Tenets of Neutrality?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Archive

While there can definitely be champions of Neutral deities, from law to chaos, my issue is conceptualizing them as adventurers. Some plot hooks could work but not that many. My conceptualizations often end up being single location based. Sure, the LN champion of Abdar is going to enthusiastically take care of the bandit problem. But, will they continue on when they find out that the bandits were being funded by an out-of-town source? Funding is not committing banditry. Also, maybe it is legal in the town where the physical transaction of funding happens.

Or the I will protect my group concept. At some point it is a bit stretch to continue on when you've ventured decently far from said group.

I guess I'm just concerned that such characters are better as NPCs than PCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
I'm still surprised Champions don't also have to follow their god's edicts.
Core Rule Book wrote:
You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause).

And both the Tenets of Good and Evil place 'never perform anathema to your deity' as the highest priority tenet, meaning its the last one to be broken by a Champion.

So, I'm not sure why one would think that a Champion doesn't follow her deity's edicts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
I'm still surprised Champions don't also have to follow their god's edicts.
Core Rule Book wrote:
You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause).

And both the Tenets of Good and Evil place 'never perform anathema to your deity' as the highest priority tenet, meaning its the last one to be broken by a Champion.

So, I'm not sure why one would think that a Champion doesn't follow her deity's edicts.

They have to follow the anathema or they lose their powers. Nothing in that says they have to follow the edicts. They SHOULD, but don't HAVE to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
They have to follow the anathema or they lose their powers. Nothing in that says they have to follow the edicts. They SHOULD, but don't HAVE to.

You can say that about clerics too. Its a distinction without difference. Edict does not appear once in the cleric or champion entries. Violating the anathema is what causes divinely powered characters to lose their powers.


Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like a major issue with "neutral as balance" is that unlike in some other settings, in Golarion Good is actually supposed to be good. Good Gods aren't supposed to be jerks who do harm on purpose, since if they did that then they wouldn't be Good anymore. Evil, likewise, is actually evil and not just misunderstood.

The neutral character who believes "we can't have too much Good in the universe" or would tell a good person "you should be less good" is a deeply disturbed individual.

Being Good doesn't mean that you're infallible, though. A neutral character can think of the goodlies as right-minded but letting their altruism get in the way of doing what's right in the long run.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
This is the territory who fight to defend their 'team' (faith, country, family, etc.), whether right or wrong, as long as it doesn't betray their trust by committing atrocities (or I guess, going too altruistic, but what would that even look like?). Basically, they have standards about what they won't do.

I imagine being too altruistic would be something like seeing an outside group in trouble and endangering their chosen group to help them.

Liberty's Edge

Sharing your family's home with refugees is Good. I think most Neutral will not do this, even if some might wish they could.

Even better : give them the money you saved for your kids' education. Being too altruistic is quite a reality actually.

Liberty's Edge

Guntermench wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
I'm still surprised Champions don't also have to follow their god's edicts.
Core Rule Book wrote:
You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause).

And both the Tenets of Good and Evil place 'never perform anathema to your deity' as the highest priority tenet, meaning its the last one to be broken by a Champion.

So, I'm not sure why one would think that a Champion doesn't follow her deity's edicts.

They have to follow the anathema or they lose their powers. Nothing in that says they have to follow the edicts. They SHOULD, but don't HAVE to.

I am now thinking that the tenets of Neutrality should refer to both the anathemas and the edicts of your deity. That would definitely set them apart from the Good and Evil tenets.


The Raven Black wrote:

Sharing your family's home with refugees is Good. I think most Neutral will not do this, even if some might wish they could.

Even better : give them the money you saved for your kids' education. Being too altruistic is quite a reality actually.

Why would that be "even better"?

As in, I disagree since your kids' well-being matters too (as do you) so that seems more short-sighted than anything. Of course we might be balancing starvation vs. education in which case yeah, it would be selfish to let people die so your children learn more. Unless that learning would be necessary for you children not to starve later. Or their education might lead to solutions which feed thousands! And so the twists and turns of morality from our limited POVs confound us.

Also, I think a person who wishes they could help, yet can't (both with honesty) would fall into the "good" camp, while the person who could help, but doesn't (for "reasons") might fall into either neutral or even evil depending on the ramifications.

I wonder if a lot of neutral people might just be those who lack agency to do otherwise? Hmm.


demon321x2 wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
...

The problem is Order and Chaos are means to ends. Few follow order for the sake of order and few who do remain LN for long as they dehumanize those within the society which degrades to evil. It also doesn't make for a compelling PC. Someone who protects the law simply because it's the law doesn't think about their actions. They are a passive actor letting the established powers dictate how the world should be.

And zealous Chaos is hard to remain neutral. Acting to create anarchy and undermining non-evil lawful structures quickly descends to violence. Or they go the other direction and reject violent means which quickly turns them towards CG. People always expect something from chaos. If the champion just wanders around overthrowing countries with no greater goal than they're CE. If they have some idealistic view of how life could be when sentients are no longer blinded by society they probably start out CG at least. Chaos is inherently destructive and that makes it hard to maintain zealous CN.

I disagree that order/chaos can't be ends just like evil and good. One could argue that evil acts are just a means to a greater good end (classic anti-hero trope).

I think you are getting too caught up with law / chaos, and making these alignments far too simplistic. A LN champion is a defender of civilization as civilization and order are means to an end: peace and security in a scary world filled with ancient terrors, wandering monsters, and antagonistic people. If you ever read or heard of Hobbes's Leviathan, then the idea is that an authoritarian ruler with absolute power is more preferable to anarchy, and that's in our regular human world, not a far scarier fantasy world of Pathfinder.

A LN Champion can make a compelling PC as they aren't just about law, but about promoting civilization and order above all else, and proactively stopping threats to civilization. A LN champion will jump at the chance to clear out a dangerous dungeon as it removes dangers to the nearby village. They'll gladly stop a growing army threatening the peace of the land. Really a LN champion isn't so different from LG except their means and end goals differ slightly. A LN Champion believes in order above all else even if that order isn't always tolerant or "nice", because it's far better than the alternative. Their means differ from LG because they aren't held back by pesky morals of LG champions.

For CN, they aren't just about chaos as again that's too simplistic. I would instead reframe them more as agents that safeguard the world against the tyranny of law and order. Unlike CG Liberators, CN Champions have a hard time trusting any form of government or order. They know that order eventually leads to the authoritarian Hobbesian dictator, no matter the ruler's good intentions. At the most extreme, CN champions are anarchists, and the least extreme, aggressive libertarians. A CN champion adventurer will gladly help to fight an evil warlord bent on domination or stop a dragon threatening to take over the land. I'm playing in a Ruins of Azlant campaign at the moment, and a CN champion would be perfect against the mind controlling enemy of that campaign.

A LN champion and CN champion are ultimately adversaries of each other, and their beliefs are directly opposed. One thinks a well ordered civilization brings peace and security, while the other warns any substantial form of order leads to Hobbesian tyranny.

Will they work well in every campaign? No, but neither do LG/LE or CE/CG champions either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goodham wrote:
Being Good doesn't mean that you're infallible, though. A neutral character can think of the goodlies as right-minded but letting their altruism get in the way of doing what's right in the long run.

But "hey, good guy, you're not doing as much good as you can, here's how you can do good better" is not exactly in the portfolio of "neutrality".

If you think a good person is misguided, and you want to help them so they can get more good done, then that's Good, not Neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Goodham wrote:
Being Good doesn't mean that you're infallible, though. A neutral character can think of the goodlies as right-minded but letting their altruism get in the way of doing what's right in the long run.

But "hey, good guy, you're not doing as much good as you can, here's how you can do good better" is not exactly in the portfolio of "neutrality".

If you think a good person is misguided, and you want to help them so they can get more good done, then that's Good, not Neutral.

But if you think they aren't being good efficiently enough, that's neutral.

"All right, lets look at your KPIs here..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

While there can definitely be champions of Neutral deities, from law to chaos, my issue is conceptualizing them as adventurers. Some plot hooks could work but not that many. My conceptualizations often end up being single location based. Sure, the LN champion of Abdar is going to enthusiastically take care of the bandit problem. But, will they continue on when they find out that the bandits were being funded by an out-of-town source? Funding is not committing banditry. Also, maybe it is legal in the town where the physical transaction of funding happens.

Or the I will protect my group concept. At some point it is a bit stretch to continue on when you've ventured decently far from said group.

I guess I'm just concerned that such characters are better as NPCs than PCs.

This is a valid concern, though I don't feel like the, "Why would my character want to go on this adventure?" problem is by any means unique to the neutral alignments. Certainly, one of the easiest adventuring hooks is "Because I like helping people and there are people out there to help (there are people here to help, too) and also the forces of evil are working the machinery of suffering," but even without that as a fallback, there are other motivations to compel Good and Neutral (and even Evil) characters away from their homes (and, conversely, LG god Erastil strikes me as a harder-sell for a adventuring character than any Neutral code).

One of the things about adventuring, to me, is that stable, well-adjusted individuals with comfortable lives as members of their community or local hermit shack just don't become adventurers if they can help it. Even Good characters can be hard-pressed to leave that behind unless their livelihoods or the people they care about are threatened. However, for all characters there is always that oldest and noblest call to adventure: "Because there is treasure to find and adventure to be had out there."

One of the best things about this motivation is that it is pretty much evergreen. Almost anything your character might want that's bigger than themselves will likely require money, so even if they are unmotivated by the accrual of material wealth, it can still serve as a means to an end, such as constructing a temple to their god, creating a nature reserve, or helping their community back home. As a bonus, most adventures are almost guaranteed to hand out treasure and monetary rewards, so even if the rest of the party are helping innocents out of the goodness of their hearts, you will always have a reason to be happy doing the same work.

I think it's valuable to remember that, while a champion serves as an extension of their god's will, they are also people, too, and there's a lot of flexibility for your character to have personal desires that do not conflict with their deity's interests, even if they also do not perfectly align.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Goodham wrote:
Being Good doesn't mean that you're infallible, though. A neutral character can think of the goodlies as right-minded but letting their altruism get in the way of doing what's right in the long run.

But "hey, good guy, you're not doing as much good as you can, here's how you can do good better" is not exactly in the portfolio of "neutrality".

If you think a good person is misguided, and you want to help them so they can get more good done, then that's Good, not Neutral.

I think you're conflating two definitions of good here. Neutral people telling good people to be less altruistic (good) because it's a waste of time and effort seems to be fairly in-purview to me. They're not going to kill them for being too self-sacrificing, but they think they are fools for being like that.

Neutral people want to create the best world they can, but their idea of what is best is different from Good people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder clearly indicates that there shouldn't be a difference between Good and good. If a specific case of altruism is inefficient, then it's both Good and good to do it in a more efficient way.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Pathfinder clearly indicates that there shouldn't be a difference between Good and good. If a specific case of altruism is inefficient, then it's both Good and good to do it in a more efficient way.

Unless that 'efficient' way involves employing less than Good means.

It's a pretty common character archetype, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"We do more good by breaking the rules" is the difference between NG/CG and LG.

LN/TN/CN are just not interested in promoting Good, else they'd be LG/NG/CG.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
"We do more good by breaking the rules" is the difference between NG/CG and LG.

And "we do more good by being bad" is a Neutral or Evil perspective (depending on how bad).

Quote:
LN/TN/CN are just not interested in promoting Good, else they'd be LG/NG/CG.

This is just a too narrow and monolithic perspective on alignment. A Neutral character could feel that way... or they could not.

Liberty's Edge

Neutral characters have more pressing matters than just doing Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say "Neutral" is well and truly the alignment for misguided idealists and well-intentioned extremists. "I believe I am doing the right thing, but the amount of harm I write off as collateral damage makes me only marginally better than the forces I oppose" is without a doubt a Neutral position except only for when that character archetype hits their breaking point and inevitably chooses to over-commit to their methods and their standards about who is and isn't an acceptable sacrifice slip from 'people who stand in my way' to include anybody who disagrees (or, less commonly, they see the error of their ways and abandon their dubious methods).

Only problem is, while that is a fairly interesting character archetype, I'm not sure the 'misguided idealist' necessarily belongs in the field of Neutral champions. Typically I think you'd expect the 'idealist' character to worship a goodly deity if they are going to devote themselves to a 'good' cause, and their flaws are about them 'falling' into a Neutral or Evil character depending how close to the line they skirt.

(Actually, it would be interesting to have a Champion cause for 'you are devoted to a Good cause but your deity allows neutral characters, too, and you have fallen into a razor-wire scenario where you are just a few steps away from dropping into evil and out of your deity's good graces altogether ON TOP of failing your code. That said, this concept can only represent a relatively small subset of neutral Champions (Champions of Good deities who allow Neutral worshippers), since I doubt a Champion of Gorum is terribly likely to be devoted to a good cause but have a dubious methods, and Gorum will be just as happy to have a morally conflicted Champion CN Champion as a wholly reprehensible CE Champion)


FWIW, the only deities in print so far for which you cannot play any kind of champion are Magdh (LN,N), Ng (N),Kerkamoth (LN, N), and Monad (LN, N). So while a CE champion of the Lantern King is not precisely the version of that character I want to play, I'm not sure this is all that pressing of an issue.

I would say giving us Champions for the Green Faith, Sangpotshi, Shoanti Animism, etc. is much more pressing than "Champions of Ng" (a Champion of Ng is something you should only play with the active cooperation of a GM, anyway, since his whole thing is "no one can tell what Ng is up to or what he wants, especially his followers.")

I wonder if the "Gray Paladin" route might not be a better route for creating the "CN Champion of Gorum" - you're a variant of the CE version who is held to a different set of rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

FWIW, the only deities in print so far for which you cannot play any kind of champion are Magdh (LN,N), Ng (N),Kerkamoth (LN, N), and Monad (LN, N). So while a CE champion of the Lantern King is not precisely the version of that character I want to play, I'm not sure this is all that pressing of an issue.

I would say giving us Champions for the Green Faith, Sangpotshi, Shoanti Animism, etc. is much more pressing than "Champions of Ng" (a Champion of Ng is something you should only play with the active cooperation of a GM, anyway, since his whole thing is "no one can tell what Ng is up to or what he wants, especially his followers.")

I don't want to dominate the conversation by responding to everything that comes up, but speaking personally, I feel rather the opposite.

I would love to see Champions and/or Clerics for philosophies (I allowed a Paladin of the Green Faith b/c the player was disinterested in following a god for her garden-paladin), but for me the demand for neutral champions far outweighs the probably-non-canonical case of clerics and champions gaining powers from non-deity sources.

Sure, there are only a handful of deities who neither allow Good nor Evil worshippers, but for those of us who prefer non-Evil characters and games, a deity which doesn't allow Good worshippers is effectively also unplayable, even if they themselves are not evil. I would appreciate the chance to play a morally ambiguous Champion but have little to no interest in the must-be-sadistic-and-cruel that the Evil champion codes tend to involve.

Currently there is no way to play a Champion of Gorum who is not morally required to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want except where that would offend their god. Even if not for that, the inability to play a non-Evil champion of an Evil deity is an interesting character design space and a lack I feel far more keenly than the inability to be a Champion of a non-theistic faith, a concept which may or may not be intentionally excluded from the lore (taking the lack of granted spells as evidence that clerics also do not draw power from these faiths).

SameCabbage wrote:
I wonder if the "Gray Paladin" route might not be a better route for creating the "CN Champion of Gorum" - you're a variant of the CE version who is held to a different set of rules.

This idea, however, is relatively compelling and more or less what I think many people vying for Neutral champions are looking for. I would say not a perfect fix, after all I think it would feel strange to play a Redeemer of Pharasma, but then have a 'grey' reputation of a fallen knight who is actually closer to their deity's moral standing, but still, a 'Grey Champion' who could stray into Neutral provided their deity allowed followers of that alignment would hit a lot of buttons.


I am not sure whether if tennets of neutrality could work or not, but I suspect that they might result into something more invasive than an Evil or even a Good champion.

The lawful neutral might be "the judge":

Quote:

Reaction: Eye for an Eye

Trigger: An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you.

You protect your ally and make the enemy face an equal punishment for its action: The ally gains resistance to Physical Damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + half your level. The enemy suffers the same amount of reduced damage ( same kind of physical damage ). This damage can't be reduced by resistances ( but not immunities )

- Physical Damage Reduction instead of all damage because even with half lvl +2 would prevent all the extra damage dies ( alignment, elements, etc... resulting in a better DR than the good ones )

- Since the reflected damage would be low, it is going to work regardless the enemies

---

The Neutral one might be something like the barbarian "fury instinct". It might be "The Protector"

Quote:


No Tennets
No Edicts/Anathemas
No Divine Ally ( though it will get access to a moderate version of them ( name below just for reference. It obviously going to change )

- Divine Weapon: Critical specialization ( no extra rune )
- Divine Shield: +2 Hardness ( no 50% extra HP )
- Divine Steed: The same ( Though he won't be able to take the lvl 16 auspicios mount, he will take a specialized companion feat instead, and the 20 feat won't be accessible at all)

No Focus Spell/No Focus pool

This will give characters who want to take a tank path the possibility to stick with it without being tied to any tennet, cause, edicts or anathema.

You may decide to respect some tennets or take some oath though, but will be a choice of yours not related to your character.

Being true neutral will also make you immune to specific damage:

- Good
- Evil
- Lawful
- Chaotic

Since the N alignment is kinda an exploit, on a champion would help with tanking regardless the situation

Quote:


Reaction: Fortify Self
Trigger: An enemy damages you, and both you and the enemy are within 15 feet each other.

You tactically approach the incoming hit, reducing its physical damage by half your level +2.
In adjunct, choose one of the following options:

- You gain temporary hp equal 1/4 of your level + your CONST modifier
- You take advantage of momentum, attempting to debilitate the triggering enemy. Attempt a Trip/Shove/Disarm check on the enemy with your shield ( even if the shield has no such traits ). If the enemy is ranged, you can throw your shield to him as part of the reaction ( the shield bounces back to you after your attack. This doesn't end any stance like paragon's guard or Everstand Stance ).
- You take advantage of momentum to disengage from your enemy. You stride half your speed. this movement doesn't trigger attacks of opportunity

---

The chaotic Neutral might be "The bringer of Chaos"

Quote:

Reaction: Wheel of Chaos

Trigger: An enemy damages you and both of you are within 15 feet each other.

You let the chaos embrace yourself:
Roll 1d4 and gain that specific effect ( those are examples ):

1- The enemy hit feels light, but it's somehow stronger than usual. You take no damage from the triggering attack. However, you are pushed back 10 feet and knocked down
2- The enemy hits stronger than usual, but somehow takes part of the damage itself. The enemy gains a circumstance damage bonus equal to its level to the triggering attack, but also takes half of the total damage ( the damage the enemy takes it can't be reduced by resistances or immunities )
3- The enemy hits your head making your vision blurry, but he also becomes stunned. You take normal damage from the triggering attack, and become dazzled for 1 round. The enemy becomes stunned 1 ( it has instantly to pay for the stunned condition if he has actions )
4- The enemy hits you, but the impact smashes him away from you. The enemy gains a -1 circ damage on the triggering attack equal to its level. In addition, the impact pushes him 10 feet back from you. You gain a -10 feet speed penalty on your next round.


I just think monks, druids, and war clerics of specific dieties better embody neutral champions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I just think monks, druids, and war clerics of specific dieties better embody neutral champions.

What I find most interesting about Champion is that they can bring an additional philosophy to their religion alongside the normal goals and restrictions. A cleric is only asked to care about the edicts and anathema of their faith, a champion also is supposed to care about their tenets and their cause. A Redeemer of Nethys is a lot more concerned about getting people to do more good than a typical cleric of Nethys, and a Liberator of Count Ranalc is drawn to fight tyranny in ways a priest of Count Ranalc is not. I think war cleric, druid, and monk only do this in a flavor way, while champion does this with mechanical support as well, and I'd like to see causes (which require tenets) that expand on this idea further.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What makes a man turn Neutral? Is it money? Lust for power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality??


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is going to probably get some hate but I genuinely feel if they just made champions follow their gods edicts and dismissed most of the actual alignment system the game would be far better off.

Arguing about what being neutral should be, is in my opinion, the biggest waste of time ever. Alignment is already so hefty and far away from real world philosophy that it's on the verge of feeling entirely pointless as a legitimate system


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UtaUta99 wrote:

This is going to probably get some hate but I genuinely feel if they just made champions follow their gods edicts and dismissed most of the actual alignment system the game would be far better off.

Arguing about what being neutral should be, is in my opinion, the biggest waste of time ever. Alignment is already so hefty and far away from real world philosophy that it's on the verge of feeling entirely pointless as a legitimate system

I still think the alignment system has value. Because it gives you rules or at least the basis for rules that can be applied accross multiple deities and game worlds. It works as a starting point and for those that really don't want to develop that part of their character too much.

I also wholeheartedly agree that if you have a more fleshed out concept for your in game religion then that is what your divine based characters should be following, not generic rules. Clearly it will have more nuance and flavour.

The whole alignment system is also a way of getting some game mechanics over spells and class powers. Yes its too simplistic, but it is a start and adds value to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, so I figured this time I would actually attempt to come up with a workable idea for the Tenets of Neutrality. I took inspiration from the Envoy of Balance Prestige Class in 1e and, after some light research on some of the TN Deities of Pathfinder, and of the published examinations on the some of the concepts and philosophies of neutrality, this is what I came up with. I'd hardly say they are amazing ideals and I tried my best to explain my reasoning behind them. But, I think, as a basis on the matter, this could be a reasonable approach. Maybe?
--------
• You must never perform acts anathema to your deity and must strive to avoid acts of extremism, seeking practical methods to a situation instead those fueled by zeal. You may cast spells tied to an strict alignmemt, but only when it is necessary to do so and no other option exists.
(Essentially, this is meant to mirror the Tenets of Good and Evils doctrines against performing acts that go against their alignment. Good opposes Evil, Law opposes Chaos, and vice verse. Neutral characters, however, do not actively strive towards one of the other. The average individual may prefer acts of virtue over malice, and order over discord; because structure and compassion tends to benefit them more than anarchy and deprivation would. But even then, they do not make it a point of living their life through altruism and obedience, a may be open to cruelty and deviance where it seems necessary. Yet to actively pursue either endeavor through conviction would lead them down a path of righteousness or damnation. Thus, a Neutral Champion attempts to avoid what they perceive to be acts of zealotry and extremism when it comes to the other alignments. They may aid a friend or family member, but wouldn't go out of their way for a stranger without reason. They may abide by the laws, but do not actively seek to enforce or break them unless it served an end. They may be compelled to kill a creature, but only if it meant to save themselves or their allies. But, all of these choices are done through a sense of practicality and purpose. To this end, they are also capable of casting spells with any alignment traits, as restricting them would be conforming and narrowing to their pragmatic views. Rather, they must seek to moderate their use of such spells to situations were it seems appropriate to do so and their exists no other alternative. Why cast Circle of Protection against a Evil Fiend when you could use Banishment it instead? The GM, as with the other Tenets, would be the final arbiter as to whether casting a particular or excess of aligned spells would count towards an extreme in this matter. Personally, I'd probably rule that casting any more than two spells of each/any given alignment without refocusing or doing ones daily preparation would be the limit. This may seem contrary to the idea of a neutral character doing "what they want" (even though I feel that is more a CN outlook), but it is meant to serve as a mechanical and role play limitation to the class. I'm building this as a RAW suggestion, not a homebrewed concept. So, if you want to play a class who isn't tied down by such constraints, maybe don't play a class that relies on their alignment and ethos as a defining principle behind it.)

• You must not willing go out of your way to commit to actions that serve no purpose to your cause or places you and your allies at unnecessary risk. This doesn't mean you cannot take on prospects you believe are worth the risk and may benefit you down the line, only that doing so is productive towards your goal.
(This one was a bit tougher to think up, but for its explanation, I shall use the Deities Pharasma and Gozreh as examples. Both Deities share anathema against the creation of undead. Therefore, neither of them are capable of doing so, even if it may serve a purpose. However, while Pharasma boasts an edict that seeks to actively destroy undead creatures, Gozreh's dogma does not. So, while they may be against the creation of undead, their more concerned with preventing undead creatures from being made rather than eradicating those that already exist. Thus, a Neutral Champion of Gozreh is unlikely to stage a crusade within the Deadlands simply because undead are present therein. That said, they do, however hold edicts which ask that they cherish, protect, and nurture the natural world. To this end, the destruction of undead in an area that has been ravaged and despoiled by their presence is something they would actively pursue; but may not turn their gaze towards the likes of Geb, who actually more or less uphold these virtues through their sustained farming and preservation efforts. All the same, a Neutral Champion of Pharasma may have no qualms about potentially harming the natural world in their efforts to stamp out the scourge of undeath and lay to rest the souls of those who have passed. They may be unlikely to do so, as that may be deemed extreme and unnecessary to their goal. But, it is more likely, imo. And, all the while,, Nethys and his views on the accrual and use of magical prowess, would likely punish his Champions were they to avoid the creation of undead through magical means. Granted, I may be talking out of my ass and coming up with ideas that work as a means to my end. Would actually love dev input on this as far as if my estimations on if the theoretical behavior of these Champions would be accurate.)
--------
As I said, this isn't the best idea. It was just a rough attempt to patch something that seemed reasonable and interesting to play (for me anyways). I obviously tried to emulate the structure of the Tenets already present within the game; each of which feature two distinct ideals they follow from their Tenets alone (not counting the tertiary concept of your Deities edicts and anathema being technically priority.) Gonna try to come up with at least one actual Neutral Cause to go along with this; maybe even two, as I still stand by the idea that developing multiple Causes for each alignment would make this not only easier to create without feeling too restrained, but would allow for more interesting characters and builds whose stories actually conform to the ideals of their deity. Ragatheil's views on vengeance hardly seems cohesive to the views of a Paladin. But perhaps an Avenger?

Still also believe that non-theist Causes built upon philosophies and organizations (particularly, knighthoods) would both be interesting and allow for some expansion on the idea that could be fun to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As one who has been contemplating ways to convert all alignment damage into a general 'divine' energy and removing alignment from non-Outsiders, I still think there is value to alignment for those who want it. Leaving aside the LE/CN monogram, one of the most interesting things about the champion class to me is juggling the demands of their code alongside their dedication to their deity.

Even if we dismissed the alignment system completely, I would still want to have neutral champion codes, though they wouldn't be called 'Neutral' (and probably be better for it; whatever you think of the pointlessness of our debate, Neutral is only a convenient label for neither good nor evil, and I feel getting hung up on the label is an unfortunate sticking point for some). No alignment would certainly solve the issue of wanting to play an imperfect or morally ambiguous Champion, or a Champion of a neutral deity, but it wouldn't change that the only two options for a Champion's code so far are paragon hero or absolute monster (regardless whether those labels are attached to a system or simply moral judgements).

---

Aside from that, what are everybody's pet preferences for the names of the different causes?

(Tenets of Amorality)
LN - Arbiter
N - Warden
CN - ??? (Rebel/Revolutionary? Anarchist?)

(Tenets of Law)
LG - Justiciar
LE - (I'm sure I saw one I liked in this thread but it's bedtime now so forgive me)

(Tenets of Chaos)
CG - Drifter? (I'm liking the aesthetic of the errant wanderer righting wrongs but maintaining personal freedom above all; perhaps it doesn't fit but here we are.)
CE - Reaver/Ravager


Ly'ualdre wrote:
Okay, so I figured this time I would actually attempt to come up with a workable idea for the Tenets of Neutrality. I took inspiration from the Envoy of Balance Prestige Class in 1e and, after some light research on some of the TN Deities of Pathfinder, and of the published examinations on the some of the concepts and philosophies of neutrality, this is what I came up with. I'd hardly say they are amazing ideals and I tried my best to explain my reasoning behind them. But, I think, as a basis on the matter, this could be a reasonable approach. Maybe?

I rather like this approach in general - a sort of "Tenets of Pragmatism" and/or "Tenets of Moderation". It's okay for Evil Champions to be a bit more constrained than most Evil folks. It's okay for Good champions to be a bit more constrained than Good folks. It seems reasonable for the neutrals as well.

The "spells" thing is weird, if only because spellcasting is so premeditated. Like, in order to cast a Good/Evil spell, first you have to put it on your spell list and/or take it as a feat... and Champions tend to only have the "take it as a feat" version.

Perhaps for the first tenet...

- You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or allow yourself to fall to extremism except in pursuit of your deity's goals. You must not cast Good or Evil spells except those that are particularly aligned with your deity's purpose.

So, a Champion of Pharasma has no problems with learning and casting a Good spell that's focused around harming the undead, but wouldn't be willing to summon angels.


And after trick magic items, trick alignment/deities.

Do whatever you want, justifying it's for the right cause.

There would also be a description like for the Ancestries:

"If you don't like making choices, being able to go around edicts/anathema/tennets/oaths and want to deceive the system to gain whatever it has to offer, then you should probably play a neutral champion"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Okay, so I figured this time I would actually attempt to come up with a workable idea for the Tenets of Neutrality. I took inspiration from the Envoy of Balance Prestige Class in 1e and, after some light research on some of the TN Deities of Pathfinder, and of the published examinations on the some of the concepts and philosophies of neutrality, this is what I came up with. I'd hardly say they are amazing ideals and I tried my best to explain my reasoning behind them. But, I think, as a basis on the matter, this could be a reasonable approach. Maybe?

I rather like this approach in general - a sort of "Tenets of Pragmatism" and/or "Tenets of Moderation". It's okay for Evil Champions to be a bit more constrained than most Evil folks. It's okay for Good champions to be a bit more constrained than Good folks. It seems reasonable for the neutrals as well.

The "spells" thing is weird, if only because spellcasting is so premeditated. Like, in order to cast a Good/Evil spell, first you have to put it on your spell list and/or take it as a feat... and Champions tend to only have the "take it as a feat" version.

Perhaps for the first tenet...

- You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or allow yourself to fall to extremism except in pursuit of your deity's goals. You must not cast Good or Evil spells except those that are particularly aligned with your deity's purpose.

So, a Champion of Pharasma has no problems with learning and casting a Good spell that's focused around harming the undead, but wouldn't be willing to summon angels.

While I did consider this idea at a point, there were a few reason I didn't go that route.

First amongst them was that doing this would require all TN Deities to have specific lists of Good and Evil spells created to allow this; and frankly, I didn't feel the work necessary to do this was worth it honestly. This would be thematically interesting for sure. But, the issues I see with it are threefold. One; these lists would possibly need to see revision every time a new series of spells are released, and they'd have to make a conscious effort to ensure that every Deity received equal coverage here. Two; the potentiality of new TN Deities being added through 2e's life span would mean further curating of a singular listing of spells. And three; less a problem and more a wiser decision (imo), it would make more sense to simply create non-aligned spells, or even strictly Neutral ones, that did approximately the same thing in order to adhere to the concept. But that could arguably creature unnecessary bloat to the system.

Second reason was my desire to ensure that the mechanical nature of the Tenets of Neutrality reflected those observed by the Tenets of Good and Evil. I didn't want to create a system that was too unique to one particular build. That's more the area of an Archetype, and I don't feel (or want) Neutral based Tenets to be locked behind an optional series of Feats instead of being baked into the Class. To that end, I attempted to mimic the examples already present within the games system, while still creating a rule that was both engaging and not unnecessarily restrictive. Being Neutral, it doesn't make sense for them NOT to have access to alignment based spells; nor does it make sense to allow them to cast them without caution. After all, the reason Good and Evil Champions aren't supposed to cast the opposed spells is because it goes against who they are or what they represent; and given enough use could potentially alter their alignment. Same principle should apply to Neutral Champions. If I'm consistently casting spells of a particular alignment, wouldn't that suggest to some degree that I belong to it? And even if it doesn't, a GM may rule that the overuse or overreliance of these kinds of spells not only counts as being extreme to you beliefs, but may go as far as to change you characters alignment; which is likely going to cause you to loss your abilities. That said, I again don't think they should be restricted from casting such spells. But there should be a limit. I intentionally made it arbitrary and up to GM discretion, so that there existed more agency amongst the players as to what this limit was. My suggestion on how I'd handle it as a GM was entirely personal for the sake of exemplifying the idea. I want these spells to be beneficial to a Neutral Champion, but come with the same risks other Champions would have. I want a player to weigh their decisions and the consequences that may follow, and to look towards other perceivable measures where possible. I.e. taking a practical and thoughtful approach to an encounter.

That said, I will present a suggestion to work your idea into everything, which would be to allow Neutral characters with other facets of Alignmemt the ability to cast these spells without issue, as long as it matches the non-neutral portion of their alignment. For instance, a Redeemer of Pharasma would be unrestricted in their ability to cast Goods spells, even if they were to follow the Tenets of Neutrality. After all, there is nothing explicitly stating that one couldn't follow a code of conduct comprised of a mix of your Deity, Tenets, and Cause, as long as they match in some way. Thus, Pharasma could have Champions who are Redeemers, those who are Emissaries (one of my concepts for TN Champions), or even Justiciars (one of my concepts for LN Champions). They each match of of the allowed Alignments for her followers; and could theoretically follow the Tenets of Good, Neutrality, or possible Tenets of Law we could maybe see in the future. Doing this would open character creation and storytelling up so much. Maybe your party has two Champions of Pharasma, each who follows a different set of Tenets or upholds a different Cause, or vice verse. Could potentially have an entire party of Pharasman Champions, each different in their approach and views. That sounds like a lot of fun to me. Granted, the bit about extremism would have to be reworked, since being Good or Lawful in this case would be considered as such.


Quote:

While I did consider this idea at a point, there were a few reason I didn't go that route.

First amongst them was that doing this would require all TN Deities to have specific lists of Good and Evil spells created to allow this; and frankly, I didn't feel the work necessary to do this was worth it honestly. This would be thematically interesting for sure. But, the issues I see with it are threefold. One; these lists would possibly need to see revision every time a new series of spells are released, and they'd have to make a conscious effort to ensure that every Deity received equal coverage here. Two; the potentiality of new TN Deities being added through 2e's life span would mean further curating of a singular listing of spells. And three; less a problem and more a wiser decision (imo), it would make more sense to simply create non-aligned spells, or even strictly Neutral ones, that did approximately the same thing in order to adhere to the concept. But that could arguably creature unnecessary bloat to the system.

I don't agree. You can just leave it up to GM adjudication. A lot of the stuff in the tenets is up to GM adjudication anyway. Why should this be different? That's especially the case because the whole Good/Evil spells thing is more about flavor than anything else. Being able to choose a Good and/or Evil spell rather than an equivalent-level unaligned spell isn't going to be a huge difference in power level.

Quote:
Second reason was my desire to ensure that the mechanical nature of the Tenets of Neutrality reflected those observed by the Tenets of Good and Evil. I didn't want to create a system that was too unique to one particular build. That's more the area of an Archetype, and I don't feel (or want) Neutral based Tenets to be locked behind an optional series of Feats instead of being baked into the Class. To that end, I attempted to mimic the examples already present within the games system, while still creating a rule that was both engaging and not unnecessarily restrictive. Being Neutral, it doesn't make sense for them NOT to have access to alignment based spells; nor does it make sense to allow them to cast them without caution. After all, the reason Good and Evil Champions aren't supposed to cast the opposed spells is because it goes against who they are or what they represent; and given enough use could potentially alter their alignment. Same principle should apply to Neutral Champions. If I'm consistently casting spells of a particular alignment, wouldn't that suggest to some degree that I belong to it? And even if it doesn't, a GM may rule that the overuse or overreliance of these kinds of spells not only counts as being extreme to you beliefs, but may go as far as to change you characters alignment; which is likely going to cause you to loss your abilities. That said, I again don't think they should be restricted from casting such spells. But there should be a limit. I intentionally made it arbitrary and up to GM discretion, so that there existed more agency amongst the players as to what this limit was. My suggestion on how I'd handle it as a GM was entirely personal for the sake of exemplifying the idea. I want these spells to be beneficial to a Neutral Champion, but come with the same risks other Champions would have. I want a player to weigh their decisions and the consequences that may follow, and to look towards other perceivable measures where possible. I.e. taking a practical and thoughtful approach to an encounter.

I honestly think that in practice, your version is more odd than mine. With mind, the only difference is in which spells are available to you when you're choosing which focus spells to take. In yours, the player actually has to track on which spells they've cast, and how recently. Either the restriction is so loose as to be meaningless, which is bad, or it's not, in which case you're basically saying "yeah, you can spend your class feat unlocking that focus spell, but it's going to be less useful to you than it is to anyone else." I just don't think that's where the fun is. I think tying it to deity makes it more flavorful in general, and means that the whole thing doesn't eat up too many mental cycles.

Quote:
That said, I will present a suggestion to work your idea into everything, which would be to allow Neutral characters with other facets of Alignmemt the ability to cast these spells without issue, as long as it matches the non-neutral portion of their alignment. For instance, a Redeemer of Pharasma would be unrestricted in their ability to cast Goods spells, even if they were to follow the Tenets of Neutrality. After all, there is nothing explicitly stating that one couldn't follow a code of conduct comprised of a mix of your Deity, Tenets, and Cause, as long as they match in some way. Thus, Pharasma could have Champions who are Redeemers, those who are Emissaries (one of my concepts for TN Champions), or even Justiciars (one of my concepts for LN Champions). They each match of of the allowed Alignments for her followers; and could theoretically follow the Tenets of Good, Neutrality, or possible Tenets of Law we could maybe see in the future. Doing this would open character creation and storytelling up so much. Maybe your party has two Champions of Pharasma, each who follows a different set of Tenets or upholds a different Cause, or vice verse. Could potentially have an entire party of Pharasman Champions, each different in their approach and views. That sounds like a lot of fun to me. Granted, the bit about extremism would have to be reworked, since being Good or Lawful in this case would be considered as such.

I don't tend to think that tweaking spell access is the core of the fun here, though. Rather, it's the idea that a single deity can have multiple kinds of champion - something that we can do already to a limited extent (both a Paladin and a Tyrant of Abadar), and something that any viable tenets of neutrality would only enable more of. Beyond that... no. I don't think that a non-good character should be able to uphold the Tenets of Good. Similarly if you are actually holding to Tenets of Neutrality, that should preclude you from going too far in either direction. That's kind of the point of tenets.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
<insert quoted post here>

Not ignoring a followup to this. But haven't actually read it just yet and wanted to add a small aside I had.

Just an idea, but perhaps we could advocate for a possible playtest on the matter? While maybe not the most exciting thing to test, I think there are enough varying opinions on this matter, that maybe the best course of action here may be to see some official ideas on the subject and maybe let the player base decide which they lean towards more? I've been wanting some different playtest opportunities for a bit, aside from full classes. Mostly this has been towards potential new systems that may need such scrutiny. But, maybe some smaller playtests on potentially divisive matters could be fun? Less a playtest and more of a poll really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After going through the neutral deities and monitor demigods, I've had a few ideas about some possibilities. Tangentially related, I just learned that the Proctor prestige class exists for strictly G-E Neutral followers of monitor demigods and includes a few additional possibilities for titles. These include Bailiff, Equitor, Fettle, and Radical, intended for servants of inevitables, the Monad/aeons, psychopomps, and proteans respectively. Additionally there are four types of proctor, more loosely associated with each monitor but more specifically associated with the Proctor's abilities, Executor, Foster, Harmonizer, and Impulsive. Without further ado:

Tenets of Neutrality (Amorality/Temperance???)
…for lack of a better name that doesn’t imply a ‘balance between good and evil narrative’

You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly betray your Cause (see below)

-Start with anathema, like every other code, so a nature champion is automatically against despoiling nature, psychopomp champions against undeath, etc.

-Since the Good and Evil tenets have no qualms about either lawful or chaotic spells, even if you are a liberator or paladin, I figured it would make sense to skip the prohibition on good or evil magic aside from what would change your alignment and break your tenets by default. Since it seems especially appropriate for a neutral champion to hold the L/Ch aspect of their alignment in special regard, I added a clause to let their Cause influence their top-level tenets. Possibly even open up the possibility multitude of niche tenets to have top-billing even if designed as causes.

You must never harm someone who has not offered you cause and you must never allow an insult or injury against you or your community/people/allies to go unrepaid.

-I took some inspiration from existing Neutral anathema. I liked the idea of a sort of ‘eye for an eye’ code; do unto others what they do unto you, while also preventing wanton cruelty. In the process I forgot to define the breadth of community, but the Proctor prestige class picks up a similar vein.

-Whether the first part strikes you as way too restrictive or not restrictive enough depends more or less entirely on what you imagine to be a justifiable cause, but as I see it, anybody you will likely need to fight is automatically offering cause through threat of violence if not actual violence, as are enemy factions and those acting against your goals. Basically, needing a reason to hurt somebody is the bare minimum not to be evil, though with a good enough reason it would allow you even to harm innocents.*

-I feel reasonably confident that this tenet doesn’t fly in the face of any god, though two came close enough to be noteworthy. While Gorum seems not to fit here, this is actually less restrictive than his own anathema, which prohibits killing foes outside of combat, which would by default suffice as reason to harm opponents. The other deity, Besmara, skirts the edge as the patron of boarding boats and taking people’s stuff, but like with historical pirates, you can always fall back on bloodshed if sheer intimidation or reputation doesn’t convince your mark to surrender.

---

Arbiter (Bailiff/Reeve/Executor)
You are an agent of the law, both mortal and divine, and dedicate yourself to maintaining an orderly universe.

You betray your cause (see Tenets of Neutrality) if you ever willingly commit an act of chaos, such as X, Y, or the casting of a chaotic spell.

-I’m sure we can brainstorm the distinction between what is merely a non-lawful act and what is a clear chaotic act.

<open space for Arbiter tenets>

-Obvious themes among lawful deities include prohibitions against stealing, corrupting or undermining a court/the law, treachery, breaking oaths. I haven’t come up with anything that speaks to me as a restriction which potentially brings up interesting roleplaying moments or conflicts of interest. I feel like there should be some clarification that an arbiter is not mindlessly beholden to laws which are harmful to orderly society, and may work to change such laws even if they still refuse to break (or at least refuse to avoid punishment for breaking) laws of a legitimate authority.

---

Warden (Steward?)
Not all champions are idealists, and you are the sacred defender of pragmatism and practical philosophies.

<open space for Warden tenets>

-As above. I don’t rightly know what should be considered the true neutral version of ‘never commit and act of (alignment)’ and I don’t rightly know if there should be anything so clear-cut. I’m interested by discussion about avoiding extremism, but also I would want to steer such a conversation away from the notion that the corner alignments are inherently any more extreme than the sides. The extremes of pure law or goodness are not lesser than those of lawful goodness.

-Unsurprisingly, I also haven't locked down any solid leads on tenets yet aside from a mention that worshippers of Neutral monitors tend to value pragmatism over idealism, which I alluded to in the description.

---

Rebel (Radical, Revolutionary)
You know that growth and change is an unending process, and you value absolute freedom from stricture.

You betray your cause if you ever willingly commit a lawful act, such as Z, N, or cast a lawful spell.

-As above, no surprises here.

You must never conform to society’s expectations nor allow others’ desires to influence your choices. This does not require you to avoid doing as others request, as long as it is true to your own desires.

-One or more gods, but no masters. I don’t know whether this is a 3rd or 4th tenet overall, but I like the idea that a Rebel defines themselves against authority and society’s expectations. I preemptively dispute and reject claims that consistent opposition to status quo is un-chaotic behaviour. The chaotic alignment is not inherently random. Aside from that, a mandate to avoid allowing others to influence or control you seems natural for such a free-spirit.

<free parking>

-possibilities include never bowing to authority and not imposing unnecessary restrictions on others

---

Thoughts? I'm not really concerned with the mechanics at this point, but I think the few tenets I've mapped out here can be applied to pretty much any Neutral deity, and most deities who allow Neutral worshippers (and the Tenets of Good already point out that not every god fits every cause they might allow, such as Torag's lack of Redeemers.

*Just some webcomic fan-nerdery:
With apologies to Ursula Vernon’s amazing webcomic, Digger.
"Evil is always having a reason, Digger-mousie."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like those very much as I feel they follow the same path as my own ideas on the topic but go in much greater and documented detail.

For the "not blindly following any law while still being Lawful Neutral" part, I propose something based on what I saw in RL Japan, which is to me a great example of a LN culture.

The idea is that, even more than law, tradition is everything. And that tradition is the one of the culture you belong to. Any law that goes against your culture's tradition does not have to be followed.

Note however that this does not mean you are blatantly ignoring or worse flouting such laws.

Because disobeying a law weakens all laws, a Lawful creature will do its best to follow the letter of these laws while completely ignoring their spirit since it goes against what tradition holds to be the one and only best way to do things.

Example from RL : companies with different businesses (say banking and automotive) are forbidden to own shares of one another, in order to prevent the existence of far-reaching conglomerates with a coordinated strategy across businesses.

However these companies CEOs play golf together every friday, and likely use this time to coordinate their strategies, as they have always done before.
But they are not disobeying any law when doing so, since no law forbids them from playing golf together.

Liberty's Edge

I guess for Chaotic, you might have to flout, or at least ignore, the local laws and traditions as much as possible, as long as you do not put yourself or others in danger.


I'm glad you like it! When I was going over posts in this and the other threads for ideas on the causes, I noticed that our neutral tenets were on the same page.

I like your ideas about the importance of tradition to a lawful character. Following the law is one thing, and all lawful characters highly value adherence to the rules and fairness, but perhaps even more important than the individual laws is the tradition they're built upon.

Also I hard-agree with the notion that, to a lawful character, bending or breaking laws weakens the foundation of law and order. I feel like flouting the spirit of the law is something a lawful Champion would prefer to avoid, too, but I understand that in the context of the example, the law itself is in violation of the higher spirit of tradition. The spirit of tradition itself can be flexible enough to grow over time, adding new traditions as society evolves but always valuing unity, consistency, and reliability.

On the other hand, I don't necessarily think that intentionally breaking the law really fits the spirit of a chaotic character. To me, chaotic alignments care less about breaking the law so much as placing utmost importance on individuality and freedom from restriction. Even if we imagine a Chaotic champion is subject to a more intense form of their alignment than most, I feel like they care less about flouting the law in general and focus more on being unfettered by others' limitations, whether this means they avoid being subject to authority or defying laws that constrain their actions.

I like chaotic champions defining themselves in opposition to societal expectations because it gives them a dedication to defying convention an an evolving counterculture identity. On the other hand, I don't feel like they would break the law for no reason other than to defy the law, but also they would have absolutely no compunction with flouting a restrictive law if they expected they could get away with it. They may or may not believe that the law is an inherently oppressive system and seek to dismantle it, but I think they would only care about breaking a law to achieve a goal or make a point, and otherwise wouldn't care strongly what the law was except to know what to avoid getting caught doing.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

So... we're seeing a bit of demand for Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and possibly even just straight up Neutral champions - holy warriors who'd be dedicated and faithful, but not aligned with good or evil specifically.

The issue is that Champions have tenets. The Tenets of good make sense. The tenets of evil make sense. How are you going to come up with a Tenets of Neutrality, though? Tenets of Law and Chaos would help (so if you're a Lawful Good Champion, you could pick tenets of Law of Tenets of Good) but even those start looking kind of confusing to come up with when you squint at them for a little bit.

So... it's a problem that's going to require some thought... and if we want to see LN/NN/CN Champions, then perhaps we should help crowdsource some of that thought. That's what this thread is for.

Please don't respond with "Tenets suck, and you should be changing the rules so they aren't a thing." If you want to argue that we should be eliminating that aspect of the Champion class, please make your own thread to do it in. This is one for the peopel who aren't willign to houserule the tenets away, and don't want them killed by errata, but *do* want neutral champions to talk about how to solve this particular issue. This thread assumes that the bit where each Champion has Tenets is a good and worthwhile thing, and wants to fix the bit where the (as yet nonexistent) neutral Champions don't.

If you want to talk about useful/interesting stuff for the Champion's Reaction, titles, and so forth for Neutral Champions, *that's* cool. I don't think it's as big of an issue (so maybe not the primary thrust), but sure, join in.

Look up Gray Jedi.

A neutral champion would dedicate themselves to maintaining the balance. For without evil, good will turn tyranical and without good, evil will turn genocidal.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A lawful neutral champion would dedicate to trying to obtain this balance through lawful dedication and politics. Working within the system. A chaotic neutral champion would be dedicated to achieving such a goal outside of the law.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:

Look up Gray Jedi.

A neutral champion would dedicate themselves to maintaining the balance. For without evil, good will turn tyranical and without good, evil will turn genocidal.

A lawful neutral champion would dedicate to trying to obtain this balance through lawful dedication and politics. Working within the system. A chaotic neutral champion would be dedicated to achieving such a goal outside of the law.

Respectfully, this makes no sense, and is exactly the conception of neutrality I have been advocating against in other posts in this thread. Good cannot become tyrannical without fundamentally betraying the ideals of Good and becoming Evil, in which case it makes no sense to temper the failings of goodness with more cruelty.

The thing is, while the Jedi and Sith were presented as a dynamic between archetypal Good and Evil, with the Dark Side implied to be addictive and sinister force that draws you in the more you 'give in' to it, the expanded universe changed the dynamic. Certainly by the time the Grey Jedi were conceived, the point of the Grey Jedi were to stray from the authority of the Jedi Council and to use the powers of both sides of the Force.

However, you do draw an interesting parallel in another way: I would argue that the Jedi (and to an extent, the light side of the Force), with their dedication to harmony, meditation, and suppression of emotions, are actually one excellent example of a Lawful Champion. The Sith, on the other hand, with their focus on conflict and passion, are a much more Chaotic order of Champions.

In this way, it actually makes a lot more sense to attempt a balance between Jedi and Sith, between restrictive order with repressed emotion, and tumultuous freedom with uninhibited emotion. It's not a perfect comparison because the Sith's focus on power brings them a lot closer to Chaotic Evil by default than the Jedi are to Lawful Evil, but nevertheless, conceiving the Jedi as Lawful shows why they might dip into tyranny when left unchecked by forces of change.

So, in my humble opinion, the Grey Jedi could potentially serve as an inspiration for a Champion code that balances Law and Chaos. Perhaps not the goal for all True Neutral Champions, but certainly an idea.

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Tenets of Neutrality? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
Aid DC