to support animists, ancestor worship, shamanic traditions, etc. as just as valid as "deities" we probably should not have hard coded "deity" into the game mechanics.
|
|
I feel like the easiest way to do that is just to treat those as functionally gods for the purpose of the game's mechanics.Maybe this is just me but treating "no gods ever, no matter what" as the equivalent of "a deity" suggests to me that the thing on the character sheet or in the champion write up should not have been "deity".
Like if we knew that the game's mechanics were going to support animists, ancestor worship, shamanic traditions, etc. as just as valid as "deities" we probably should not have hard coded "deity" into the game mechanics.
I see two possible reasons :
- timetable : the CRB and the character sheet were finished before they considered how they would deal with other ethos.
- simplicity : using Creed or Ethos is less easily understandable for new players than Deity. Doubly so for Classes that are depicted as followers of a deity first and foremost.
I agree that the character sheet could be updated.
In the end, I like that they used an already existing system to adequately model these other philosophies. It shows how much thought they put into their creation and how robust PF2 is.
I seriously doubt there will ever be a true Neutral Champion, the idea of a champion of a given cause does not jive well with a character concept which stays neutral in conflicts.
I think it works in the specific context of "I'm a champion of balance, making sure neither Evil nor Good, Chaos or Law, achieve too much power" in the idea of how a certain wizard of different intellectual property was written to be.
|
I seriously doubt there will ever be a true Neutral Champion, the idea of a champion of a given cause does not jive well with a character concept which stays neutral in conflicts.I think it works in the specific context of "I'm a champion of balance, making sure neither Evil nor Good, Chaos or Law, achieve too much power" in the idea of how a certain wizard of different intellectual property was written to be.
How would that even work as a PC option?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If nothing else the "no, you guys are doing too much good, stop doing so much good" character in a party in a heroic story is just a bummer to be around.
Evil characters at least get to be cynical when the heroes go and save the orphanage or whatever, the guy who's like "okay, you saved the orphanage... now you gotta do some evil to balance it out" is a maniac.
If nothing else the "no, you guys are doing too much good, stop doing so much good" character in a party in a heroic story is just a bummer to be around.
Yeah, it's kind of weird to play around. I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense in a setting where Good is supposed to be legitimately good (for the most part) instead of say, Dragonlance where Good is ultimately as much of a destructive force as Evil is.
Beyond all of that. "Maintain the balance at all costs" kinda has really strong LN vibes to it for a TN tenant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond all of that. "Maintain the balance at all costs" kinda has really strong LN vibes to it for a TN tenant.
I think this is where "Neutral Champions of Ideology" fit in, because they don't have to worry about fiddly distinctions of TN/LN/CN. They are Neutral, OK, but are about pursuing some specific vision that fits into that... more than exemplifying LN vs TN vs CN. You could say their Ideology itself may tend towards LN or TN or NE or NG or CN in different circumstances, which may even prompt alignment shift, albeit irrelevant to Anathema. Really other Aligned Champions would also have their own specific Ideologies, but they just happen to be coherent with specific Alignments.
Incidentally, I like the Laws of Man/ Mortality as 3rd parallel to the Pharasmin Soul Cycle and Druidic Nature vision. All these can be Lawful in own right of course, but with goal of Neutral process outcome. Laws of Mortality about sovereign independence of mortals from Deific interference in free course of mortal free-will, Pharasmin Soul Cycle about letting universe come to it's conclusion about questions of morality, Nature about nature (duh)... (BTW, 2E's version of Shillelagh emphasizing usage vs "un-natural" is change I like especially)
How would that even work as a PC option?I seriously doubt there will ever be a true Neutral Champion, the idea of a champion of a given cause does not jive well with a character concept which stays neutral in conflicts.I think it works in the specific context of "I'm a champion of balance, making sure neither Evil nor Good, Chaos or Law, achieve too much power" in the idea of how a certain wizard of different intellectual property was written to be.
Not well, but not all options need to be for PCs. I think it's perfectly valid to have things are mostly for GMs to use.
Or perhaps it could be usable in a very specific campaign, but generally I agree with you.
|
|
How would that even work as a PC option?I seriously doubt there will ever be a true Neutral Champion, the idea of a champion of a given cause does not jive well with a character concept which stays neutral in conflicts.I think it works in the specific context of "I'm a champion of balance, making sure neither Evil nor Good, Chaos or Law, achieve too much power" in the idea of how a certain wizard of different intellectual property was written to be.Not well, but not all options need to be for PCs. I think it's perfectly valid to have things are mostly for GMs to use.
Or perhaps it could be usable in a very specific campaign, but generally I agree with you.
With the way NPC building and options work we're not gonna get the former, or any "these PC options aren't actually intended for PCs but for GMs".
GMs have had Antipaladins since the Playtest for example.
Creative Director
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, the whole concept of Neutrality = Complete Balance is more of a D&D construct, and it's not one that really fits into my concept of Pathfinder. I see "balance" as more of a lawful pursuit than a neutral one, since what causes things not to be balanced is randomness and entropy and, well, Chaos. I see true neutral more as something in nature, where creatures don't have the sapience needed to make moral or ethical choices, or in something like psychopomps or Nethys, where a creature or faith is focused on one thing that stands above law/chaos or good/evil, or for things that simply don't have much interest in making choices, like constructs.
For example... I could see a place for a true neutral champion that's all about protecting the flow of life and death and souls, and would be a full-on fighter against undead and creatures that capture or consume souls. That would absolutely be enough meat to base a class around, but conceptually, that starts to feel like it's stealing some of the lunch of the good champions who already do pretty well against undead.
The trick is finding a role for neutral champions that is interesting and can support an entire class but doesn't poach things from other champions. When (and IF) we come up with an idea there... only then will we start to look at possibly doing a neutral champion. But from the office of expectation management, that day might never come.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are LN and CN champions still on the table though?
All of them are on the proverbial table, but I don't think it'd be satisfying to do just the LN and CN ones and not the N ones. Furthermore, while a LN champion could be all about fighting chaos and a CN one all about fighting law... again, that starts to potentially step on the toes of other champions a little. They'd need more than that.
I mean, Hellknights can be your lawful neutral "champion"*.
They just tend to lean towards evil. Heck, hellknights can even be lawful good. I believe there was even a Hellknight order founded by a paladin.
We just need a equally interesting and cool group to be champions of more chaotic things.
*If by champion you mean someone who favors the cause, not the mechanical class.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Hellknights can be your lawful neutral "champion"*.
They just tend to lean towards evil. Heck, hellknights can even be lawful good. I believe there was even a Hellknight order founded by a paladin.
We just need a equally interesting and cool group to be champions of more chaotic things.
*If by champion you mean someone who favors the cause, not the mechanical class.
Canonically, though, a hellknight is a prestige class, and that means that those who seek to be a Hellknight have to spend the first few levels as something else to earn their way into the organization before they're called a Hellknight. Having an option where a character can be a Hellknight from level 1 would force some awkward revisions to world lore, including a fair bit that's already in print in 2nd edition products. Furthermore, there are plenty of lawful evil and even some lawful good Hellknights in canon as well, so I'd rather not close the book on those characters.
I'd rather come up with something non-Hellknight flavored for a potential LN champion, and then have the Hellknight archetype be a great fit for ANY of the lawful champions to delve into.
Honestly, I've always personally felt that being so dedicated to anything at 1st character level always felt a bit off. I've always seen it more like you should be an initiate in something, though I understand mechanically it doesn't work well and doesn't mesh with existing lore.
Also, I didn't mean to imply Hellknights should be restricted to lawful neutral, simply saying if you need a champion of law (without ties to good or evil) a Hellknight can do.
I dont think lawful champions are needed. Inquisitors can fill the "lawful" champion role.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think lawful champions are needed. Inquisitors can fill the "lawful" champion role.
I don't like the idea of tying the inquisitor to an alignment. The inquisitor was always "the troubleshooter, who works outside the structure of the church, who's allowed to get a little grimier than the cleric" and every deity could use that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example... I could see a place for a true neutral champion that's all about protecting the flow of life and death and souls, and would be a full-on fighter against undead and creatures that capture or consume souls. That would absolutely be enough meat to base a class around, but conceptually, that starts to feel like it's stealing some of the lunch of the good champions who already do pretty well against undead.
The trick is finding a role for neutral champions that is interesting and can support an entire class but doesn't poach things from other champions.
The converse to that is that the existing good champions are already poaching the lunch that otherwise valid neutral (or alignment-agnostic) champions would otherwise have.
The converse to that is that the existing good champions are already poaching the lunch that otherwise valid neutral (or alignment-agnostic) champions would otherwise have.
It feels like since the Champion class pretty much emerged from soil tended by the Paladin class that good and evil have dibs. Neutral can have what's left, in part because pretty much all deities and philosophies allow for non-neutral followers.
Gorumites should be champions of Chaos or Champions of Evil, which should absolutely be a thing.
How does a dedicated champion of Gorum fighting for neutrality even make sense?
Gorum's ethos of "fight everyone, all the time, it doesn't matter who or why" pretty much just promotes chaos and evil. It doesn't create anything else.
Gorum's ethos of "fight everyone, all the time, it doesn't matter who or why"
It does matter who. Gorum's pretty strict about honorable combat. Cheating or killing people who can't defend themselves or have surrendered are really high up on his no list, that kinda chafes a bit with traditional CN and CE archetypes so it's worth noting.
Kinda funny, Honor is a big part of the Lawful alignment but the god of honorable combat is Chaotic and doesn't accept Lawful followers and then on the other side of things the 'Prince of Lies' is a lawful deity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gorum's ethos of "fight everyone, all the time, it doesn't matter who or why"It does matter who. Gorum's pretty strict about honorable combat. Cheating or killing people who can't defend themselves or have surrendered are really high up on his no list, that kinda chafes a bit with traditional CN and CE archetypes so it's worth noting.
Kinda funny, Honor is a big part of the Lawful alignment but the god of honorable combat is Chaotic and doesn't accept Lawful followers
and then on the other side of things the 'Prince of Lies' is a lawful deity.
The "don't kill noncombatants" part is why he isn't CE.
The "war for the sake of war" part is why he isn't CG.