| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Hello...Iomedae here, new phone who dis?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Lawful Neutral Champion should be devoted to country, basically focused on the laws and honor of their homeland, a real patriot who in the end is devoted to somewhat nationalist ideals.
A Chaotic Neutral Champion is a wanderer, making their way through the world and focusing on their own personal freedom- sometimes they help out for their own reasons, sometimes they pass through. The emphasis is on making ones way through the world and experiencing a truly free life. A wandering swordsman or cowboy, if you enjoy those genres, maybe it even has some no armor stuff to facilitate that.
A Neutral-Neutral Champion is the hardest, because Champions stand for something, maybe a knowledge seeker? They aren't good, they aren't evil, they just want to seek out knowledge and preserve it- gives them a compelling reason to dungeon delve. This is Librarian (which I happen to be) meets Paladin, where they have a commitment to avoid censorship such that even when a God of Good wants an evil text banned, they say no and defend it to the death.
none of the neutral champions make a lot of sense. I hope we dont see any.
Good and evil should be the extent, as those really make the most sense for champions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...Hello...Iomedae here, new phone who dis?
I feel iomedae and gorum are very similar to Ares and Athena
Athena is the goddess of the Just war
while Ares is the God of War (meaning the battle itself).
I think the same applies here, Iomedae is a god of the crusade, the just war
While Gorum is the god of the battle itself.
So while I can understand a "law over everything" champion, I am having trouble figuring out a "chaos over everything" champion.
It can't be like the liberator since the liberator will value good over chaos, so you're going to respect people who choose to follow the rules, live within structure, etc. provided that this is their own personal choice.
The champion of chaos has to break the rules just for the sake of doing so, and has to undermine every authority. Does this seem like a fun person to be in a party with? It could be, but it seems *really* hard to play well.
I feel iomedae and gorum are very similar to Ares and Athena
Athena is the goddess of the Just war
while Ares is the God of War (meaning the battle itself).
I think the same applies here, Iomedae is a god of the crusade, the just war
While Gorum is the god of the battle itself.
Correct. While Gorum is the god of war in the sense that strength, battle and carnage are their own purpose (so a little on the tribal/barbaric side), Iomedae is the god of war for any "chivalric" war that may even be fought in cold blood but always serves a purpose other than just fighting and mostly is bound by rules and conventions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike that Evil vs Good gets so much more importance over Law vs Chaos. Doubly so as the Evil-Good axis is great bait for stereotypes.
For example, as long as the devs cannot find abilities for a Chaotic Neutral Champion that does not step on the ground already covered by Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil, Gorum's Champions will all be Evil. While a Chaotic Neutral worshipper of the Chaotic Neutral god cannot be a Champion.
And we end up back to the fruitless debate of "why should only this and that alignment get Champions" vs "you can always play a Fighter/Cleric multiclass". Which makes even less sense in PF2 than it did in PF1 because of the greater focus of the PF2 Champion on their deity over their alignment.
That's the thing: neutrality is either being undecisive about your stance on morality or unwilling to pick a side. None of these can make particularly interesting champions. If these champions come to existence, they wouldn't have any particular alignment-based tenet and would probably follow their patron deity's edicts and anathemas above all else.
I'd actually like this a lot more, or something more like oaths with available alignments. Law, for example, could be supporting and utilizing law for good for LG, enforcement without compassion or greed for LN, and manipulating law to oppress others for LE.
Maybe deities could have several Crusades (or some other word) in their entry sort of like Domains? Just thinking.
A Lawful Neutral Champion should be devoted to country, basically focused on the laws and honor of their homeland, a real patriot who in the end is devoted to somewhat nationalist ideals.
Or a Hellknight, dedicated to the abstract concept of order to the exclusion of all else.
Being dedicated to the laws of your homeland really works only if those laws come from the well established traditions of a lawful society, as opposed to the whims of its current rulers.
A Lawful Neutral Champion should be devoted to country, basically focused on the laws and honor of their homeland, a real patriot who in the end is devoted to somewhat nationalist ideals.Or a Hellknight, dedicated to the abstract concept of order to the exclusion of all else.
Being dedicated to the laws of your homeland really works only if those laws come from the well established traditions of a lawful society, as opposed to the whims of its current rulers.
I don't think thats necessary, so long as the national identity is strong- now if that leads the champion to resist or support a potential tyrant, is an individual question, based off what they think is best for the ideal of the nation they uphold.
"I might not agree with the king's decisions, but I would die before I betray my country"
I still don't have a good idea of what a CN champion would be about, modulo the requirement that this character is not a person who would be a pain in the butt to adventure with.
Like, what are the tenets of chaos?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
could be champions of change. change for its own sake, don't stagnate, change simply is.
I still don't have a good idea of what a CN champion would be about, modulo the requirement that this character is not a person who would be a pain in the butt to adventure with.
Like, what are the tenets of chaos?
Personally? I envision them as a wanderer, blowing in to town, experiencing the world around them and their god encourages and empowers them to live that way.
They sometimes get involved in something either out of personal interest (the people who were kind to me deserve a good turn, or, the bandits harassing this town are making travel more difficult in the direction I want to go in)
or because its involved with their God's own interests- since CN gods are still gods of things and have tenets- like maybe you worship an actual god of travelers and so need to put a stop to a town that's sacrificing anyone who passes through to their gods, or some such.
That's the thing: neutrality is either being undecisive about your stance on morality or unwilling to pick a side. None of these can make particularly interesting champions.
Which is why I think the best way to make an N champion is to look at them less as champions of N and more of champions of causes that happen to be associated with N.
A Cause built around the tenants of the Green Faith or Pharasma instead of a champion of Neutrality as an abstract.
I still don't have a good idea of what a CN champion would be about, modulo the requirement that this character is not a person who would be a pain in the butt to adventure with.
In my experience, that is mostly the case anyway with CN characters, regardless of class. Most CN PCs I've seen in many years of gaming are CN because the player is hesitant or not allowed to play an actual evil character but get played as mostly evil or at least a+$&@%$ characters anyway.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been pondering about this and have a few ideas I've been bouncing around:
I think this one is the easiest and most obvious. Police, lawyers, judges, bankers, etc. are all easy LN archetypes. I think it can be pretty self-explanatory, for the most part. An Arbiter would champion dispassionate order, or causes that benefit civilized society as a whole without regard to their morality, because order is virtuous. On-theme with Irori, too, I think LN would seek perfection and champion hard work and pure dedication to a cause.
Whereas a Paladin might find more justification in punishing the wicked or evil (Retributive Strike), an Arbiter would probably try not to mete out punishment there and then if they can deliver their enemy to dispassionate justice, and would probably see their role in any conflict as a source of bias. So maybe a reaction that's about entangling/immobilizing/grappling enemies and controlling the battlefield that way?
That's somewhat similar to a Redeemer, but goes a different direction with the ultimate desired outcome. Instead of turning people to the light, you're trying to ensure that everyone "gets their day in court," however that might look.
"Philosopher" I think fits for a Champion who serves concepts greater than mortality, or eternal cycles. They're Neutral because they see that anything else is just flailing against inevitability; good and evil are a continuum and a matter of perspective, so trying to champion one or the other is futile because someone will see you as the opposite of what you propose to be.
Truth and honesty would probably be important to them not because they're moral, but because anything else is trying to cover the nature of things; death doesn't lie, a wolf doesn't lie, the tides don't lie, etc. They just are. Struggle is unnecessary on a cosmic scale, but may be useful on the mortal scale to demonstrate its futility.
Maybe the Philosopher gets a Cleric domain to start with? Serving a god but also, in particular, an aspect of their being (a domain) might focus things; you can be a Philosopher of War, and be a student of the concept of War. I'm not so sure what a reaction would be, because there's a lot that could go into it. Maybe something with rolling Recall Knowledge checks. Or, it could not be a reaction, but a one-action ability that uses Recall Knowledge? I dunno.
This one I thought the most about. I think there are a lot of ways to take it that aren't just the avatar of murder-hobo, and a way for a CN Champion to serve something greater. I'll try to keep it short.
First, I think the problem of CN being related to anarchy and murder-hoboism is resolved by just shoving the negative connotations of anarchy into CE. Burning everything down and randomness for its own sake isn't what a Revolutionary is about.
Second, a Revolutionary picks their battles. This is a way to preserve the sort of quiet dignity of the Champion class and not have CN Champions be uber disruptive. A Revolutionary doesn't serve randomness, they serve change and free will. They oppose things because they unnecessarily impede free will, but they aren't going to risk their greater purpose on petty things (like paying for a ticket or whatever). They won't fight a tradition just because it's a tradition, but they will fight against imposing a tradition on someone who doesn't ascribe to it. Revolutionaries champion a social contract that isn't immutable but changes with the needs of the day.
These two could be reflected in an anathema to not simply perform random or chaotic acts or just lie constantly for their own sake: Chaos that does not expand individual liberty or topple those who would put themselves before others only serves to justify tyranny. Petty chaos, dishonorable violence, wanton disregard for consequences, etc. only helps the lawful/good/evil, because it shows everyone that individuals left to their own devices are a menace to others and need rules and morality imposed upon them. It leads to disproportionate responses and, ultimately, a destruction of individual liberty.
Third, a Revolutionary champions the novel and the innovative and the passionate, and like others have said is maybe leaning more towards the good-faith parts of something like libertarianism or communism. A Revolutionary would fight for barriers to change to come down, would push for new methods to be embraced, would oppose traditions and laws that exist seemingly for their own sake that don't enhance the ideals of freedom and self-governance. Rebirth, fresh starts, etc. would also be virtuous ideals. Revolutionaries would probably have to grapple a lot with the edges of their ideals and some potential contradictions, but Paladins have to do that a lot as well. And I don't think Revolutionaries would have any opposition to a personal code, or goals, or anything like that; on the contrary, I think they would espouse the ideal of everyone serving their own personal code and seeking self-actualization, however that might come.
I'm not sure what their reaction/ability would be, though, that'd be different from Liberators. A Revolutionary (in my mind) isn't about randomness, so I don't think a confusion-like reaction really works. Maybe an ability (rather than a reaction) that gives them a more powerful Step, or the ability to make a free attack during a move action as a Flourish or something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that could be fun for Philosopher, though I think it should be something that can affect a variety of creatures. P2e seems to value baseline, "evergreen" abilities for classes that work on most all creature types so you don't have situations where the class is helpless or can't do their thing. Maybe have multiple reactions like Liberator, to where they can try to apply different conditions based on what's attacking them? Or have a reaction that gets stronger if the Philosopher can successfully Recall Knowledge about the enemy? Or move away from skill checks so it's a bit more agnostic and less MAD.
I think the difference between a Revolutionary and a Liberator would come down to their stance on the role of morality. A little "jerk," like you said, could work, but I don't think that should be a necessity to set them apart. I think you can have perfectly kind or enlightened revolutionaries who aren't running around as caricatures of French Revolution persons. As an example, they don't concern themselves with the morality of overthrowing a government--they don't care whether the ruler is good or evil--only with the idea that an established order is infringing on self-determination and needs to be changed.
I kinda like the idea of letting an ally make a strike against their attacker, but not with a downside. I don't think there should be a downside to any of the basic Champion reactions/abilities. Maybe let the ally choose if they want to make an attack with a bonus, or gain resistance to the attack or something. The ally's self-determination is what's operative.
Edit: I guess an example of the difference between a Liberator and a Revolutionary could perhaps be their stance on a law prohibiting unprovoked killing. A Liberator would probably not oppose a law prohibiting unprovoked killing, because while it infringes on "personal freedom," straight-up murdering someone in cold blood without provocation is Evil. You can go deeper, this is just a quick example, but on its face the law doesn't really prohibit anything that Good people shouldn't be doing anyways.
A Revolutionary, on the other hand, would oppose a law prohibiting unprovoked killing and posit that it's up to the people to decide how they want to deal with the killings on a case-by-case basis. They don't need someone telling them it's wrong, they'll decide for themselves. Besides, who gets to decide what "unprovoked" means? Who is casting down the punishment? That sort of thing should be left to the people affected by it, not because it's good or evil, but because they're the ones who are hurt.
I can understand, though, that the difference between CN and CG and even CE might come down to some small things, so finding that identity is definitely tricky.
The lines between CG and CN and also between NG and CG are incredibly blurry.
Yeah, and I think a lot of that has to do with what happens when you remove morality from the equation, or change morality to a system of "neutral virtues." The overlap is real because you still have so many similar concepts and values. You just stop caring as much about whether they're Good or Bad
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a great point, I like that!
As seemingly controversial as The Last Jedi was (I actually love it), the character Rose is a good example of a Liberator. Pyrrhic victories are meaningless to them unless someone benefits. Fighting for people and not just against enemies.
"Making them hurt" or going down swinging might be more of a Revolutionary, and a Revolutionary might be more committed to a cause than to the individuals caught up in it. Especially as a Revolutionary might be a champion of Gorum, who isn't concerned so much about the individuals as about the larger idea of war as a crucible.
I would imagine Revolutionaries would often be trying to keep things from devolving into CE, like in Galt, where things turn into the cruel or the barbaric rather than only what's needed to effectuate change. Or keeping their cause from being co-opted by people with agendas. Joe Abercrombie had a great narrative of this difference in his latest book.
|
|
When the Good Champions appeared, I thought their names were heavily influenced by the Golarion deities : Iomedae for LG, Sarenrae for NG and Cayden Cailean and Desna for CG.
Which deities are iconic enough to represent the other alignments? And what could be the names (and theme) of the corresponding Champions?
My take :
LE Asmodeus = Tyrant
NE Norgorber/ Urgathoa = Terror
CE Rovagug = Destroyer
LN Abadar = Lawgiver
TN Pharasma = Judge
CN Gorum / Calistria = Avenger
What would be your take on this?
A lot of good ideas in this thread. I really hope they become food for the developers' thoughts!
When you pry it from their cold dead fingers.
For me it's not to hard to make a True Neutral Champion concept. This is partially done by some classes like monk and druid, and maybe that's the main problem. Such classes already archive this concept, a neutral champion would just another variant from this concept.
His anathema is do or allow the extremism, no matter from it comes.
His anathema is fight o try take down any kind of organized civilization, but may fight their abuses the break the rules or create chaos.
His anathema is allow or do lawful abuses like restrict individual freedom, allow wild destruction beyond need to survive, follow abusive rules and other kinds of order like extremisms
Ps.: I know chaotic champion create some mix of liberator and druid, but as like I said before maybe because such classes entry too much in theses areas. For example, druid are neutral in all D&D based games because the animals/plants are neutral creatures that don't care of alignment, but the druid cares. As natural defender of the wild make much more sense a druid being chaotic than neutral.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Neutrality = Balance" isn't really a thing in the ontology of Pathfinder though. Since that sort of thing doesn't make a lot of sense in a metaphysical system where "good" is actually good and not just "self-righteous and equally destructive as evil."
If you look at the TN deities, they're mostly about "singular focus on their particular area without being particularly concerned about the morality of it" whether it's nature (Gozreh), Magic (Nethys), Clockwork (Brigh), the Fate of all Souls (Pharasma), Time (Shyka),etc.
Golarion doesn't have a "hold things in balance" deity, so it would be a weird concept for a TN champion cause.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I already wrote in another thread I do not see alignment neutrality as the epitome of balance but as the rejection of extremes, be it political right, political left, anarchists, fanatics or any other group or circumstance. Just leave me alone and let me live my life. Moderation in all things is paramount. Do not fight to get everything or everyone into balance but fight everything or everyone that is trying to get you off balance.
If there's anybody who rejects extremes, it's Nethys!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the Good Champions appeared, I thought their names were heavily influenced by the Golarion deities : Iomedae for LG, Sarenrae for NG and Cayden Cailean and Desna for CG.
Which deities are iconic enough to represent the other alignments? And what could be the names (and theme) of the corresponding Champions?
My take :
LE Asmodeus = Tyrant
NE Norgorber/ Urgathoa = Terror
CE Rovagug = DestroyerLN Abadar = Lawgiver
TN Pharasma = Judge
CN Gorum / Calistria = AvengerWhat would be your take on this?
LE Asmodeus = Tyrant - Agreed here, this is a pretty visceral one and I think most would be on board with it.
NE Norgorber/Urgathoa = Reaper/Despoiler - I'd maybe go with this. The gods with NE in their portfolio largely seem like this would match up with their goals, or at least matches with the gods most closely associated with NE in Pathfinder.
CE Rovagug = Destroyer/Annihilator - I think these work for CE too, so agreed here as well. Also fits for a god like Urgathoa who has CE in her portfolio, if I remember right.
LN Abadar = Arbiter - I like Arbiter/Judge more for LN--and I'll explain that a bit more for N--because as obvious as it may sound a judge is lawful. They're neutral, but TN feels more like a mediator in my mind than a judge.
TN Gozreh/Pharasma = Philosopher/Steward - TN in Pathfinder is also more about heady ideals or cosmic matters that transcend morality than it is about an actual balance between good and evil. Pharasma, for example, seems like a bit more of a steward over the passage of souls than an Anubis-type judge; less about the rules of where the soul should go, and more about the soul's fate. I think TN champions would work to ensure that neutral ideas/ideals (nature, time, fate, transitions, death) continue to operate how they're supposed to operate, rather than actually pass judgment on anything.
CN Gorum/Milani/Calistria = Revolutionary/Avenger - I'm not 100% sold on Avenger, because I think it sort of discounts gods that focus on art, passion, fortune, etc. (like Desna) on top of freedom and self-determination. But Avenger works well for Gorum, Calistria, and Milani, who might be the more prominent CN deities, though it also implies that the Champion is someone righting wrongs when that might not actually be the case. But I've thought a bit more about Revolutionary and that doesn't quite fit for Gorum and Calistria. Revolutionary works for gods like Milani and Desna, though.
Edit: On TN, I don't even know if it's really about "balance," per se. Pharasma, as an example, wants there to be 0% undead, and Gozreh would be perfectly happy with all of civilization crumbling to dust. That's pretty lopsided. I think TN deities in Pathfinder, were they to have a Champion, would be more concerned with their Champion fighting for their ideals rather than seeking to keep things in a 1:1 ratio, if that makes sense. But I think TN Champions would have to be concerned with their own balance, if only to avoid getting some kind of alignment ding for using Good or Evil spells or actions too often. Though that's a whole different bag of worms...
"Neutrality = Balance" isn't really a thing in the ontology of Pathfinder though. Since that sort of thing doesn't make a lot of sense in a metaphysical system where "good" is actually good and not just "self-righteous and equally destructive as evil."
If you look at the TN deities, they're mostly about "singular focus on their particular area without being particularly concerned about the morality of it" whether it's nature (Gozreh), Magic (Nethys), Clockwork (Brigh), the Fate of all Souls (Pharasma), Time (Shyka),etc.
Golarion doesn't have a "hold things in balance" deity, so it would be a weird concept for a TN champion cause.
Not need to be a deity. Maybe just a Faith or Philosophie.
As I already wrote in another thread I do not see alignment neutrality as the epitome of balance but as the rejection of extremes, be it political right, political left, anarchists, fanatics or any other group or circumstance. Just leave me alone and let me live my life. Moderation in all things is paramount. Do not fight to get everything or everyone into balance but fight everything or everyone that is trying to get you off balance.
That the way a think a neutral champion can do too. A "defender of the balance" is more like an anti-extremist than someone who tries to archives the nirvana between the Ying and Yang kkk
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I was discussing a bit more with a friend, and we both thought TN Champions being "Stewards" sounded kinda cool. Implies a sort of passivity about matters that aren't in their deity's portfolio, but the right kind of zeal when the issues they're concerned about are implicated.
On the topic of Inquisitors, I feel like at this point that could just be a robust archetype for Clerics rather than a separate class.
Circling it all back around, the problems with champions of balance, keepers, arbiters, stewards, all that... It's mechanically they're very vague. A bigger problem is that players tend to approach neutrality as the option to go either way, not avoid leaning one way or the other. Concepts are a lot easier to create than mechanics, which I think was what James was keying us in on when he discussed his frustrations with their creation.
Maybe it would work better to have neutral champions be irreligious, or at least not deifically powered?
So LN is about protecting a nation, a lineage, a people? Something like that? A patriot? Willing to live in the morally gray for his societal bounds. The non combat side of this would be easier to build, especially since a lot of the combat side might have been covered by hellknights already.
CN I guess feels like a champion of self. Self improvement, self preservation. Not always in a selfish way necessarily, but more of a glory hunter? Whose goal is to be a magnificent hero or achiever. I dunno. Personal freedom and hedonism are fun ideas but really hard to tie in mechanically.
True neutral is still the worst. Should you be able to be any alignment on any given day? Or should you be pushed away from behaving one way or the other? I almost feel like having them tied to abstract causes is a good root, but it still gets too broad and too light on mechanical input to sell me on it.
So while I can understand a "law over everything" champion, I am having trouble figuring out a "chaos over everything" champion.
It can't be like the liberator since the liberator will value good over chaos, so you're going to respect people who choose to follow the rules, live within structure, etc. provided that this is their own personal choice.
The champion of chaos has to break the rules just for the sake of doing so, and has to undermine every authority. Does this seem like a fun person to be in a party with? It could be, but it seems *really* hard to play well.
Honestly, I feel like every Chaotic Champion is going to have shades of the Liberator unless they are a pure #nolivesmatter nihilist.
The Liberator does not seek to overthrow Order, per se; they seek to trim back Order where it overreaches, and to burn out Order where it has grown malignant. They do this knowing that Order protects its own, at all costs, and that the Greater Good requires sacrifices of the just and the innocent alike.
A Liberator will wield as much force as is necessary to remove the unjust from power, but no more, and will seek to avoid harming the just as much as possible.
A CN Champion might not believe that all Order is inherently unjust, but certainly those who protect the unjust cannot claim to be among the just themselves. They're going to burn out the corrupt, and anyone protecting the corrupt, and anyone else who doesn't get out of the way fast enough.
And then, it is not enough for the unjust to be removed. They must be destroyed, the fruits of tyranny seized and its monuments burned. You feel sympathy for the innocent victims of the regime, and they're the reason you do this, but on some level you know they are all complicit; if the vast majority of them had not cooperated and collaborated, there would not have been a regime for you to overthrow.
We already know how to play a CE Champion. The only question is, why we want to play it so seriously.
A CN Champion might not believe that all Order is inherently unjust, but certainly those who protect the unjust cannot claim to be among the just themselves. They're going to burn out the corrupt, and anyone protecting the corrupt, and anyone else who doesn't get out of the way fast enough.
This line called to mind the character of V from V for Vendetta. He would probably fit a CN Champion of a dagger-wielding revolutionary deity pretty well, complete with a falling out with his former goddess, Justice. His ultimate goal includes making the world a better place in his eyes, but his actions show he doesn't especially care who gets hurt along the way.
Certainly not every CN champion is a after revolution and societal reform, but I think it makes sense for them to be militantly in favour of individuallity and opposed to imposed social structures.
I still think a N champion would be one without any divine abilities and would basically be a armor focused fighter.
I still think a N champion would be one without any divine abilities and would basically be a armor focused fighter.
I feel like if we want an armor focused fighter we should just make an archetype for that.
I still think a N champion would be one without any divine abilities and would basically be a armor focused fighter.I feel like if we want an armor focused fighter we should just make an archetype for that.
Yeah I would be down for that as well.
|
|
When the Good Champions appeared, I thought their names were heavily influenced by the Golarion deities : Iomedae for LG, Sarenrae for NG and Cayden Cailean and Desna for CG.
Which deities are iconic enough to represent the other alignments? And what could be the names (and theme) of the corresponding Champions?
My take :
LE Asmodeus = Tyrant
NE Norgorber/ Urgathoa = Terror
CE Rovagug = DestroyerLN Abadar = Lawgiver
TN Pharasma = Judge
CN Gorum / Calistria = AvengerWhat would be your take on this?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
My apologies for answering your great post so late.
I like Steward very much :-)
And I really think we NEED Neutral Champions. Because, otherwise, the Champion of a Neutral deity that has Good and Neutral worshippers would lose all powers just for switching their alignment from Good to Neutral, ie closer to their deity. Which makes zero sense to me.
Or the Good Champion of a deity with Good, Neutral and Evil worshippers could keep on being a Champion if they became Evil but not if they only became Neutral.
Until we get official Neutral Champions, I am borrowing PF1's thing for Channel. If you are Neutral on the Good-Evil axis, you get the ability that fits the Good-Evil alignment of your deity. And if both of you are Neutral, you choose at character creation which one you get (Evil or Good).
And I will likely homebrew a Class feat called Versatile Champion akin to PF1's Versatile Channeler :-)