Is the behaviour of Champions (Paladins) more restricted than ever?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I am new to Pathfinder 2e, and I have been mostly checking the core material to see if it is worth switching to.

Something that has striken me is how strictly defined is the expected behaviour of Champions... when you layer the need to keep your alignment, to follow your Cause, Tenets, Edicts and avoid the Anathemas, it feels like a straightjacket...

Am I right, or am I overreacting?

Besides that, which deity do you think would allow most freedom to your typical LG adventurer who wanders around taking quests and bounties to kill evil creatures...?

Erastil seem okay if you plan to stay at your home village, being a decent person and protecting your neighbors, but he will probably get pissed if you leave to pursue adventure, wealth and fame...

Torag is similar to Erastil, with more focus on killing the enemies of your people.

Iomedae seem to expect her followers to be more "knightly" than other paladins, accepting duels and such. She also expects them to be temperate, which is kinda vague... where is the limit? are you expected to fast? can you wear flashy clothes? drink wine? own a fancy manse...?

Sanserae seems quite easy to follow at first glance... protecting your allies and healing the sick is something a decent person would want to do anyways... but she also demands that you destroy evil AND forgive repentant creatures... that may be hard to balance...

Irori demands that you perfect yourself, which is kind of a given to most PCs (they are becoming stronger all the time...), but you also have to help others perfect themselves, which can be a bother (am I required to take disciples...?), and you have to maintain self-control, which is kind a vague... where is the line? how ascetic are you expected to be?

Apsu seems easy to follow for a regular PC... you are expected to "Seek and destroy evil, travel the world, help others fend for themselves" and avoid to "Fail to pursue a foe who has betrayed your mercy, attack a creature without certainty of wrongdoing..."

Most LG PCs would do all of that anyways... but Apsu probably accepts few non-dragons as Champions...

Kurgess seems okay, but he is a bit too focused on athletic competition...

Horus and Ra seem to focus mostly on leaders.

Anubis seems to focus mostly on fighting undead.

Osiris seems to focus on agriculture and burials.

Thoth focus on knowledge and research.

Wadjet, much like Erastil and Torag, seems focused on the protection of your community, which may be hard for a traveling paladin...

Isis looks great... heal the sick? use magic to help the needy? don't be an a+$@&#!? Yeah, can do that...

Ma'at don't look too hard either... be honest and destroy monsters... the first part wouldn't be too hard, and PCs do the second for a living anyways...

Trudd seems easy to follow for your average PC... Using your power to help others weaker than yourself? That's basically the job description of a LG adventurer! However, Trudd is a dwarven god, and I don't know if he accepts non-dwarves...

Shizuru's dogma is kind of a mixed bag: protect nature, protect lovers, train everyday, be honourable... sort of like following the dogma of four different deities simultaneously...

Tsukiyou focuses mostly on helping the suffering ones... not a hard thing to do, but he probably expects his followers to spend a lot of time doing it...

I feel like Apsu, Isis, Ma'at and Trudd are probably the easiest to follow, but Apsu and Trudd are racial a gods (are they restricted...?).


21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The big thing is now the Champion codes are, well... Codified. There's a lot less room for no win situations and endless paladin fall debates because the tenets have a ranking and clear instructions on how they supercede each other. I would say adding the anathemas has probably made the paladin a little more restrictive as a baseline but you're not going to feel the pinch as much in extreme cases.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
the tenets have a ranking and clear instructions on how they supercede each other.

I feel that is the important part. That is what makes the Champion Tenets better than in previous editions.

So taking the Paladin of Erastil as an example, you don't have to worry about the Edict of 'care for your home and family' because your Tenet to protect innocents and do good takes priority.

As I am reading it, you follow in order:

1) Cannot do anathema actions of Deity.
2) Follow Tenets.
3) Follow additional tenets from specific Cause.
4) Follow Edicts of Deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dagnew wrote:
I feel like Apsu, Isis, Ma'at and Trudd are probably the easiest to follow, but Apsu and Trudd are racial a gods (are they restricted...?

"Are they restricted" is a question that depends on your choices about which games to join.

If you want a character that is legal for Pathfinder Society, then yes, there are restrictions. Each god has certain restrictions on the alignment of their followers. PFS also has restrictions on what alignments characters can be. You'd have to be sure that the god you chose allowed followers of an alignment that is also allowed in PFS.

If you are playing in home games or non-Society public games, then the answer is "ask your GM". They are the person who will have the final say over which gods your character can follow. And, for story reasons, they might not allow a character from one part of Golarion to be a follower of a god from a different nation or region.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Gods associated with specific ancestries are noted as having followings outside of that ancestry; Torag is noted as having a large human following that sometimes clashes ideologically with his most conservative dwarf clergy, for example. You don't have to be a kobold to revere Apsu.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much all parts of your tenets, cause and god's stipulations are vague on purpose. On Golarion, their interpretation would vary for every person, culture or organization, as it is the case for religions here on Earth. For example, the "be temperate" edict of Iomedae for a noble in a very rich country could mean that they do only provide more modest feasts, while for a travelling crusader it could demand that he not jump into every fight without observing first.

So yes, while Champions are more restricted than other classes, it is more a problem of "can I play this in this AP/campaign". Obviously, playing a paladin in Hells Vengeance (an evil AP) or with a very "chaotic neutral" party might be a bit of a problem. In all other cases I think of it as more of a fun RP guideline than anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m really, really unhappy with Champions.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I simply don't see the issue. There's a clear hierarchy of what's most important.

Do you have more guidelines? Sure.

That's not a bad thing, IMO. You just have to make sure the character you want to play lines up with the kind of champion and deity you want to serve.

Which honestly just makes sense.

Like, do you research and find out which god matches the kind of character you have in mind and play that.

Or know that you're going to play character that isn't perfectly in sync with the dogma and that it will create roleplay opportunities for you.

Regardless I don't see a problem.

I feel like the only reason to complain is if you were one of those people who really relished in living in the grey area while being labeled as a paladin.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll also say if you want slot of the flavour of a Champion, but for some reason that doesn't include being a righteous paragon of your deity and cause, fighter with an archetype probably does the job. For example Blessed One or Cavalier.

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins


Claxon wrote:
I feel like the only reason to complain is if you were one of those people who really relished in living in the grey area while being labeled as a paladin.

Hardly so...

Let say your Champion fights and defeats the warchief of the the orcish horde that is the main foe in the adventure.

The orc surrenders and asks for mercy.

Sanserae demands that you give him a chance to redeem himself.
Torag demands that you slay him.
Apsu demands grant him mercy once, but afterwards, if he doesn't redeem himself, it is your duty to hunt and kill him.

All three are perfectly valid choices for a Paladin, but if you don't do as your deity says, you are committing anathema, and you are screwed... I feel like your choices are being taken from you...

Malk_Content wrote:
I'll also say if you want slot of the flavour of a Champion, but for some reason that doesn't include being a righteous paragon of your deity and cause, fighter with an archetype probably does the job. For example Blessed One or Cavalier.

But, are these practical choices? I have heard there are plenty of traps in Pathfinder 2e that create very suboptimal characters...


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Dagnew wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I feel like the only reason to complain is if you were one of those people who really relished in living in the grey area while being labeled as a paladin.

Hardly so...

Let say your Champion fights and defeats the warchief of the the orcish horde that is the main foe in the adventure.

The orc surrenders and asks for mercy.

Sanserae demands that you give him a chance to redeem himself.
Torag demands that you slay him.
Apsu demands grant him mercy once, but afterwards, if he doesn't redeem himself, it is your duty to hunt and kill him.

All three are perfectly valid choices for a Paladin, but if you don't do as your deity says, you are committing anathema, and you are screwed... I feel like your choices are being taken from you...

The entire premise of the class is that you follow the tenets above your own desires (or alternatively, that the tenants are your desires).

Champion class description wrote:
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.

I mean, on the one hand you're entirely correct that if you don't follow the guidelines of your class and deity, then you're screwed, but on the other hand that's the whole point behind the class... if you want to be able to freely choose, then just play something else. Or don't and use it as a roleplay opportunity. It's perfectly fine to dedicate yourself to one deity, and then find that they don't work quite as well as you want and switch to a different one. Remember, these are good guys, they're not going to deliberately screw you over just for having different preferences or even a minor point of contention with them. Even Vildeis, the worst possible stereotype of LG, freely encourages her followers to change to a different deity if they can't deal with her code.

Dagnew wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'll also say if you want slot of the flavour of a Champion, but for some reason that doesn't include being a righteous paragon of your deity and cause, fighter with an archetype probably does the job. For example Blessed One or Cavalier.
But, are these practical choices? I have heard there are plenty of traps in Pathfinder 2e that create very suboptimal characters...

In general I've found that it's pretty much the opposite. You can of course make a suboptimal character, but usually most problems are because you're playing in a way that doesn't actually work with your build than because the build itself is bad. Both of those archetypes will work just fine with a fighter.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

You are absolutely free to chose your cause and your deity.

Chose them so the tenets & anathema/ edict got with the character RP?

Liberty's Edge

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dagnew wrote:

Sanserae demands that you give him a chance to redeem himself.

Torag demands that you slay him.
Apsu demands grant him mercy once, but afterwards, if he doesn't redeem himself, it is your duty to hunt and kill him.

All three are perfectly valid choices for a Paladin, but if you don't do as your deity says, you are committing anathema, and you are screwed... I feel like your choices are being taken from you...

If you don’t want to act in accordance with your deity, why are you choosing to follow that deity? If you don’t want to play a paladin who will always grant mercy, why are you even following Saerenrae?


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I'm not sure what the objection here is now. If you don't want to be living up to the ideals of your deity, why are you picking "live up to the ideals of your deity, the class."


26 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always found that the rules for "how champions act" are literally guidelines, and as long as you're making a good faith effort you're going to be okay.

Like Torag says "show no mercy to the enemies of my people" but a paladin of Torag doesn't need to slay the goblin children since "this child is not an enemy of my people, it is a child" is an acceptable response which also shows that you are paying attention to the principles of your deity and what they mean.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Dagnew wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I feel like the only reason to complain is if you were one of those people who really relished in living in the grey area while being labeled as a paladin.

Hardly so...

Let say your Champion fights and defeats the warchief of the the orcish horde that is the main foe in the adventure.

The orc surrenders and asks for mercy.

Sanserae demands that you give him a chance to redeem himself.
Torag demands that you slay him.
Apsu demands grant him mercy once, but afterwards, if he doesn't redeem himself, it is your duty to hunt and kill him.

All three are perfectly valid choices for a Paladin, but if you don't do as your deity says, you are committing anathema, and you are screwed... I feel like your choices are being taken from you...

NO! NOT AT ALL! NOT EVEN A LITTLE! (from my perspective).

You (your character) chose to follow the deity and their commands/edicts.

If they rub you the wrong way, then you aren't meant to be their follower. Don't choose that deity in the first place, or be prepared to roleplay your character leaving the fold and becoming an ex-Champion.

It honestly sounds like you simply want to be able to do whatever your whim desires, which isn't a character that devotes itself to following someone else, namely a deity.

So it ultimately sounds like you just don't want to play a character devoted to a deity, which is fine. Simply don't do it.

Grand Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just a note that for ALL classes, "Edicts" are only "nice to have". You don't *have* to do them. But they are things that the deity looks favorably on, and could go out of their way to help/reward you *more* if you follow them well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins

For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the 2e Champions. I feel like they've cleaned up a lot of quibbling and made it easy to adjudicate as a DM, and I think they're actually the least restrictive they've ever been because of how explicit the priorities are. Some things your character just can't do, but that's honestly what you're signing up for.

Maybe because my first ever D&D 3.0 character was a Paladin, but I really like the roleplaying that comes with picking a class that has established in-world parameters. You get to be as close to an objective hero as the game world gets; you have the opportunity to make those really big, tough decisions that can be defining moments in a narrative (e.g. Ned Stark in GoT). You have a relationship with the game world that other characters don't. I like it when my players really think about the philosophy of their character and their deity as it relates to the practical considerations in front of them in day-to-day adventuring.

As others have said, if you aren't on board with a deity's edicts and the class' code of conduct, why not pick something else? That's sort of the point of Champions and Clerics. That said, though, I think a lot of DMs also don't work with players enough to make the payoff for Clerics and Champions really concrete.

Like I'm pretty liberal with the minor Divine Intercessions and playing up the awe-inspiring impressiveness of a Champion/Cleric who faithfully executes their deity's will. I have a Warpriest of Shizuru who's gone all-in on the Champion dedication, for example, and their blade regularly shines with the light of The Empress of Heaven's majesty. The moderate boon helped them when hope was dwindling against a Vrock demon.

I also make sure that, as members of established clergy, they're able to come upon a new environment with some of that baggage, for good or bad. A Champion of Iomedae, for example, might be welcomed with open arms into a town in desperate need for a hero. A Cleric of Torag might be asked to hold court with the local blacksmiths for a morning and get some goodwill that way, or a Desnan might have a solid in with the local Varisian population. I had a Cleric of Irori who was trusted with going into an off-limits Osirian tomb because the guards knew that they were a devoted keeper of knowledge.

That kind of stuff, I think, really makes players consider their character as part of a world and something bigger, and makes the edicts/anathema/codes a lot more interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want less restrictions wouldn't a CG champion suit you better?

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
fanatic66 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins
For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.

Meh, 5e removed most flavorful aspect of paladins in favor of "eh they are just all alignments now", aka they didn't add anything to replace code of honor


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fanatic66 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins
For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.

5E Paladins are cool but I'm kinda over them, simply because they get so much mechanical love and their tenets are so simple and (for some subclasses) one-note that playing one kind of feels like cheating. A vibe along the lines of playing an overpowered self-insert who's stronger than normal people just because they care about something a lot. Maybe this is an uncharitable memory, though, it's been a while since I've played one and they've soured for me is all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find champions/paladins much more playable/ok to have in a party now. Especially the removal of the obnoxious and annoying detect evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins
For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.
Meh, 5e removed most flavorful aspect of paladins in favor of "eh they are just all alignments now", aka they didn't add anything to replace code of honor

I actually like the 5e paladin, but part of why they work is because 5e was preoared to cut ties with alignment mechanics almost entirely. Based on the playtest feedback, the Pathfinder community did not seem ready for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally find Champion codes a lot more clear cut, which I highly appreciate since breaking the code means I lose powers and abilities. I'm also glad that your alignment actually means something here.

What I love the most however is that the good Champions are actually good at protecting people beyond just taking out big threats and sometimes parking their heavily armored rump in a chokepoint. Now they reduce damage to other people, and usually only other people, with their special reactions.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dagnew wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I feel like the only reason to complain is if you were one of those people who really relished in living in the grey area while being labeled as a paladin.

Hardly so...

Let say your Champion fights and defeats the warchief of the the orcish horde that is the main foe in the adventure.

The orc surrenders and asks for mercy.

Sanserae demands that you give him a chance to redeem himself.
Torag demands that you slay him.
Apsu demands grant him mercy once, but afterwards, if he doesn't redeem himself, it is your duty to hunt and kill him.

All three are perfectly valid choices for a Paladin, but if you don't do as your deity says, you are committing anathema, and you are screwed... I feel like your choices are being taken from you...

Malk_Content wrote:
I'll also say if you want slot of the flavour of a Champion, but for some reason that doesn't include being a righteous paragon of your deity and cause, fighter with an archetype probably does the job. For example Blessed One or Cavalier.

But, are these practical choices? I have heard there are plenty of traps in Pathfinder 2e that create very suboptimal characters...

Really the choice wasn't taken from you, you just made it in character creation when you decided on a deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins
For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.
Meh, 5e removed most flavorful aspect of paladins in favor of "eh they are just all alignments now", aka they didn't add anything to replace code of honor

I’m in the camp of alignment shouldn’t have a heavy mechanical weight so I’m fine with that. I think the oaths are really flavorful and let you interpret them in different ways. I would love if Paizo released a class archetype for the champion that was oath based and not alignment restricted but I know that’s likely a pipe dream

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You get a lot and lose a little and any GM trying to get you on a gotcha with your code is either a bad GM or you have been blurring the line so long that you need to be brought in line.

Seriously for vague rp rules that I have honestly seen many GM's just forget, You get the best AC in the game, all martial access, focus spells, free enchantments, great saves, two reactions, aoo, a cool edict dependent reaction and side healing.

And because of how armor and saves have changed in 2E Champions aren't MAD anymore. Like Str and Con are king, get Cha is cool for skills and any +1 for wis for saves and you are set. 1E Paladin needed every stat but int.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
OrochiFuror wrote:
If you want less restrictions wouldn't a CG champion suit you better?

Not necessarily.

I recently created a Liberator Champion of Count Ranalc. The conflict between his chaotic good alignment and the tenets of his deity rather usefully keep him from being a complete jerk, as a strict follower of Count Ranalc's edicts very well could be. I suspect that most paladins would have more wiggle room than this guy does.


By their very nature most CG gods are going to be more interested in the good you do and less about you following any rules to do it.
If your so good at finding exceptions that don't work I can't imagine you unable to find ones that do, unless that's all your looking for. Between Gods & Magic and AoN there has to be some deity you mesh with.

A Kobold paladin of Apsu is great, working for a good Dragon God to defeat evil dragons who would mistreat Kobolds works wonderful.
I was in a group with a goblin liberator of Kaiden Kallian and he seemed to get by just fine. Save people all day, party all night.

Maybe don't be so afraid of what might happen, and think on what core values does your character have and find a god who best fits those values.


Nicolas Paradise wrote:

Seriously for vague rp rules that I have honestly seen many GM's just forget, You get the best AC in the game, all martial access, focus spells, free enchantments, great saves, two reactions, aoo, a cool edict dependent reaction and side healing.

And because of how armor and saves have changed in 2E Champions aren't MAD anymore. Like Str and Con are king, get Cha is cool for skills and any +1 for wis for saves and you are set. 1E Paladin needed every stat but int.

You get shield block for free, not aoo. You can get aoo for a feat without archetyping, but it's not free for champions.

Also PF1 paladins weren't as MAD as you think. With divine grace adding cha to your saves and heavy armor you could get pretty low on dex and wis without endangering yourself. Int was handy if you wanted extra spells on your list but not necessary. For most paladins all they needed was str, cha, and con and they were set to wreck.


David knott 242 wrote:
OrochiFuror wrote:
If you want less restrictions wouldn't a CG champion suit you better?

Not necessarily.

I recently created a Liberator Champion of Count Ranalc. The conflict between his chaotic good alignment and the tenets of his deity rather usefully keep him from being a complete jerk, as a strict follower of Count Ranalc's edicts very well could be. I suspect that most paladins would have more wiggle room than this guy does.

As a fellow liberator (of Ranginori) I respect the choice you made, but remind you it's a choice. There are a lot of fairly permissive deities, and in general, their edicts and anathemas make complete sense for the faith. I've been quite impressed with the subtleties woven into some of them.

As someone up thread noted: if you don't want to be a champion of a deities cause, make something else. Fighter Cavaliers or Fighters with Blessed One will definitely not be bad characters, unoptimized or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am also playing a Liberator. He follows Kurgess and it has generally not been difficult to play. I had a personality that I wanted to play and picked the deity to fit that.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
cavernshark wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
OrochiFuror wrote:
If you want less restrictions wouldn't a CG champion suit you better?

Not necessarily.

I recently created a Liberator Champion of Count Ranalc. The conflict between his chaotic good alignment and the tenets of his deity rather usefully keep him from being a complete jerk, as a strict follower of Count Ranalc's edicts very well could be. I suspect that most paladins would have more wiggle room than this guy does.

As a fellow liberator (of Ranginori) I respect the choice you made, but remind you it's a choice. There are a lot of fairly permissive deities, and in general, their edicts and anathemas make complete sense for the faith. I've been quite impressed with the subtleties woven into some of them.

As someone up thread noted: if you don't want to be a champion of a deities cause, make something else. Fighter Cavaliers or Fighters with Blessed One will definitely not be bad characters, unoptimized or whatever.

I think I am up to (and somewhat looking forward to) the challenge. The main problem is that, if we ever start playing PF2, I am most likely to be the GM and thus won't be playing a character of my own at all. So my Liberator will only see play if I can convince someone else to be the GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I am also playing a Liberator. He follows Kurgess and it has generally not been difficult to play. I had a personality that I wanted to play and picked the deity to fit that.

Golarion's pantheon is so large you can decide what you want your character to believe in first and then find a deity to match it afterwards. There's probably an Empyreal Lord somewhere for whatever weirdly specific questionably good thing you want your character to be about.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dagnew wrote:
Champions...

While their codes are more clearly defined, on paper, I find in practice they are just as flexible as paladins have always been, depending of course on your personal definition of flexibility. I have never found their restrictions to be all that restrictive, but then again, I am not one to try and find loop holes in their tenets that I can exploit. I find that most of the time when "issues" arise, it is because the PLAYER is trying to do things that the CHARACTER would never even contemplate given their deep convictions and faith-based reasons for being a paladinchampion in the first place.

Personal Anecdote:
I know there was and may still be an accepted behavior where the paladin is conveniently distracted by the local architecture (or whatever) in order to allow their companions to torture a prisoner, or the rogue to steal some needed/wanted items, etc. That is a PLAYER convenience. The CHARACTER would never think that way and inn fact would generally go out of their way to stop such things from happening. While they do not generally require others to adhere to their own suite of behavioral tenets, they wouldn't continue to adventure with folks who's actions would regularly put the paladin's salvation at risk. YMMV.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also in general you can play Champions of different alignments, there's a lot of freedom that comes from being able to play a neutral good, chaotic good, and three evil versions, and whatever else we theoretically get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Champions are definitely more restricted than any other 2e class or even the 1e paladins.

Paladin isn't too different, though the change from legitimate to lawful authority does hurt as it doesn't let you just decide that the local tyrant is unfit to rule and therefore illegitimate.

Redeemer is majorly restrictive, expecting you to try and redeem all the evil people instead of just fighting them like every other adventurer.

Liberator isn't too bad until you realise you're not allowed to convince people not to be evil. Not too bad because while you can't threaten or coerce people into not being evil, nothing says you can't punish them for it with as much lethal force as you want.
Not hard to play, but really, really stupid. Who'd have though chaotic good would be the smite them all alignment, just make sure not to tell them why, that might count as coercion which we can't do.

Tyrant is awesome and basically just tells you do what you probably already wanted to.
(Pity touch of corruption is garbage to anyone but a Dhampir, because evil champions look much more fun)

Desecrator is a tad vague if you ask me.

Antipaladin is also pretty easy to play for anyone evil, just crush anyone who gets in your way, pay no heed to the law, and steal and decieve whenever it benefits you.
So basically just be entirely self serving and as violent as the average PC.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thunder999 wrote:

Redeemer is majorly restrictive, expecting you to try and redeem all the evil people instead of just fighting them like every other adventurer.

Redeemer doesn't prevent you from fighting them, it just means you should ask for them to surrender at the start of a fight. Talking is a free action. The only thing it really gets in the way of is attacking from ambush.

That, and if someone does surrender you are obligated not to just off them then and there.

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm... Coercion means intimidation in the game terms, your liberator can still diplomacy bad guys to convince them of their own free will <_<


Yeah no champion codes are written vaguely enough that saying "its a game term" doesn't quite fly. Thus its pure GM's choice on "what is coersion".

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunder999 wrote:

Champions are definitely more restricted than any other 2e class or even the 1e paladins.

Paladin isn't too different, though the change from legitimate to lawful authority does hurt as it doesn't let you just decide that the local tyrant is unfit to rule and therefore illegitimate.

Paladin Cause wrote:
You must respect the lawful authority of legitimate leadership wherever you go, and follow its laws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Yeah no champion codes are written vaguely enough that saying "its a game term" doesn't quite fly. Thus its pure GM's choice on "what is coersion".

If we don't go by the game term we can go by the dictionary term, which would still fall under intimidation and maybe deception.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Liberator Tenets wrote:

You must respect the choices others make over their own lives, and you can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t.

You must demand and fight for others’ freedom to make their own decisions. You may never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

These come after the Tenets of Good:

Tenets of Good wrote:

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.

You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them.

Liberator is a bit weird when it comes to threatening bad guys, but I think it really only means you can't tell someone you'll smash their teeth in if they do bad things. Seems like the Liberator tries to convince people that they're in error, but if they persist they say "Alrighty then, you've made your choice."

"Forcing" someone to act in a certain way doesn't preclude diplomacy or, I would say, even deception. So you can convince people not to be evil, you just can't tell them you'll break their kneecaps if they persist. Liberators still don't countenance evil, and it's not like they can't try to redeem people, they just don't resort to intimidation if diplomacy fails.

If you reasonably believe you could prevent immediate harm to an innocent I'd also say you can use coercion or threats to make that happen, because it serves Good which is above Liberator in priority. That of course will be DM-dependent, but that's what the tenet priority is for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunder999 wrote:

Liberator isn't too bad until you realise you're not allowed to convince people not to be evil. Not too bad because while you can't threaten or coerce people into not being evil, nothing says you can't punish them for it with as much lethal force as you want.

Not hard to play, but really, really stupid. Who'd have though chaotic good would be the smite them all alignment, just make sure not to tell them why, that might count as coercion which we can't do.

It'd definitely not "you have to let the evil guy be evil because that's how he's chosen to live his life." You're still bound by the other half of the Liberator code and the general Tenets of Good. Generally, you're only dealing with antagonists because they're actively harming others or imposing their will on others. It's really not a hard sell to intervene.

I originally planned to invest heavily in intimidation to use demoralize as a third action on my Liberator (sweet summer child I was thinking I'd have a third action while trying to raise a shield, but whatever...) and then noticed that coercion would probably run foul of anathema for a Liberator. So I swapped that and have instead emphasized diplomacy. It's been an interesting challenge any time I want to threaten an NPC into compliance; I have to come up with a compelling argument instead. It's far from unplayable and brings a lot of life to the character for me.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunder999 wrote:
Paladin isn't too different, though the change from legitimate to lawful authority does hurt as it doesn't let you just decide that the local tyrant is unfit to rule and therefore illegitimate.

The edicts are in order of importance, like Asimov's laws of robotics. Not doing evil and not performing actions anathema to your god is the most important and takes precedence over not harming or letting harm happen to innocents, which takes precedence over acting with honor, which takes precedence over respecting the lawful authorities and it laws, etc.

So while you may be forced to follow the local Evil Overlords laws, it is only as long as they don't conflict with the first 3 edicts. Basically, you cannot evade taxes in Cheliax.

Humbly,
Yawar


I think the weird thing with no coercion is that you are champion prepared to use force to prevent evil from happening. So there's always an implied threat. That's why you exist. That's presumably why you picked up a sword and learned how to be the best tank you could be. If the people you are trying to diplomacy to be good don't turn good you are going to kill them or at least beat them up and imprison them (or punish them or whatever chaotic people do to their captives). You just aren't allowed to voice this for some reason.

If a bad guy asks "What are you going to do about it?" you can't respond because saying "I'm going to beat your face in." sounds a lot like a threat and coercion even though that's exactly what you are going to do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
demon321x2 wrote:

I think the weird thing with no coercion is that you are champion prepared to use force to prevent evil from happening. So there's always an implied threat. That's why you exist. That's presumably why you picked up a sword and learned how to be the best tank you could be. If the people you are trying to diplomacy to be good don't turn good you are going to kill them or at least beat them up and imprison them (or punish them or whatever chaotic people do to their captives). You just aren't allowed to voice this for some reason.

If a bad guy asks "What are you going to do about it?" you can't respond because saying "I'm going to beat your face in." sounds a lot like a threat and coercion even though that's exactly what you are going to do.

This is a common but backwards mistake. You are not to impose your will on people because you believe they should be free to make decisions for themselves and you will defend their right to do that provided they harm none. If they are harming people you absolutely may advise them the consequences if their antisocial activities same as if you'd warn a person about to run into a burning building.

Like with Paladins, you are good before you are chaotic--if you have to infringe on somebody's freedoms to directly prevent harm to innocents, that is your job. Your code doesn't say you should kill anybody, either, but accepts that sometimes you must to protect innocents from harm.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
demon321x2 wrote:
If a bad guy asks "What are you going to do about it?" you can't respond because saying "I'm going to beat your face in." sounds a lot like a threat and coercion even though that's exactly what you are going to do.

"Is that a threat?"

"It's a promise."

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is the behaviour of Champions (Paladins) more restricted than ever? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.