Where do you think we’ll see Neutral Champions?


Paizo Products

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
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.


ikarinokami wrote:

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.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
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 see your idea and your point, and it makes me think that the Champion chassis, in particular, would make for a bad Champion of Chaos.

An exemplar of Chaos ought to, as you say, break rules and undermine authority, and would prefer underhanded methods of doing so - they don't want destruction per se, they just want the collapse of Order. That doesn't sound like a traditional Champion with heavy armor and big weapons - that sounds like a rogue.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just think they shouldn't try to delay making LN and CN champion a thing because N alignment is hard to figure out good tenets for <_<


CorvusMask wrote:
I just think they shouldn't try to delay making LN and CN champion a thing because N alignment is hard to figure out good tenets for <_<

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.

Then there would be the question of how alignement-based class features would work for neutral chanpions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
FlashRebel wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

could be champions of change. change for its own sake, don't stagnate, change simply is.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

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?

I think the "not a pain in the butt to adventure with" is one of the big stumbling blocks for the champions of neutrality. In some ways it is worse than the champions of evil, since you can expect bad behavior out of "super-extra evil guy", and you really shouldn't have to expect it out of champions of neutrality (except for maybe the CN one).

I have a hard time thinking of CN tenets that aren't just watered down versions of the CG (and what I presume the CE ones will be). Maybe liberate slaves, but then they are on their own (shouldn't be dependent on you, that is just a step back towards slavery) and art is inherently beneficial (even if it is done on someone else's property without their permission--say hello to the CN champion of graffiti)---sounds like a jerk and a pain in the butt to me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.


FlashRebel wrote:
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.


Mechagamera wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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?

I think the "not a pain in the butt to adventure with" is one of the big stumbling blocks for the champions of neutrality. In some ways it is worse than the champions of evil, since you can expect bad behavior out of "super-extra evil guy", and you really shouldn't have to expect it out of champions of neutrality (except for maybe the CN one).

I have a hard time thinking of CN tenets that aren't just watered down versions of the CG (and what I presume the CE ones will be). Maybe liberate slaves, but then they are on their own (shouldn't be dependent on you, that is just a step back towards slavery) and art is inherently beneficial (even if it is done on someone else's property without their permission--say hello to the CN champion of graffiti)---sounds like a jerk and a pain in the butt to me.

The eternal problem of the CN alignment: being interpreted as an excuse to be as disruptive and insufferable as possible by way too many players because too few have any idea what it should mean.

Basically being CN means you don't want anyone else to tell you how you should live your life and value your personal freedom greatly, but this doesn't mean you don't care about the consequences of your actions or don't have any standards or principles (and this is why CN deities have edicts that their worshippers follow gladly).

What I can suggest for CN tenets that would work and not overlap with CG and CE are one of the core principles of libertarians: the importance of responsibility and accountability. Because the advantage of following an authority that tells you how to live is that there is no need to be personally responsible since you cannot be held accountable for your actions. Freedom cannot work for long in a society where people aren't encouraged to be responsible.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.


I think the other issue is whether the champion is just supposed to primarily be a god's "mortal sword" (to borrow a term from the Malazan books) or if it is really supposed to be the shining (or extra dark) beacon of alignment that just happens to have a god as a middleman (is middleperson a thing?).

If it is the mortal sword, then no problem. The beacon idea doesn't really work--what's the adjective? Rigid, quirky, and indifferent for LN, CN, and TN respectively?

Normally I would be all good with the standard "whatever works at your table", but in this case, the decision affects the design of the subclasses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been pondering about this and have a few ideas I've been bouncing around:

Lawful Neutral - Arbiter:

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.

Neutral - Philosopher:

"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.

Chaotic Neutral - Revolutionary:

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?


Puna'chong wrote:

I've been pondering about this and have a few ideas I've been bouncing around:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

For philosopher I could see a reaction that imposes a stupefied condition for a round as you force the target to contemplate some cosmic truth (some minimum intelligence requirement to be affected by this).

The revolutionary is a good one, but it feels borderline CG. It actually needs a little more jerk in it to strengthen the N in CN. The guy who believes in the revolution a little too much (you can't come to protest because your children are sick? What about all the oppressed children we are going to liberate? Doesn't their suffering matter to you?). I would go with something like:

revolutionary zeal strike or maybe sacrifice for the revolution strike

An ally within 15 feet takes damage:

You cause the ally that took the damage to make a strike against the attacker. The ally adds your champion level to their attack roll, but on their next save roll your champion level is subtracted from the value.


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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

On Liberator (CG) vs. Revolutionary (CN): the Liberator's focus is on the oppressed, and their reaction is to help the oppressed escape. The Revolutionary's focus is on the oppressors, and their reaction would be something that targets those who try to restrain or control others - maybe an "instant karma"-type reaction that can inflict the same sort of condition on the oppressor. The focus on vengeance and violent overthrow can push the Revolutionary into some pretty dark places.


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.

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Where do you think we’ll see Neutral Champions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Paizo Products