Let's brainstorm lore-friendly neutral champion causes


Advice

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Noticed there has been lot of discussion about this topic, so figured might as well have thread for it. I've seen lot of people throw around "champions of balance" idea, but that wouldn't work with 2e's lore since Aeons aka the outsiders who keep balance are LN now instead of N. And for LN the balance doesn't work out since they oppose Chaos by nature and whole "Balance between Good and Evil" is more of D&D's Mordenkainen's deal.

I've been thinking about it and yeah, its really hard to figure out interesting champion tenets for LN/N/CN axis. I figured out that best way to start figuring it out is to remember that as they are champions of the gods, the tenets has to make sense for gods that allow the alignment for worshippers just like how redeemer makes sense for NG gods and liberator for CG gods. Another thing to remember is that all specific causes of champions have a "goal". Redeemer wants to redeem evildoers, liberator free captives and paladin wants to be a paragon of honor and fight evil.

Before Gods & Magic, the current only deities that allow N alignment are only the three neutral gods Pharasma, Gozreh and Nethys and Norgorber's Reaper of Reputation aspect. Which at same time makes figuring this out easier and harder.

Like, only thing in common between those three gods(and Reaper of Reputation) is that they all monitor something, Pharasma with Cycle of Souls, Gozreh with Nature, Nethys with Magic and Norgorer's aspect with reputation. So based on that, Neutral champion could be some sort of "Upholder of Status Quo", but it might make more sense for Neutral champion to be more customized to protect what their deity upholds rather than mindlessly making sure everything stays the same.

I think most compelling Neutral Champion tenet might be something like "Guardian". Like for Pharasma they'd be guardian of graves, for Gozreh guardian of nature, for nethys guardian of magic and for Norgorber guardian of reputation. What the specific tenents and anathema would be, well I'm not planning to homebrew whole thing just throw out ideas.

As for LN and CN causes... They are even harder to figure out for various reasons for me at least.

Like, okay for LN Champions, the LN gods are Abadar and Irori and gods that allow LN alignments are Zon-Kuthon, Torag, Erastil, Gozreh, Nethys and Pharasma. I guess simplest way to do it would have them be "Arbiter" and just go around everywhere fighting Chaos and crime, but... Err, that would overlap lot with Hellknights. Basically I can't figure out any good ideas that don't overlap a ton with Hellknights. I guess Champion of Cosmic Balance Aeon style would be more unique, but I don't see all of those gods being interested in ensuing none of their opponents win.

As for CN Champions... Well Calistria, Gorum, Cayden Cailean, Desna, Gozreh and Nethys don't really have lot of overlap goals, which does fit Chaos axis. Like obviously "Chaos Knight" would oppose Law most likely, but why exactly? Would it just be "Champion of Freedom"? "Champion of Anarchy"? Freedom would overlap too much with liberator and Anarchy champion feels like it would result in "lol let's burn government house" type characters. Ironically, "Champion of Personal Freedom" would actually fit idea best, as followers of Chaotic gods they might not have any other causes than ensuring they themselves have good time.

Soo yeah, does anyone have good ideas for neutral champion causes that also fit well for the gods?

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Life before death,
Strength before weakness,
Journey before destination

I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.


True neutral is very much about which god you follow, as you said.

I can see LN as a Champion of justice: an incorruptible judge, unmoved even by compassion; a bounty hunter; an executor of the law. You could also have a character who goes against the establishment to overthrow an usurper, or to free someone who was unjustly imprisoned. Or someone who is called to right any kind of wrong, much like a Paladin, but for different personal reasons.

CN is more complicated. I can't think of a fitting example for a Champion of pure chaos, so maybe you should consider the individual gods again. A Champion of Gorum is pretty straightforward, for example.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A true Neutral champion could be a "Keeper" or "Conservator"; someone who keeps or conserves what their god sees as balance or what needs to be balanced.

A Conservator of Pharasma could seek to balance life and death, seeing Undead as upsetting that balance. Followers of Gozreh could seek to conserve the balance of nature, seeking to fight things that are destructive to nature. Conservators of Nethys could seek to spread magical power or to prevent magic from falling into the wrong hands and seek to destroy abominations created by corrupt magic.

Mechanically, good aligned champions get a reaction when an ally is attacked. I imagine evil aligned champions will likely get a reaction for when an ally deals damage to an enemy. So for a neutral reaction, I'd want something that triggers when an ally is buffed or an enemy debuffed or maybe a reaction to enemy or allied movement.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber

I was wanting to make this post last night, except without the insightful first post. I know James Jacobs has mentioned he has little to no inspiration for neutral champions, and I figured we as a community could help a bit.

I guess the core of a neutral brand of champions should be pretty self focused? Good is about helping others, evil controlling others, so perhaps neutral is just a general myopic view? Just looking at the neutral deities right now...

Droskar: work hard and improve yourself
Gozreh: serve nature, eh whoops
Nethys: seek and use magic
Norgorber: take all advantages, keep secrets
Pharasma: learn and stop undead
Sarenrae: how is she neutral good, I'll never know
Shelyn: do art and be pretty
Urgathoa: become undead, sate your hunger

So A NG champion might lean towards improving yourself and your abilities, creating, etc. NE more on hedonism and satisfying your wants. N is a crapshoot.

I dunno, that's all I have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this might be why they are struggling with them
A CN champion seems like it could not work in a party (but similar a CE one)

If you are truly dedicated to CN you probably won't still be with the party at the end of the session...

(And if CE your party will be dead)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually look at neutral a step up or back from the morality of everyone else. More of an absolute irreverence for the mundane than neutrality to everything.

Chaotic Neutral
Remind people of the fragility of civilization, and show them the inherent personal weakness of relying on others. Poke holes in their illusion of security. Teach them to move with the changes around them, accept that they are part of those changes, and cut people loose who have gotten too comfortable within their pack. Keep your unwitting disciples alive long enough to have a chance to learn their lessons. Complexity is fragility, teach this by removing just the right pieces for inevitable collapse.
Their benefits should focus on disrupting enemy teamwork and tactics, by either negating bonuses or confusing senses.

Neutral Neutral
As an insect who understands the universe, all you can do is help others glimpse a fraction of it. Your time as a mortal is brief, and should neither be cut short nor unnaturally extended. It's not your place to kill others, but there's no sense in denying death to those who provoke you. Don't expect others to understand, don't ask them to, don't force them to, when they pass on to the next life it will be their time to learn.
Their benefits should focus on preventing extreme results such as reducing crits, max die rolls, and death effects.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Must we have pan-neutral champions? I want one champion group for each of the four alignments. We have good, so evil, law and chaos are what I want to see. And I think the corners have to pick. A LG champion in the Godclaw has to be the lawful variety, not the existing good one.

I read a lot of Michael Moorcock when I was a kid. I want more law vs chaos to balance out good vs evil.

That said, I don't mind a true neutral champion, but it should be distinct, not bundled with LN and CN. I still don't like how Faiths of Balance handled things. LN and CN have as much in common as NG and NE, but no one tries to lump those two together.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with basing more conflict on order v. chaos instead of good v. evil is that players in general will always avoid being too constrained by rules and laws in game, even if they're completely good guys. Seems most folks feel restrained enough by order in real life that they'd like to try some more free-spirited gaming.

I realize my list up there is a mess because I went the wrong direction on the neutral tree. Whoops.

On further reflection, I still think lawful neutral and chaotic neutral should focus very specifically on the champion themselves and their goals for personal betterment, rather than protection/control of others.

I haven't seen an interesting concept of true neutrality yet, unfortunately. A true champion of balance would have to be truly horrific from time to time to balance out the heroic acts involved in saving the world or whatever that happens in most APs. The three neutral deities in CRB (Nethys, Pharasma, and Gozreh) are all very different from each other.


Some partly Neutral causes may be best served by Lawful or Chaotic Champion Tenets, which may even partly overlap with Good or Evil, just with different focus or emphasis... Which may be opportunity for Gods who allowed Paladins in 1E under 1-step rule, who now in 2E "sponsor" Lawful Champions who may happen to have Good Cause (Abadar might be example of this).

For purely Neutral Causes, I don't see necessity of strictly hewing to same "Core Alignment Tenet" + "Other Alignment Cause" pattern. "Nature" or "Soul Cycle" are very coherent and distinct Causes in their own right, even if they can exactly overlap as "True Neutral". Even having True Neutral requirement isn't even clearly justified to me, within Nature or Soul Cycle Cause they could tolerate NG/NE/LN/CN or TN just fine, with those differences being less relevant than dedication to the Cause's goals whose Anathema can be just as exacting, if not more so, than Alignment defined Causes. There could even be Alignment-specific class mechanics or Feats to distinguish Evil from TN from Good Nature or Soul Cycle Champions, but I just don't see inherent requirement for these kind of Neutral Tenet Causes to be so tightly Alignment fixated at fundamental level.

I think I've seen it mentioned that developing coherent rationale for all Neutral Causes was critical, but in this model it isn't necessary to develop exactly 3 alignment associated Causes. If just Nature and Soul Cycle are obvious, just they can be made... Or even only one of them. And to be honest, causes like Nature or Soul Cycle would need MORE unique rules, since they can't really rely on "Smite X" type formulaic patterns and derivations from basic spell traditions, so just doing 2 of them in one product is probably for the best. Not to say I'm not open to more Neutral Causes, they just don't really jump out at me like those two.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:

The problem with basing more conflict on order v. chaos instead of good v. evil is that players in general will always avoid being too constrained by rules and laws in game, even if they're completely good guys. Seems most folks feel restrained enough by order in real life that they'd like to try some more free-spirited gaming.

Perhaps for casual gaming. I like Cheliax and how its sense of unity itand destiny have been corrupted by hell. This is playing with subtleties on the lawful end of the alignment spectrum. For a while now that has been my thing

Quote:
I haven't seen an interesting concept of true neutrality yet, unfortunately. A true champion of balance would have to be truly horrific from time to time to balance out the heroic acts involved in saving the world or whatever that happens in most APs. The three neutral deities in CRB (Nethys, Pharasma, and Gozreh) are all very different from each other.

The common thread for those three is the relative disregard for mortals. Magic, nature, and a well ordered life/death cycle are what is important. Basically a TN champion is dedicated to a cause that has little to do with people. Focusing on something like that seems a bit niche, but in sure someone somewhere will come up with a good story based using them.


Lawful Neutral is Judge Dredd.


I could use some lawbringer stuff.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For True Neutral, maybe a Judge or a Monitor? They'd have a particular focus (flow of souls, nature), but the overall concept for the TN champion is that it's a process that should be protected against excesses in either direction.

A Monitor of Pharasma would get involved if something is interfering with the Birth-Death cycle. If people are dying too soon, or too late (or not really staying dead).

A Monitor of Gozreh would get involved in things that disrupt nature. Normally nature is a somewhat self-regulating system; if the rabbits start breeding harder, there's more food for foxes and we also get more foxes, and the rabbit population goes down again and the fox population then goes down again. But "events" can throw this equilibrium so far out of what that it can't recover. In particular, events caused by intelligent creatures trying to hack/subvert the system.

Making those good roles for the party depends on there being a long-term imbalance in the particular process that the Monitor oversees. So in a campaign set in a land plagued by undead, a TN Monitor of Pharasma could be on the side of the heroes for the whole campaign.

So basically, for a Monitor to be a good party player, you should be living in interesting times...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I think a bit of the "trap" people are falling into, and whats driving some issues, is that people are looking for an alignment to be internal consistent and without conflict. This overlooks a massive host of character concepts and narrative angles.

Instead of looking for an alignment approach without conflict, we can look at the alignment approach AS conflict.

A true neutral champion would be a vile tyrant on the edge of turning good. Struggling with his inner demons and trying to overcome them, not steady and balanced, but conflicted and turbulent. Only overcoming his native evil through strength of will. He is a neutral champion for now, but perhaps only for now. No one said this gig was for life.

On the flip side, a equally "net neutral" approach could be the archetypal Paladin in the process of falling. Not everything needs to be sudden and dramatic, it could be a long slow decline where the stain of fighting evil taints the soul. Every hard moral choice leaves you a little bit lesser than you were before. A bit more broken.

Eventually both this ideas will end up on a knife's edge, people in the process of great change. They have the potential to fall one way or another, in a state of constant change and internal conflict.

But, for now, embodiment's of neutrality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
I think a bit of the "trap" people are falling into, and whats driving some issues, is that people are looking for an alignment to be internal consistent and without conflict. This overlooks a massive host of character concepts and narrative angles.

I don't think your concepts are champions of neutrality. They are champions of good/evil who happen to be neutral at the moment, but a fallen paladin is not fighting for neutrality (at least not in traditional fallen paladin stories) so they would likely skip right over to champion of evil.

Put another way, it's not sufficient for a champion to merely have a particular alignment at the moment, but they must actively fight for what that alignment represents. This is what the anathema represent. A paladin who falls, but into neutrality as the end goal instead of evil, would be more appropriate as a neutral champion, but is harder to grasp as a concept. What would the anathema even look like?

Pulling from other suggestions up-thread, maybe this paladin realizes that the struggle to pull souls from evil into good and changing their destination to a good plane is somehow harmful, by imbalancing cosmic powers or what have you, and they become a champion of ensuring that souls reach their proper destination, even if that might be a place of suffering and hate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
I think a bit of the "trap" people are falling into, and whats driving some issues, is that people are looking for an alignment to be internal consistent and without conflict. This overlooks a massive host of character concepts and narrative angles.
I don't think your concepts are champions of neutrality. They are champions of good/evil who happen to be neutral at the moment, but a fallen paladin is not fighting for neutrality (at least not in traditional fallen paladin stories) so they would likely skip right over to champion of evil.

I do agree.

In that specific case the champion is a fallen one because he did something he really shouldn't had.

Imagine a liberator who killed the authorities in order to pursue his goal, because he thinks they are corrupted, and feel no remorse even if the guards were simply doing their job.

On the other hand we could have a good fella who starts to accept the natural order of things, and because of that decided to quite his order ( renouncing to the Powers given by his deity too ).

He could eventually join another order, finding another reason to fight for.

But the way all happened is not like a story about a fallen paladin, once a herald of good.


BellyBeard wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
I think a bit of the "trap" people are falling into, and whats driving some issues, is that people are looking for an alignment to be internal consistent and without conflict. This overlooks a massive host of character concepts and narrative angles.

I don't think your concepts are champions of neutrality. They are champions of good/evil who happen to be neutral at the moment, but a fallen paladin is not fighting for neutrality (at least not in traditional fallen paladin stories) so they would likely skip right over to champion of evil.

Put another way, it's not sufficient for a champion to merely have a particular alignment at the moment, but they must actively fight for what that alignment represents. This is what the anathema represent. A paladin who falls, but into neutrality as the end goal instead of evil, would be more appropriate as a neutral champion, but is harder to grasp as a concept. What would the anathema even look like?

Agreed that a TN Champion shouldn't just be a Champion on his way between one cause and another, simply because, being a transition, it can't really be a defining character concept for 20 levels of adventures. But I heartily disagree with the bolded; why must the thing a Champion champions be related to an alignment at all? And I don't just mean the three causes of the three TN deities (Soul Cycle, Nature, and Magic), but also other causes that non-TN deities care about that are only peripherally at best related to those deities' non-TN alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:


Agreed that a TN Champion shouldn't just be a Champion on his way between one cause and another, simply because, being a transition, it can't really be a defining character concept for 20 levels of adventures. But I heartily disagree with the bolded; why must the thing a Champion champions be related to an alignment at all? And I don't just mean the three causes of the three TN deities (Soul Cycle, Nature, and Magic), but also other causes that non-TN deities care about that are only peripherally at best related to those deities' non-TN alignments.

Certainly true. I should have instead said that champions have to stand for something, and the champion options presented so far stand for concepts represented by an alignment. I agree that future champion options could open up to other causes though. The important thing is you are fighting for something particular.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This all makes me think of R. Daneel Olivaw in "Foundation and Earth". A sort of immortal guiding hand to make the path toward humanity's inevitable destination less frightening. Discworld's Death is probably a better candidate for an archetypal hero of neutrality, if for no other reason than you can understand him from one or two interactions in one book and don't need to read the half dozen Azimov novels my first example requires.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
I think a bit of the "trap" people are falling into, and whats driving some issues, is that people are looking for an alignment to be internal consistent and without conflict. This overlooks a massive host of character concepts and narrative angles.

I don't think your concepts are champions of neutrality. They are champions of good/evil who happen to be neutral at the moment, but a fallen paladin is not fighting for neutrality (at least not in traditional fallen paladin stories) so they would likely skip right over to champion of evil.

Put another way, it's not sufficient for a champion to merely have a particular alignment at the moment, but they must actively fight for what that alignment represents.

This is why I said it doesn't have to be a full time gig. Being a career neutral character, designed to remain within one alignment between 1st - 20th is not really a narrative issue.

Tenets can be personal as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Life was so much simpler when champions were paladins and people complained about how stupidly players roleplayed them and how limiting the alignment system was. Good times.

As for how a neutral champion could look like. Simple. They are dispassionate towards the struggle of good and evil. They suffer not from compassion to the weak, but have no interest in the self serving or destructive tendencies of evil.

Either they subscribe to a rather ethereal view of the world, following a plan none but their patron gods and themselves can understand or they are deeply pragmatic people doing what must be done to further their cause. As likely to heal as they are to harm.

Their world is not black and white. Rather orange and blue.


I kind of thought their was space for the N champion to be a bit more armor focused and less divine too.


D&D alignment would be a grid of white black red green and blue.


Well, we should probably wait until we see what the EVIL! Champions can do, but from what we have now, we can extrapolate what the secondary alignments mean for our boy scouts.

  • All of the good aligned reactions trigger off of friends getting hurt, but what they do with that is different, like
  • LG causes immediate retribution for breaking "da rulez" (don't hurt my pals, at the moment) in the form of an attack to the face
  • NG makes you think about what you've done and puts you in physic timeout for a bit, and gives you an ultimatum what where you get to go from here
  • CG lets your comrades run away from danger if someone tries to hug them too hard
So, if we take away the "good" part of this (friends getting hurt) we can find what the L/C scale does. Law punishes you with PAIN!!! if you step out of line, Neutral makes you feelsbadman if you do something wrong, Kaos lets you nigerundayo if someone tries to bear hug ya. From THIS we can backtrack a condition of what sets off the Champion's reaction
    Is it you getting hit?
  • Is it still your friends, but only certain ones?
  • Is it your friends doing this to the enemies and you're aiding? (doesn't make sense with the Chaos one, but why not)
  • Is it just whenever it happens to either side, you can either help or hinder?
I think we should try to maybe reverse engineer what their focus power and reaction are before trying to find narrative. Sometimes you let the fluff fit the crunch if the fluff is being to hard to pin down...


Lanathar wrote:
If you are truly dedicated to CN you probably won't still be with the party at the end of the session...

Depends on the party!

Mind, I don't know how a champion would do things, but I did play the party's CN healer in one game (the game died before I got to do any really evil stuff, like Cooking People).

But you're right that espousing that alignment is probably going to go poorly (if they aren't also similarly minded).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm, I'm very much in favor of Neutral Champions as being devoted to causes neither good nor evil, which sounds obvious but its a stepping stone to getting more specific.

A Lawful Neutral Champion of patriotic fervor, right or wrong, they are devoted to the cause of their nation and countrymen. You could call this the "Patriot" but probably more like the "Soldier"

A True Neutral Champion should be a "Keeper" one who maintains the balance between good and evil, basically someone who is committed to maintaining the cosmic status quo.

A Chaotic Neutral Champion should be a "Wanderer" someone who is committed to forging their own path, and living an authentic life. I'm reading this as a light armor option, tbh. The kind of Champion who goes from town to town like a wandering swordsmen and gets involved in all kinds of adventures.

Any saving people they do is incidental.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


A True Neutral Champion should be a "Keeper" one who maintains the balance between good and evil, basically someone who is committed to maintaining the cosmic status quo.

While I get where you're coming from, one problem I have with this concept of a TN archetype is that it sounds really lawful in its presentation.

Balance at any cost. Preserving the status quo. Maintaining harmony above all else. These sound an awful lot like LN desires and means, even if the goal itself isn't necessarily aligned with cosmic law.

Even moreso when you think of Chaos, which usually has anarchism and upsetting the status quo as some of its main goals.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Perhaps the neutral champions could be considered "champions of honor".

Now, honor is often considered a lawful characteristic, but that's not necessarily the case. A pirate may follow a "pirate's code", but that doesn't mean that they are any less chaotic in alignment. An honorable character is basically one that follows a code, and dishonorable actions are actions that violate a particular code - which means different groups or societies disagree on what is honorable.

Since all champions by definition follow a code, then they all can be considered honorable by this light, and so neutral champions could follow certain "tenets of honor" that do not reference good or evil. The specifics of the code would depend on the cause - order for LN, balance for N, and autonomy for CN, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


A True Neutral Champion should be a "Keeper" one who maintains the balance between good and evil, basically someone who is committed to maintaining the cosmic status quo.

While I get where you're coming from, one problem I have with this concept of a TN archetype is that it sounds really lawful in its presentation.

Balance at any cost. Preserving the status quo. Maintaining harmony above all else. These sound an awful lot like LN desires and means, even if the goal itself isn't necessarily aligned with cosmic law.

Even moreso when you think of Chaos, which usually has anarchism and upsetting the status quo as some of its main goals.

Hmm, I think Law is about Authority and Order, rather than Balance- if a Lawful Neutral being values balance between Good and Evil, it's because of the Neutral rather than the Lawful-

Lawful Good being can be argued to want to protect the status quo, and maintain harmony, but the catch is that it's harmony as understood to be altruistic- it's peace, rather than balance, it harmony through the elimination of evil.

Lawful Evil is similar in that it wants to protect the status quo, but the status quo it wants to protect is one of oppression and exploitation, at least tacitly, even if you're trying to express lawful evil as an ends justify the means kinda deal (you're protecting a system in which your fascistic approach is ok)

Chaos is about upsetting the status quo, but left to it's own devices it will eliminate order- good and evil functionally temper it, but pure chaos is about absolute freedom.

Order/Lawful is about everything having a place, but in a sense that does not include chaos.

True Neutral wants Good and Evil to be in balance (it doesn't slip into a notion of balance that enforces the need to eliminate one or the other, evil needs to destroy good to have its way, and good needs to destroy evil to bring about it's goals as well. Neutral is about accepting them both, and letting neither go to far, the neutral that pertains to law and chaos is about resisting the impulse to let your balance be one of control (everything must be put into it's place, chaos must be eliminated)

Really, whats actually happening, is that it's playing the forces of good and evil, law and chaos against one another to keep the universe healthy. But that perception demands that we accept a cosmic sense of good and evil, law and chaos, where it can be bad for good to completely win, and where free will and order are at odds and must be reconciled. Then you theme it as a kind of fate that keeps these things from destroying one another and throwing the universe out of whack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really think they should have just made the 3 causes 'lawful, neutral and chaos' with code being good/evil and maybe neutral. By its very nature neutral (good/evil axis) is troublesome a 'neutral crusade' is kind of an oxymoron - on a side not I now imagine Neutral champions to be passive aggressive.

Its much easier coming up with Tenets or good/evil then causes of law/neutral/chaos.

I am in the camp I don't think there should be a True Neutral champion for the same reason the True Neutral alignment on Druids in AD&D 2nd Ed didn't make for rewarding or good group game play. I think to memory there was even an example of a True Neutral druid helping his party defeat the goblins that were terrorising a town then turning on the town and party to prevent the goblins being completely destroyed.

True Neutral when considered in the 'active' rather than 'passive' sense (I think champions have to be the 'active' version of their alignments) can't work other than as aggressive keepers of the status quo which outside of a cosmic tilt doesn't really make for rewarding story telling on a more mundane campaign. Opinions may differ of course.

Dark Archive

Hmm, do you think its option for Paizo to do just LN and CN champion and ignore N champion? Or if they need to do the "whole" set and can't leave one out?


CorvusMask wrote:
Hmm, do you think its option for Paizo to do just LN and CN champion and ignore N champion? Or if they need to do the "whole" set and can't leave one out?

It's not a matter of "doing the whole set". It's a matter of "alignment extremes (or even deliberate neutrality within those extremes) are not the only things that can be a Champion's cause".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My interpretation of a TN champion is that that you are actively stepping up against extremes at all ends of any spectrum. Lawful guys overdoing it, you fight them. Good guys overdoing it, you fight them. Evil guys overdoing it, you fight them. Chaotic guys overdoing it, you fight them. I do not see it as "balance above all" but as "no extremes above all". You do not fight to bring everything and everyone into balance, you fight all things that are trying to tilt the balance to one end of the spectrum. You are an equalizer that tries to maintain a certain status quo and while doing so you fight every far end of any political spectrum, alignment spectrum or any other spectrum. So on a scale from 0 to 100 you are not trying to bring everybody down/up to 50, however you are doing your best to keep everyone in between 15 and 85 (don't nail me on the numbers, its just an example).

So basically the concept of being anti-extremist. All things in moderation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My preference for 'TN' champions is for champions that are alignment agnostic. A few causes that don't care which alignment supports them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one area where I think 5e did it better. 5e paladins choose an Oath which contains a number of tenets, and alignment is secondary to that. The core book has the Oaths of Devotion (traditional paladin), Ancients (nature), and Vengeance (more about punishing bad people than protecting good), and other books offer others - including the Oath of Conquest, which would work very well with LN or LE.

But basing Champions on alignments is, I feel, putting the cart before the divine Steed. It makes you go "what could a Champion of this alignment champion" instead of "what would be a good cause to champion, and what alignments would be appropriate for that?"

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Let's brainstorm lore-friendly neutral champion causes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.