I saw that there where many thread talking about the argument but none tried to thinker with causes for what I’ve seen.
What I’d like to do is a blueprint on how the tenets and causes of neutrality / balance could be like.
I tried as hard as possible to maintain the ways and wording Paizo uses to design their products. I post it here because I’d like some help to better this first “batch” especially on how the already existing feat would work with the material below.
So feel free to correct, disagree or express your opinions, I plan to upgrade the post with popular decision or ideas.
Also I still did not design any particular feat, so you are all free to propose some of your invention.
[also correct my English if something is incomprehensible]
TENETS OF BALANCE / NEUTRALITY
The tenets and causes of balance follow the rules provided in the Core Rulebook.
Neutral characters in general can range from firm supporter of balance restoring it whenever is needed and by any means necessary to placid hermit that preach about neutrality.
This means they can be extremely disruptive to a typical game and should be accessible player character options only in appropriate adventures or campaigns where the group collectively decides to embrace them.
While the feats and actions suitable for neutral champions don't separately list access entries, your GM could grant you access to evil and good tenets, you also gain access to champion actions and feats that require those tenets.
•You must never perform acts anathema to your deity
•You must never willingly commit a purely good act that would alter the natural balance of a plane, such as willingly overthrow a tyrannical monarch if he is not himself overthrowing the balance.
•You must never willingly commit an act of incredible cruelty, (such as purging of a), if It’s not for the sake of maintaining the higher balance.
•You must strive to maintain a neutral view and behavior. Though you can perform acts others might consider helpful or evil, it must be done with the expectation that it ultimately furthers your own goals or those of balance.
IMPOSE BALANCE 1action focus spell
Range touch; Targets 1 creature
You IMPOSE BALANCE to the mind of the target. If the target is neutral aligned (LN,TN, CN) this restore 1dX Hit Points the target also gains a +X status BONUS to AC for 1 round.
If the target is non neutral creature, this deals 1dX mental damage, the target also takes a –X status penalty to AC for 1 round.
Heightened (+1) Increase the damage dealt by 1dX or increase the Hit Points regained by X.
ARBITER [LAWFUL NEUTRAL]
You think that laws are absolute and reasons with the “categorical imperative”. You gain the “Lawbringer” champion’s reaction and the “IMPOSE BALANCE” devotion spell. Above the tenets of balance, but after your god anathema add these:
•You must always respect and enforce the law of a ruling legislation, (even if its evil) and accept judgment and punishment on you. Respect hierarchies and government. Even if the laws or the decision are wrong. If following what said above would result in a DIRECT cause of great unbalance you can decide to act against this tenet
example: the ruler of the land is going destroy the world as you know it (kefka palazzo style) you can disobey order and act against it while a chaotic evil may find it agreeable you don’t.
•Every oath feat you take that gives you circumstance bonus to saves damage or checks have a +1 added to the respective bonuses, but these oaths are more absolute and doesn’t care about good or evil.
Example dragonslayer oaths gives you bonus against any type of dragon, but you must respect the jurisdiction of evil or good dragons if they have a legitimate claim to rule a country or similar and maintain balance of it.
( this one could be complicated but it could also lead to nice player-GM interaction)
Lawbringer /reaction
Trigger : An enemy attempt to strike, steal, feint or demoralize you or your ally, or try to lie/withhold information during a social encounter and both are within 15 feet of you.
FLUFF : You impose your authority over the enemy. The foe must choose one of the following options:
•The triggering action is disrupted or the creature expose any concealed information.
•If the trigger was met during a combat encounter you gain resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level, or a bonus save against the triggering effect equal to 2 + half your level. After the harmful effect is applied, the enemy becomes stupefied 2 until the end of its next turn.
•If the trigger was met during a social encounter you gain a bonus to a check against the triggering effect equal to 2 + half your level and the creature becomes stupefied 2 until the social encounter end. If a fight breaks out the creature stays stupefied until the end of its next turn.
DIVINE SMITE LEVEL 9
•You punish those who disobey you. If the triggering enemy was using any action to steal, feint or demoralize you or your ally when you used “Lawbringer” the triggering creature takes persistent good or evil damage equal to your Charisma modifier.
EXALT LEVEL 11
•When you use “Lawbringer” every foe or creature associated with the triggering creature within 15 feet of you also become stupefied 2
OATHBREAKER [CHAOTIC NEUTRAL]
Laws and oaths are useful only until you and your friend freedom is not impaired. You gain the “Lawbreaker” champion’s reaction and the “IMPOSE BALANCE” devotion spell. Above the tenets of balance, but after your god anathema add these:
•You may follow laws or oaths beyond those of your code only until they impair your freedom in which case you must not follow them.
•You must destroy that which offends you and your allies and never follow the forces of law if they would impair your course of action. This tenet does not force you to take action immediately if it could mean your destruction.
•You do not gain new tenets from the oaths you take but every oath feat you take that gives you circumstance bonuses have a -2 subtracted to the respective bonuses.(to a minimum of 1)
Lawbreaker /reaction
Trigger : an enemy attempt to “charm” (make helpful or friendly through something), control or fascinate your ally and both are within 15 feet of you.
FLUFF : You attempt to free the target mind from the foe control. The foe must choose one of the following options:
•The triggering action/effect is disrupted or the creature must stop sustaining a spell causing the effect
•The target gains a bonus save against the triggering effect equal to 2 + half your level. After the harmful effect is applied, the enemy becomes stupefied 2 until the end of its next turn.
DIVINE SMITE LEVEL 9
You punish those would control you or your ally. The triggering creature takes persistent good or evil damage equal to your Charisma modifier.
EXALT LEVEL 11
You can help your whole group sustain a mental assault, with a single reaction all allies within 15 feet benefits from from “lawbreaker”.
AWAKENER [TRUE NEUTRAL] (WOKEBOY)
You see Laws and morality disputes as what they truly are fleeting and trivial matters in the face of the neutrality of the universe. You gain the “Awake” champion’s reaction and the “IMPOSE BALANCE” devotion spell. You lose all the tenets except the one to your deity and add these tenets below it:
•You may follow laws or oaths as you see fit but you must never get swayed by those or by a morality choice and follow your or your god vision on higher balance.
•Every time you disobey a tenet given to you by an oath you only lose the effects given by that oath until you conduct an atone ritual.
Awake /reaction
Trigger: you or an ally within 15 feet are getting damaged by good, evil, chaotic or lawful damage.
FLUFF : The body and mind of the harmed becomes calm sanctuary against the impervious attacks bringing him succor.
The target gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level for 1 minute.
DIVINE SMITE LEVEL 9
You bring succor to the awakened creature. If the creature subject to the triggering action was subject to a save check it treats the save result as one degree better.
EXALT LEVEL 11
You can help your whole group to resist the assault, with a single reaction all allies within 15 feet benefits from“Awake”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with cavernshark, having champions of Law and Chaos works a lot better than champions of Neutrality.
If we do see TN champions, I think they'll be a lot more specific than other tenets/causes. Stuff like Champion of the Green Faith, or a champion that serves to keep the cycle of souls working properly.
If they do make Tenants of Neutrality, they need to be about being neutral. A CN champion must not just be willing to work with a LN champion, the tenants must be worded so that they actively see one another as allies against their -G and -E counterparts, due to having more commonality in outlook than a CN would have with CE, or LN would have with LG.
Which is a very large challenge, but I have confidence in their creativity.
I take a very different view.
I think a LN champion should be as opposed to a CN champion as a LG champion would be to a LE champion.
Honestly, LN is just Hellknights, except they get too muddied with good and evil in a lot of cases but their original calling was to law.
In any event, I think the only thing a champion of TN could be is a champion of balance, who works with groups to bring balance between good and evil, but is never really your friend or ally. Merely someone who thinks the cosmic status quo needs to be maintained.
|
My view of the Neutral alignments is that they consider Good and Evil to be too opinionated and too focused on an interesting but in the end small matter of how innocents should be treated. While the really important thing is to fight Chaos everywhere to ensure that things last. Or to fight the system to ensure that people can really live their own lives.
And True Neutral considers both how you treat innocents and how you react to authority as interesting topics but ultimately irrelevant to the greater scheme of things, whether that be Nature, Life and Death, Magic or any other deep subject uninterested in Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.
I take a very different view.
I think a LN champion should be as opposed to a CN champion as a LG champion would be to a LE champion.
Honestly, LN is just Hellknights, except they get too muddied with good and evil in a lot of cases but their original calling was to law.
In any event, I think the only thing a champion of TN could be is a champion of balance, who works with groups to bring balance between good and evil, but is never really your friend or ally. Merely someone who thinks the cosmic status quo needs to be maintained.
Then it is tenants of Law/Chaos, not Neutrality. If the -N means nothing, then there's no point in writing up Tenants. Just stick with Tenants of Law or Tenants of Chaos.
Edit: To be clear, I have no particular opposition to going that route. My point is that if they do try for Neutrality, it has to mean something besides filling in a graph.
I take a very different view.
I think a LN champion should be as opposed to a CN champion as a LG champion would be to a LE champion.
Honestly, LN is just Hellknights, except they get too muddied with good and evil in a lot of cases but their original calling was to law.
In any event, I think the only thing a champion of TN could be is a champion of balance, who works with groups to bring balance between good and evil, but is never really your friend or ally. Merely someone who thinks the cosmic status quo needs to be maintained.
Then it is tenants of Law/Chaos, not Neutrality. If the -N means nothing, then there's no point in writing up Tenants. Just stick with Tenants of Law or Tenants of Chaos.
Edit: To be clear, I have no particular opposition to going that route. My point is that if they do try for Neutrality, it has to mean something besides filling in a graph.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Neutrality is a lack of conviction towards something. Short of the idea of maintaining balance between opposing forces in an active manner, neutrality doesn't represent anything. Or rather represents a lack of conviction or desire for Good/Evil or Law/Chaos (or both).
That's why I responded as I did, neutral doesn't mean anything except if you take it as an Champion of Balance concept.
To me neutral is the average human default. Lacking conviction to do meaningful good in a a sustained way, but also reviling evil enough to avoid it. Lacking a desire to see the world organized and orchestrated to the point where everything runs like a ticking clock, but also a desire to avoid seeing everything become the chaotic swirl of the maelstrom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think TN Champions should be deity specific. Neutrality doesn't lack conviction, it lacks a strong opinion on the alignment spectrum; a theoretical Champion of Nethys has very strong opinions on magic and the spread of knowledge, they just don't particularly care if that knowledge is used to help or harm. However, an overall TN Champion based on this model would make zero sense for a Champion of Pharasma, who likewise has very strong opinions on the eradication of the undead but is otherwise unconcerned with morality and social structure.
When I was talking about conviction it was with respect to alignment and alignment subjects.
Certainly a worshipper of magic is going to be very concerned about magic. He isn't going to care so much if it's used for good or evil or chaos or law.
Characters do exist in ways that aren't captured by a 3 by 3 alignment grid.
I would also rather see Tenets of Law and Tenets of Chaos instead of Tenets of Neutrality.
I'm not coming up with much to codify Vehement Neutral as anything other than 'opposed to the status-quo'. And being opposed to the status-quo is more of a Chaotic alignment type of thing.
I think a true neutral religious zealot makes the most sense, but sounds incredibly difficult to write universal rules for. What exactly do followers of the neutral gods have in common? And right now, the only official god in a book that requires true neutral alignment is Ng the god of Advanced Hide & Seek and taking down your Christmas in time; not exactly Champion worthy causes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no strong feelings about these ideas one way or the other!
What exactly do followers of the neutral gods have in common?
Striving for balance may be an option, e.g. rejecting all extremes be they good or evil.
Achieving balance by strict adherence to rules (Order), letting balance achieve itself (Naturalism), achieving balance by constant change (Anarchism).
I am unsure of whether tenets of balance are really necessary. The way I see it is that balance is an inherently lawful neutral thing, but one can be a lawful neutral supporter of virtually anything if you set your mind to it with sufficient gusto and disregard for collateral damage and personal safety. Remember also that Law and Chaos are equally far apart as Good and Evil. Given which I've written a few neutrality specific tenets, based on my interpretations of these alignments. Note that these are pretty extensive, and not at all polished: they are just suggestions.
Crusader[lawful neutral]
edicts:
-commit yourself fully to causes.
-do whatever it takes to fulfill your promises.
-act without compromise, based upon your beleifs and commitments above all other things.
-broker disputes between your allies accurately, based on evidence and agreed law over perceived or actual slight.
-Respest lawful authority, whether good or evil, without commiting crimes.
anathema:
-give up in pursuit of your goals.
-break any promises you make, or moral principles you set yourself.
-hold yourself to anything but the highest standards.
-decieve.
-interpret law in any way other than that in which it is written.
Pragmat[neutral]
edicts:
-make difficult decisions and accept the outcomes.
-be humble.
-know who you call a friend and treat them as such
-assess all results of an action.
-live and let live.
anathema:
-take oaths which bind you to take actions when you may not wish to.
-put the principles over desires.
-act without regard for outcomes.
-act against your better judgement.
-unreasonably constrain your emotion.
Wanderer[chaotic neutral]
edicts:
-act as your whim dictates.
-never sleep in the same bed twice.
-seek to subvert rules as you come into conflict with them.
anathema:
-bind yourself to a cause.
-make a promise.
-constrain your emotion.
What exactly do followers of the neutral gods have in common?Striving for balance may be an option, e.g. rejecting all extremes be they good or evil.
Achieving balance by strict adherence to rules (Order), letting balance achieve itself (Naturalism), achieving balance by constant change (Anarchism).
This actually outright doesn't work for Pharasma, since she specifically rejects Evil and Chaos in PF2.
|
|
I think a true neutral religious zealot makes the most sense, but sounds incredibly difficult to write universal rules for. What exactly do followers of the neutral gods have in common? And right now, the only official god in a book that requires true neutral alignment is Ng the god of Advanced Hide & Seek and taking down your Christmas in time; not exactly Champion worthy causes.
Note that the Champion's cause is linked to their alignment and not that of their deity.
Which is all the more reason to get Neutral Champion's causes asap.
Currently, LN Abadar can have LG and LE Champions, but not LN ones.
IIRC the aligned tenets come before the causes and the deity's edicts. We have those for Good and for Evil. The Neutral ones must be different enough from both.
Or maybe having to be of the required Neutral alignment and following the deity's edicts and anathemas could be enough. And the mechanics would be linked to the alignment.
So that as long as you stay LN and put your deity's rules above anything else, you get the LN Champion's abilities. And same for TN and CN.
Note that the Champion's cause is linked to their alignment and not that of their deity.
Which is all the more reason to get Neutral Champion's causes asap.
Currently, LN Abadar can have LG and LE Champions, but not LN ones.
I don't see that as a need for a Neutral cause though. Lawful and Chaotic causes, absolutely.
I think if there is to be a neutral cause, this Balance Guardian, it should be any neutral, not just between good and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see a "Patriot" Champion (LN) who is all about holding up a particular countries laws and social order, their life for their country type figure
And a "Wanderer" Champion (CN) who is all about making their way through the world and just embracing what life has to offer, their power would literally be wrapped up in their commitment to their own journey.
These would be much easier to fit into the life of an adventurer/ incidental hero, be very flavorful, and different from what we have now.
I think TN Champions should be deity specific. Neutrality doesn't lack conviction, it lacks a strong opinion on the alignment spectrum; a theoretical Champion of Nethys has very strong opinions on magic and the spread of knowledge, they just don't particularly care if that knowledge is used to help or harm. However, an overall TN Champion based on this model would make zero sense for a Champion of Pharasma, who likewise has very strong opinions on the eradication of the undead but is otherwise unconcerned with morality and social structure.
I don't disagree, but I feel like something like this should be accessible to any alignment.
If it is going to lack alignment power anyways, and to be useable by TN champions of TN deities, it will almost have to, no reason to restrict it then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think TN Champions should be deity specific. Neutrality doesn't lack conviction, it lacks a strong opinion on the alignment spectrum; a theoretical Champion of Nethys has very strong opinions on magic and the spread of knowledge, they just don't particularly care if that knowledge is used to help or harm. However, an overall TN Champion based on this model would make zero sense for a Champion of Pharasma, who likewise has very strong opinions on the eradication of the undead but is otherwise unconcerned with morality and social structure.I don't disagree, but I feel like something like this should be accessible to any alignment.
If it is going to lack alignment power anyways, and to be useable by TN champions of TN deities, it will almost have to, no reason to restrict it then.
Yeah, I agree with that too. My point is largely that for a TN Champion to exist it has to avoid the question of alignment to not contradict the TN deities. Iomedae and Torag have similarities, Asmodeus and Zon Kuthon have similarities. Brigh and Gozreh could not possibly be more different.
There's really no way to make a unified code for the TN deities. "Champion of Balance" falls apart if applied to Nethys; he is comprised of two parts but they are as imbalanced and erratic as can be.
However, it does leave room to have Champions of specific deities. However, if we ever got such a thing it would be well down the road since that's a super specific concept.
It almost might be a archetype or dedication.
Like I can't imagine a Champion of Nethys using anything martial.
But as an archetype on any spellcaster that might have unique reactions dealing with spells seems reasonable.
Like I can't imagine a Champion of Nethys using anything martial.
It never occurred to me before, but actually there are already two possible paths to play a Champion of Nethys as a redeemer or desecrator at this time--conveniently reflecting his duality of protector and destroyer. In both cases the champion does, in fact, posses a spell and a reaction which is not explicitly magical but can be lost with the god's favour...
Only thing is I feel like it would be difficult to uphold the anathema against mundane pursuits when magical ones are available, but with domains, champion spells, and a spell casting archetype as a bard, sorcerer, or oracle, it would be doable.
-
Aside from that, I wanted to drop by because I had an idea for a Chaotic tenet -- 'motion' and change. The basic idea is that life is like swimming, if you are not in motion, you are drowning or dead, so you must keep moving, growing, changing, and pursuing your desires.
This philosophy cares neither for mercy or goodness (not as concerned with freeing others) nor for pointless cruelty and evil (whoever gets in the way is fair game though), only that the adherent never stops or stagnates in their life, never settles for what they have and never stops moving forward on some desire or another, never stops challenging themselves.
Those of you who play popular team battle games may recognise this as borrowed from philosophy of Illaoi and her god Nagakabouros from League of Legends. From the moment she was released I felt she would make an interesting chaotic neutral cleric or warpriest. Incidentally, I feel like there would be a lot of room for overlap with Besmara, and these tenets feel right for the pirate queen, too.
In short, Nagakabouros (aka the Kraken, aka the Bearded Lady, aka "Names don't matter, action does!") prizes motion and change in a way that I think would be fitting to many chaotic neutral deities and deities which allow that alignment. Some quotes to establish theme:
"To die is to drown - so I will swim well, till I can swim no more."
"We are born knowing what to do. We must only act."
"It is terrible to be satisfied. The world needs us to chase dreams."
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens."
One that speaks to me both under Calistria and Gorum:
"Life is the sweetness of fruit, and the joy of battle!"
-
PS btw yes, the concept of neutrality as a balance point between opposites is explicitly a lawful ideology. This is part of the reason why aeons have revealed themselves as lawful outsiders who created the inevitables. Furthermore I have always kind of hated the idea that true neutral was or had to be the alignment that cares for the hypothetical balance between philosophies... It feels too artificial and not grounded in the lives of people in the setting to look at an alignment chart and make a philosophy out of maintaining that balance.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take on the Neutral tenets :
. You must never perform acts anathema to your deity.
. You must never put your own needs before those of your deity. You must never knowingly harm an innocent unless doing so furthers the goals of your deity.
Taking from both Good and Evil tenets without forbidding aligned acts, and putting your deity's goals above anything else. No need for protecting innocents but also no need for oppressing them. And no talk of "your master" because it smacks too much of Evil.
My take on the Neutral tenets :
. You must never perform acts anathema to your deity.
. You must never put your own needs before those of your deity. You must never knowingly harm an innocent unless doing so furthers the goals of your deity.
Taking from both Good and Evil tenets without forbidding aligned acts, and putting your deity's goals above anything else. No need for protecting innocents but also no need for oppressing them. And no talk of "your master" because it smacks too much of Evil.
It's so simple that its genius.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think neutral is a complicated alignment because it can manifest in several distinct ways. (different/reasons/causes/applications)
We recognize how people view alignment as how people's views on the more generalized aspects of moral and ethical axis, and neutral is generally seen as not having an opinion. But lets be honest, most people don't 'not haven an opinion'.
The classic True Neutral focuses on balance, and has a distinct, and potentially strong feeling about the moral and ethical issues, but thinks without both sides things will degrade into something bad. This is one view of neutrality, but it is probably honestly not the most common example in existence. As pointed out it also has a lot more lawful bend to it than most people associate with true 'neutrality'. This makes your absolute neutral kind of fall over on one side of the lawful/chaotic spectrum, which leaves me wondering if that's wrong, or something would need to be done to adjust that. (it might be fine, or if you have someone only worried about balance on the moral spectrum, might be an option for a LN, and jumping sides on the G/E sides as things change to insure things stay balanced)
Another form often associated with Neutrality is those that are outside of such... the innocent... unaware... incapable of grasping and thus responsible for moral or ethical decisions. They might include for instance perhaps children, animals, automatons, or other things that could be categorized as mindless. Here they are excluded from the expectation of moral choices because they aren't developed enough to 'make' choices themselves, or at least be responsible for said choices. From an alignment side, this is sort of an excuse alignment however. It might almost be better to consider it a NA alignment than a neutral, but I bring it up for clarity and to try to cover the spectrum, as it does seem relevant. I don't think you can really have a Champion of this alignment, unless you have someone who 'defends' these innocents, or creatures/things that have no alignment from those who do, and use these beings for their own aligned purposes. (interesting thought, I started the sentence thinking you couldn't come up with a champion of this, but in the end, came up with an example)
Now, completely beside the first two, I would be inclined to say the almost easiest alignment that might fit into neutral, and could be easily described is a reflexive neutrality. With the concept of, do unto others, as they do unto you. You are morally or ethically expected to reciprocate your treatment of others as best you can. Don't be cruel to those who are nice to you, but don't let them boss you around and make you do what they want, just because they were nice to you. If someone is being cruel to you, should you have the power to overthrow their influence over you, do so to protect yourself, and you don't have to show them mercy, if they didn't show it to you. This is pretty easy to explain, and it shows a different moral compass. Where the morality of the action is not universal, but instead is relative to your relationship with the target.
Another way you can separate the universal morality of actions vs. individuals is another way I think we see in life. Where the Morality/Ethics of an individuals actions are not so much determined by what is done, universally, but by your relationship with them. Not as individually related, as in the reflexive neutrality, but a bit more generalized. Seeing the town guard torturing strangers who come in town and reportedly show the guard disrespect, is no concern of the local citizen, and if anything perhaps a good thing as you want your community to be safe. However, if that visitor getting tortured, you suddenly realize is your cousin, you suddenly have a different view of the situation, and would be willing to do something to help them, because you feel morally compelled to do so, for your family.
Hearing about the slaughter of innocents in the nation to the south, is no business of yours, and you won't feel compelled to feed a band of soldiers headed there, or coming back from there to recuperate after trying to bring justice to the land. That is until your daughter married a citizen of that nation, and their in-laws are now the persecuted class in that nation. As that connection forms, the morality and importance or relevance of the situation becomes relevant.
This is an example of why I could imagine a neutral shepherd type character cooperating with an overtly evil authority. They aren't inherently evil sort, but they allow those things that are evil to happen to those the community don't really know, the strangers passing through, not the local residents. They don't wish any evil on anyone, but any control they have over the situation, they will use to make said evil pass to those they don't know.
Absolutely, from a more absolute moral and ethical standpoint. Guiding evil actions to innocent people you don't know would probably by most be seen as an evil act by way of abetting the situation. However, said individual would despite being involved in evil acts, might be very easily persuaded to aid the Good side, if a situation were presented that they believe it would do away with the constant threat to their community, because they don't want the evil around them, they don't revel in it. They just want good for their own little world. (and are willing to allow evil to fall on others, if that is what it takes)
As a relatively simple example of this, armies rely on this sort of alignment to a degree. The army works for a nation or authority, and that authority defines who is good and who is bad (note, saying good/bad not good/evil). Rendering the bad powerless is their job, and you are expected to attack the enemy even before you see them personally do something against you.
Ok, even these examples however can exist in any example. You could potentially have a 'Good' elven citizen hearing about the slaughter of thousands of goblins, and they laugh or even cheer because they never learned that goblins could be anything other than evil. So they aren't applying their moral standard to that situation, because of that exception. A good soul may have the taste for vengeance and preform otherwise evil acts on occasion due to it, and for story reasons we probably want to let that be able to happen. Good doesn't have to be pure to be able to stand.
So I think where one of these forms of Neutrality would be called into place would be when the biggest part of determining if something is moral is determined by your relationship to them. Note, evil will help their neighbor, if it helps themselves in the long run. In this example, a neutral might help their neighbor, maybe even laying down their life for them, because they are their neighbor, not because it will probably net them something out of it. But they would not raise a finger to help the stranger that it would not really even really take any risk to save, simply because they don't know them.
Anyway, if you include all the people who allow evil things to happen to good people within an evil empire as being neutral people (and not evil people) then I think this means that the above examples are reasonable groups that could fall under neutrality.
The question being what of these aspects are reasonable concepts to form Tenets around for a Champion, so that they aren't just 'do whatever you feel like at the moment' tenet that would be impossible to imagine being able to be seen as a limiting factor, and thus hard to imagine them being a Paragon of an identifiable concept.
A reflexive champion, destined to try to help those seen aiding others, and likewise oppressing those who oppress could perhaps be doable. Such a champion might help the poor in an unkind kingdom, but aid the struggling thieves guild in a strong orderly city.
Other options, as mentioned would be to tie the neutral champion to an authority other than alignment, such as a nation, a church, or other cause, and build the anathema off of that ideal's needs rather than specific moral aspects.
Perhaps instead of being bound by more alignment based restrictions, a neutral champion might choose a deity and make a specific VOW choice that would have stronger Anathema than the standard normally set with the Tenets of Good or Evil, but provides some variety in restrictions that could be chosen. (things like ultimate allegiance to a nation, city, guild, clan, family, or even an individual?)
All that said, I still feel however, that generally speaking, a LN should be more opposed to a CN champion, than they should view them as an ally. The things/decisions that are most relevant to them and consistent in their beliefs, are opposed. The fact that they agree on some things being complicated subjects that depend on certain factors seems like it should be lessor of their concerns. So I'm more inclined to believe that having a Tenet of Law and Tenet of Chaos would be the next step in the processes, and they should oppose each other.
All that said, I'm not against, any eventual Champion of a Tenet of Neutrality which could come after those. If such a Champion/tenet is allowed to extend to LN and CN, I think it should also be allowed to extend to NG and NE. I know people like to view the G/E axis as the primary, but I really feel like to do justice for Neutrality, you need to acknowledge both are viable axis and choices.
... That strikes me as an actually tenable view of neutral champions that aligns rather nicely with my own (I have often given the shorthand description of the moral axis as 'Good is caring about and/or helping everyone you can, Neutral is helping people from your 'circle' ie family, friends, community, religion, on a case by case basis, and Evil is caring about helping yourself first and foremost).
Even better, it lends itself rather nicely to a tenet along the lines of "Do unto others as they have done unto you" and "Protect your own".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a good discussion. I think that it was silly to make these canned Codes, LG (paladin), NG (Redeemer), CG (Freedom) etc. look at lawful good for example, only Iomedae is the classic Paladin, sword and shield destroy the evil knight of good trope that the LG Code enforces, the other strictly LG deities Torag and Erastil really aren't that gung-ho even if the LG tenets sorta line up, but the further from the traditional Paladin you stray the muddier that water gets, NG, sure Sarenrae is the Arch-typical redeemer but Shelyn really doesn't care, she's just about art and love, go all the way through evil, LE is tyranny, really that's just Asmodeus's racket, Zon-Kuthon just wants pain. it seems they picked one of the gods at each Tenet alignment and said 'yep, this is everything this alignment means'.
What would have made more sense and made the Neutral alignments trivial is if each god simply had a Champion Code section just after their domains and such. then we wouldn't have to scratch our head about how the codes and tenets really line up, it would be as simple as weaponized domain flavor/ reaction vs anathema.
Champion of Zon-Kuthon, generically being all about oppressive tyranny instead is about pain, darkness and void, their reaction could be some along the lines of "if an enemy with 15ft heals a ally cause some damage and they are sickened 2 with pain. which for ZK is more more flavorful than causing them pain/damage after refusing your authority.
OR a Champion of Pharasma, if attacked by undead or a negative energy attack gain resistance 2 + level against attacker for the next round etc.
overall I like that they opened champions up but this slow trickle of one size fits all rules around it is kinda frustrating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a good discussion. I think that it was silly to make these canned Codes, LG (paladin), NG (Redeemer), CG (Freedom) etc. look at lawful good for example, only Iomedae is the classic Paladin, sword and shield destroy the evil knight of good trope that the LG Code enforces, the other strictly LG deities Torag and Erastil really aren't that gung-ho even if the LG tenets sorta line up, but the further from the traditional Paladin you stray the muddier that water gets, NG, sure Sarenrae is the Arch-typical redeemer but Shelyn really doesn't care, she's just about art and love, go all the way through evil, LE is tyranny, really that's just Asmodeus's racket, Zon-Kuthon just wants pain. it seems they picked one of the gods at each Tenet alignment and said 'yep, this is everything this alignment means'.
A lot of these descriptions of what deities care about are pretty wrong. Shelyn, for example, is literally dating Sarenrae, refuses to give up on redeeming her brother, and has an anathema against 'refuse to accept surrender'. Redeemer is very on-point for her. Similarly, while Zon-Kuthon is certainly big on pain and despair, as the nation of Nidal and everything about it demonstrates he actually is also big on hierarchy, if not to the extent of Asmodeus.
Which is not to say you're entirely wrong, some less common Gods are a bit less of a good fit (such as Kurgess or Arshea, both NG deities, being not exactly Redeemer-centric), but the core 20 mostly fit the specific Codes laid out pretty well.