So we have Champions of Good, we're getting Champions of Evil next month, and there's already been a lot of discussion about Champions of Neutrality/Law/Chaos. But at the moment, Champions are the only class with a quota to fill in terms of subclasses, and what if we ignored that quota?
What I mean is, what champions would we get that aren't related to alignment? For example, tenets related to the elements, and then causes connected to each of the four main elements. Rather than having alignment requirements, they might require you to follow a deity that has a domain matching your element.
For me, I think I need to see more causes before I even really know what makes a cause a cause, and a tenet a tenet.
Currently, the good causes give you a reaction that makes life harder for foes striking your allies - selfless and very thematic for good. Will the evil reactions have a unifying (selfish) trigger, or will they use different rules? I'd really like the symmetry of the former but I'm not sure how that would work without wholly changing how the class works - in 2E, the ability to tank often rests on reactions after all, and a selfish reaction (probably) isn't going to help you tank.
For Non-aligned champions, I'm torn. On the one hand, a Champion of Fire seems more appropriate as a servant of an elemental lord than an aligned one. On the other hand, I do actually appreciate alignment as being the unique "space" for 2E champions. Alignment as a game mechanic holds much less power in 2E than in older systems (and I think this is a good thing), but at the same time it is nice to have one class be so totally immersed in such a classic RPG concept. It makes champions feel sort of like the final defenders of the old guard in a way.
One thing I would absolutely like to see which relates to alignment but not the mentioned "quota" is champions that play with alignment in more unusual ways rather than just being locked to a single one. For example, a cause that could move within the alignment grid and gain new powers based on their current alignment, or unaligned causes that still belonged to a tenet (let's say there's a cause of Generosity for example, which locks you on the good axis and comes with it's own anathema but doesn't lock you on the law/chaos axis). I'm not saying these suggestions in particular are things Paizo should do, just that there are interesting ways of moving beyond the quota while still staying in the realm of alignment.
Why should we have champions not related to alignment?
I feel like restricting it to alignment limits the possibilities of what we get. I don't like the idea that after the APG the only causes we have to look forward to are neutral ones.
I also like to think that we don't just get the alignment tennets
First thing that comes to mind would be something like the Final Fantasy Dark Knight - actually a good guy but he uses dark magic for that
could basically have good tennets (with some extra rules) and use evil reactions and magic (probably also with a twist)
I like that idea particularly because there's going to be a lot of people who want to play with the evil champion mechanics but are in groups that don't allow evil characters.
I can totally get that, one of the reasons I loved the Dark Knight in FFXIV
I was considering homebrewing tennets but I think I'll wait till I know what evil champions can do
I think some really neat ideas could come from this, and anything that detaches character options and game mechanics from alignment is a plus in my book.
it should just be champions of good and evil. anymore and the concept just becomes diluted and pointless,very much the equivalent of a participation trophy or Kyrpto the super dog.
it should just be champions of good and evil. anymore and the concept just becomes diluted and pointless,very much the equivalent of a participation trophy or Kyrpto the super dog.
I can't agree with this, if only because I don't think that we should get all the causes we're ever going to get within a year of release. It would suck if 5 years down the line all the classes have tons of options while champions are still stuck with six incredibly narrow subclasses.
it should just be champions of good and evil. anymore and the concept just becomes diluted and pointless,very much the equivalent of a participation trophy or Kyrpto the super dog.I can't agree with this, if only because I don't think that we should get all the causes we're ever going to get within a year of release. It would suck if 5 years down the line all the classes have tons of options while champions are still stuck with six incredibly narrow subclasses.
Well, we could just get more causes for the same tenants (more aggressive than defensive, ideally), but I agree with you. Also I have to ask: what concept? If it’s “an alignment based servitor”, then I can see how it would be diluted. If the concept is “defensive minded martial empowered by adherence to a tenant”, then adding alignment-free tenants and causes reinforces the concept by moving it away from the alignment concept.
The arbitor, lawful neutral champion of balance
Well, we could just get more causes for the same tenants (more aggressive than defensive, ideally), but I agree with you. Also I have to ask: what concept? If it’s “an alignment based servitor”, then I can see how it would be diluted. If the concept is “defensive minded martial empowered by adherence to a tenant”, then adding alignment-free tenants and causes reinforces the concept by moving it away from the alignment concept.it should just be champions of good and evil. anymore and the concept just becomes diluted and pointless,very much the equivalent of a participation trophy or Kyrpto the super dog.I can't agree with this, if only because I don't think that we should get all the causes we're ever going to get within a year of release. It would suck if 5 years down the line all the classes have tons of options while champions are still stuck with six incredibly narrow subclasses.
I see the champion as "a warrior that upholds the beliefs of their deity", so as long as it has strong ties to a deity I think any champion concept could work. With HumbleGamer's example of a Champion of Darkness, I see that as a Champion of a Deity of Darkness, focusing on deities like Zon-Kuthon and Nocticula.
I see the champion as "a warrior that upholds the beliefs of their deity", so as long as it has strong ties to a deity I think any champion concept could work. With HumbleGamer's example of a Champion of Darkness, I see that as a Champion of a Deity of Darkness, focusing on deities like Zon-Kuthon and Nocticula.Well, we could just get more causes for the same tenants (more aggressive than defensive, ideally), but I agree with you. Also I have to ask: what concept? If it’s “an alignment based servitor”, then I can see how it would be diluted. If the concept is “defensive minded martial empowered by adherence to a tenant”, then adding alignment-free tenants and causes reinforces the concept by moving it away from the alignment concept.it should just be champions of good and evil. anymore and the concept just becomes diluted and pointless,very much the equivalent of a participation trophy or Kyrpto the super dog.I can't agree with this, if only because I don't think that we should get all the causes we're ever going to get within a year of release. It would suck if 5 years down the line all the classes have tons of options while champions are still stuck with six incredibly narrow subclasses.
a class that up holds the belief of their deity? We have those they are called clerics. I think of champions as people who are champions of the most fundamental, basic, enteral, conserved and recurring themes human ideals, existence and philosophies. good vs evil and within two you have encompassed in the the next twp basic ideals of love and hate. there really isn't a need for more champions.
the third set of basic qualities in humans is law vs chaos, and that should be covered by the Legalist and Anarchist. the probably with these two is that it's hard create a pure legalist that's not going to border on LE (tyrant) or that the complete advocacy of chaos doesn't inevitable lead to a lesser antipaladin.
a class that up holds the belief of their deity? We have those they are called clerics. I think of champions opposing the basic of human ideal. good v evil and within two you have encompassed in the the next 2 basic ideals of humanity love and hate. there really isn't need for more champions.
Good thing the CRB has a description to show design intent
You are an emissary of a deity, a devoted servant who has taken up a weighty mantle, and you adhere to a code that holds you apart from those around you.
a class that up holds the belief of their deity? We have those they are called clerics. I think of champions opposing the basic of human ideal. good v evil and within two you have encompassed in the the next 2 basic ideals of humanity love and hate. there really isn't need for more champions.
Good thing the CRB has a description to show design intent
You are an emissary of a deity, a devoted servant who has taken up a weighty mantle, and you adhere to a code that holds you apart from those around you.
and don't forget the rest, you are champion of a deity in broad strokes. Your anathem's are tailored to your deities beliefs about good and evil, you don't actually have to embody your dieties belief in the same way a cleric does. for instance it's much easier to be a champion of Korada than a cleric Korada because clerics have to actually embody the actual beliefs Korada while paladin is merely a champion of Korada inherent goodness. so one can cause harm and the other can't.
and don't forget the rest, you are champion of a deity in broad strokes. Your anathem's are tailored to your deities beliefs about good and evil, you don't actually have to embody your dieties belief in the same way a cleric does. for instance it's much easier to be a champion of Korada than a cleric Korada because clerics have to actually embody the actual beliefs Korada while paladin is merely a champion of Korada inherent goodness. so one can cause harm and the other can't.a class that up holds the belief of their deity? We have those they are called clerics. I think of champions opposing the basic of human ideal. good v evil and within two you have encompassed in the the next 2 basic ideals of humanity love and hate. there really isn't need for more champions.
Good thing the CRB has a description to show design intent
You are an emissary of a deity, a devoted servant who has taken up a weighty mantle, and you adhere to a code that holds you apart from those around you.
The first tenet in Tenets of Good is "You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell." Champion tenets are ordered from most to least important, so avoiding your deity's anathema is one of the most important parts of being a champion. Neither a cleric nor a champion of Korada can commit lethal harm.
We don't have any other tenets, but I imagine tenets of evil will also have "You must never perform acts anathema to your deity".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first edict of the tenets of good is "follow your deity's anathema", so I think maybe not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, 5 years from now, we will be arguing about which of the 3 LG champion types is the best one.
I call dibs on the one that shoots lightning.