| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of the divine list, more spells that are true neutral deity friendly moving forward would be appreciated. Some SoM spells, like Deity's Strike and Divine Armageddon, do this already. Sure, both spells are less powerful when used with a true neutral deity, but it was nice they worked at all unlike some of the CRB divine spells.
Neutral divine characters need a lot of love, between this and the current gaps in the Champion spread.
I'm pretty sure we're going to see champions of causes (which might appeal to neutral characters) before we see champions of neutrality.
Neutrality in Pathfinder is rarely about "keeping the balance" so much as "not caring about this axis very much." Like there may be no entity in the multiverse less interested in "balance" than Nethys.
|
Yeah LN and CN deities usually have something that ties them to "order vs anarchy" thing, but with Neutral deities, they all have their own individual thing they are interested in above all else <_<
It's admittedly hard to make up cause, tenets and anathema for neutral because it would have to be incredibly generic to fit perfectly all neutral gods and for non neutral gods that allow neutral.
In a way, I could see neutral champion cause be most self centered cause? "I'll respect my gods teachings, but above all else, I work for my own cause"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO I think the best solution is to either make themed causes that can apply to multiple alignments, like an anti-undead Cause.
Or like, a 'generic' neutral clause that essentially elevates your deity's anathema. Not sure what the reaction for that would look like though.
Between Vhailor in Planescape: Torment and the Godclaw in Pathfinder itself, I think LN Champions have legs. Call them “Judges.”
|
|
IMO I think the best solution is to either make themed causes that can apply to multiple alignments, like an anti-undead Cause.
Or like, a 'generic' neutral clause that essentially elevates your deity's anathema. Not sure what the reaction for that would look like though.
Its bit complicated yeah, like "lack of alignment" alignment having single cause is weird, but if there wasn't one people would also complain. I do like idea of multi alignment causes, but its bit unrelated to this N alignment dilemma. I do believe it could also work if there were multiple "N" causes? But in that case they would have to be so specific that you wouldn't find it annoying you can't pick them as another alingment.
Maybe something like N causes for psychopomps/balance of positive/negative forces, cause for nature... Wait that wouldn't really work since then it would be weird to have nethys champion with Psychopomp cause.
But yeah, honestly, generic neutral clause that elevates your deity's interest would probably work best. Nethys, Pharasma, Gozreh and others tend to have extremely specific interests. It would get weirder for stuff like "neutral champion of Kurgess(NG)/Tsukiyo(LG)/Uvuko(CG)/Mgadh(LN)/Kalekot(CN)/Norgorber(NE)"... But on closer examination, it could work?
Like, neutral alignment for gods is rarer more extreme you get(LG/CG/LE/CE) to the point no LE or CE god allows N. Its more common for NG/NE/LN/CN gods and looking it closely, I think for most gods that allow N the "I promote my deity's cause above all else" kind of works? Granted I'm sure people could complain about that as well "why I can't have super asmodeus champion!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Between Vhailor in Planescape: Torment and the Godclaw in Pathfinder itself, I think LN Champions have legs. Call them “Judges.”I kinda like Arbiter myself, not sure why though. Its just cool sounding word to me?
I’m not at all opposed.
I might like that more than Intercessor as a 2e Inquisitor name, honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the best way to do 'neutral' causes is to not actually have a Neutral-alignment-locked cause but rather an alignment-agnostic cause that follows general themes. Pharasma and plenty of other gods hate undead? Undead-smiting cause; alignment-agnostic, as Evil characters can be disgusted by undead, too.
I'm drawing a blank on coming up with more off the top of my head since Champions aren't my class of choice, but that seems like the easiest way to bring neutral Champions into play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the best way to do 'neutral' causes is to not actually have a Neutral-alignment-locked cause but rather an alignment-agnostic cause that follows general themes. Pharasma and plenty of other gods hate undead? Undead-smiting cause; alignment-agnostic, as Evil characters can be disgusted by undead, too.
I'm drawing a blank on coming up with more off the top of my head since Champions aren't my class of choice, but that seems like the easiest way to bring neutral Champions into play.
Which is why I think a book that expanded options for philosophies, causes, and non-diefic/non-alignment centered options for the Zealous character would be a welcome book. These options wouldn’t exclude characters inspired by a diety or an alignment, but the would enable more nuanced and focused dedications that exist outside of clean cut alignment parameters. It is the perfect space for a Shaman class to enter the game and could easily work for the divinely inspired or just dedicated avenger/inquisitor/Ariter/whatever of a cause.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the best way to do 'neutral' causes is to not actually have a Neutral-alignment-locked cause but rather an alignment-agnostic cause that follows general themes. Pharasma and plenty of other gods hate undead? Undead-smiting cause; alignment-agnostic, as Evil characters can be disgusted by undead, too.
I'm drawing a blank on coming up with more off the top of my head since Champions aren't my class of choice, but that seems like the easiest way to bring neutral Champions into play.
This is actually what I do in my homebrew. Most of the causes actually lend themselves to a philosophical cause with little reflavoring (guardian, redeemer, freedom fighter, conqueror, corrupter, and destroyer respectively), and I just peel off the alignment requirements and change some of the edicts (mostly removal of antisocial requirements of evil causes) and I changed lay on hands/touch of corruption assignment to be based on divine font type. I completely removed the tenets of good and evil, since your diety's own edicts and anathema already basically cover this, plus it's easier to remove those two than create a code of neutrality that fits all of the neutral gods.
So far it works well, and is a lot more customizable. If you are okay with DM adjudication, you can just nix alignment completely with the philosophical causes, if you want something that is more crunchy, you can assign an alignment range on each cause (eg a freedom fighter can only be CN and CG, Redeemer must be LG or NG, etc). For my home game, the former is fine, I'll allow basically any cause/diety combo if the diety could concievably grant it; likr I wouldn't allow a desnan conqueror because there's just way too much disparity, but if someone wants to pitch a Ragathiel Conqueror whos goal is to wage war on hell itself and try and take footholds for the armies of Heaven, that sounds awesome and I'd def allow it
IMO the best way to do 'neutral' causes is to not actually have a Neutral-alignment-locked cause but rather an alignment-agnostic cause that follows general themes. Pharasma and plenty of other gods hate undead? Undead-smiting cause; alignment-agnostic, as Evil characters can be disgusted by undead, too.
I'm drawing a blank on coming up with more off the top of my head since Champions aren't my class of choice, but that seems like the easiest way to bring neutral Champions into play.This is actually what I do in my homebrew. Most of the causes actually lend themselves to a philosophical cause with little reflavoring (guardian, redeemer, freedom fighter, conqueror, corrupter, and destroyer respectively), and I just peel off the alignment requirements and change some of the edicts (mostly removal of antisocial requirements of evil causes) and I changed lay on hands/touch of corruption assignment to be based on divine font type. I completely removed the tenets of good and evil, since your diety's own edicts and anathema already basically cover this, plus it's easier to remove those two than create a code of neutrality that fits all of the neutral gods.
So far it works well, and is a lot more customizable. If you are okay with DM adjudication, you can just nix alignment completely with the philosophical causes, if you want something that is more crunchy, you can assign an alignment range on each cause (eg a freedom fighter can only be CN and CG, Redeemer must be LG or NG, etc). For my home game, the former is fine, I'll allow basically any cause/diety combo if the diety could concievably grant it; likr I wouldn't allow a desnan conqueror because there's just way too much disparity, but if someone wants to pitch a Ragathiel Conqueror whos goal is to wage war on hell itself and try and take footholds for the armies of Heaven, that sounds awesome and I'd def allow it
I think you can do it without removing the current L/C, G/E, N alignment system. Expand N in particular to Unaligned, Balance, and other various Themes like anti undead. But thats really a larger change to a system the designers don't want to touch.
Its probably easier in the system to just add extra Domains and create focus spells that are only available from Deities with that Domain. Then you can simply tag the right Deities with that Domain. If you want the theme to be more important the the traditional alignments, then just have the varous religions/Deities act that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I’m so loud about Inquisitors is because of how much of a straightjacket the Champion subclasses are. If I’m a devotee of Casandalee, the only ones open to me by RAW are Redeemer and Desecrator - even though neither one of those makes any sense for her faith. Plenty of other deities are in the dame boat.
Which means if you want your character to be defined by faith, you’re either facing down that, or else you’re playing a full caster built for support and not much else. Neither appeals much to me.
If I wanted to play a devotee of Casandalee, I think the most appropriate class would be Inventor, possibly with the Blessed One archetype if I *needed* some sort of divine investment; which I generally do not consider necessary for highly religious characters.
I'd be more interested in "Deity specific archetypes" than tying even more classes to Gods.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I wanted to play a devotee of Casandalee, I think the most appropriate class would be Inventor, possibly with the Blessed One archetype if I *needed* some sort of divine investment; which I generally do not consider necessary for highly religious characters.
It's a fantasy setting; I want the fantasy of my deity lending tangible blessings to my character.
Casandalee was just an example, chosen because I think she's a lot of fun. What of the Kayal rebel, bringing Desna's light to the hinterlands of Nidal? The Pahmet dwarf, empowered by Anubis to return the undead to their graves? The elven hunter, purifying Treerazer's domain with every prayer to Ketephys and every blessed arrow?
I can give you character concepts for Inquisitors all day, as I have been in this thread and others without any real reply, because I've wanted to play them since the outset of the edition, and haven't liked my options for doing so. If PF2's current slate of options delivered on what the crowd begging for an Inquisitor update wanted, there wouldn't be any need to beg.
You've made it abundantly clear that characters empowered by their choice of deity do not appeal to you, personally. That doesn't stop a number of PC concepts in this vein from not being represented with what we have now, or address the fact that only 2 of the 6 classes that touch the divine do so through the lens of a deity, and that one of those is more defined by their Alignment than their god.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see Champions dedicated to issues rather than alignments. So we could see Champions dedicated to Balance, or Protection of Nature, or ....
Mechancially that would be more Champion Causes available to followers of Deities of particular Domains.
The tricky one is making causes available for characters whose deities whose neutrality is "they're really only interested in promoting the thing they're about."
Like Nethys only wants more magic, and for magic to do all of the things and for all of the things to involve magic. What cause would fit a Champion of Nethys?
Like I'm all for "Champions of Causes" (since the Champion should be a class defined by their cause) but I don't think you can cover all the neutral deities this way, or maybe even most.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I’m so loud about Inquisitors is because of how much of a straightjacket the Champion subclasses are. If I’m a devotee of Casandalee, the only ones open to me by RAW are Redeemer and Desecrator - even though neither one of those makes any sense for her faith. Plenty of other deities are in the dame boat.
Which means if you want your character to be defined by faith, you’re either facing down that, or else you’re playing a full caster built for support and not much else. Neither appeals much to me.
Recently ran into this with Sivanah; I wanted to play a trickster with champion mcd, but neither options really vibed (I tried entertaining reskinning glimpse of redemption into trick, but NG was just not at all a vibe for an adventurer that moonlights as a courtesan to pull strings in court, and I really hate how anti social and lolevil the evil codes are). Liberator would have worked, but sivanah doesn't have cg followers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tricky one is making causes available for characters whose deities whose neutrality is "they're really only interested in promoting the thing they're about."
Like Nethys only wants more magic, and for magic to do all of the things and for all of the things to involve magic. What cause would fit a Champion of Nethys?
Like I'm all for "Champions of Causes" (since the Champion should be a class defined by their cause) but I don't think you can cover all the neutral deities this way, or maybe even most.
A Champion of Knowledge could fit as someone taking up Nethys's search for magical understanding, acting as a warden of Norgorber's stolen secrets or Abraxus's forbidden lore, or a heroic figure sworn to Gruhastha's ideals of understanding.
|
It really is starting to sound like you are in fact, NOT asking for a revision of the Inquisitor, but instead, just a new Divine Martial Class that is not bound by Anathema or Edicts... which is a far more sound concept for a Class in PF2 and would help easily sidestep the endless conflicts that the base PF1 Class intent would have in PF2 given how Anathema and Edicts have been implemented in a far less vague manner.
This could be extremely flexible as a general concept which I do very much support, something along the lines of a servant of Abadar who has at least somewhat free reign to break laws in order to track down and bring to justice a corrupt official who had been hiding their income and exploit the poor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really is starting to sound like you are in fact, NOT asking for a revision of the Inquisitor, but instead, just a new Divine Martial Class that is not bound by Anathema or Edicts... which is a far more sound concept for a Class in PF2 and would help easily sidestep the endless conflicts that the base PF1 Class intent would have in PF2 given how Anathema and Edicts have been implemented in a far less vague manner.
This could be extremely flexible as a general concept which I do very much support, something along the lines of a servant of Abadar who has at least somewhat free reign to break laws in order to track down and bring to justice a corrupt official who had been hiding their income and exploit the poor.
Is the 'you' here me? I'm having a little bit of a tough time deciphering who this is meant to be addressed to, and don't want to ramble any more than I already have if not.
Since we have multiple classes that are bound by a deity's anathema, and as much I really strongly dislike the idea of "yet another class you need a traditional deity for" it might be interesting to do something with emphasizing the Edicts more than the Anathema.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really is starting to sound like you are in fact, NOT asking for a revision of the Inquisitor, but instead, just a new Divine Martial Class that is not bound by Anathema or Edicts... which is a far more sound concept for a Class in PF2 and would help easily sidestep the endless conflicts that the base PF1 Class intent would have in PF2 given how Anathema and Edicts have been implemented in a far less vague manner.
This could be extremely flexible as a general concept which I do very much support, something along the lines of a servant of Abadar who has at least somewhat free reign to break laws in order to track down and bring to justice a corrupt official who had been hiding their income and exploit the poor.
Is the 'you' here me? I'm having a little bit of a tough time deciphering who this is meant to be addressed to, and don't want to ramble any more than I already have if not.
You're part of the crowd but I'm sure you know you're HARDLY the only one who really wants this kind of thing, or in the least asking for another sort of "middle of the road" Divine warrior type Class. After reading, considering, and listening to much of the feedback it makes a LOT more sense to me in that way, especially after seeing a good bit of explanation going into what is in demand. After all, I believe that the Inq was next in line in terms of fan favorites for Classes to be brought up to PF2 just after the Kineticist.
My qualms with Inq, as in the PF1 Class, are pretty squarely in the whole default flavor of it as it relates to how PF2 handles Classes and Class features directly tied to a Patron Deity/Faith. If they take the idea and work to evolve it for the new system I think the best way of handling it while subtly blunting its inherent edginess of it would be to give them a good out for the rather strict Anethemas and Edicts that have already been coded to them all. I mean, look at the prime pop culture example of the Inq, Van Helsing: In modern and even traditional media VH was NEVER really on the same page as the actual church but they were decidedly an AGENT for it regardless of how fundamentally violent, blasphemous, and at times just outright sinful they are. VH as a PF1 Inq worked just fine because they were not ACTUALLY bound by a set of written codes that guide them and the acts they must perform as well as those they can never participate in so I do think unbuckling these two things could bear great fruit without inherently creating a kind of truly mind-bending hypocrisy paradox like would be caused by an Inq of Torag who, in PF2, wouldn't even be able to ATTEMPT to fill the described role of the Class without probably losing any Divine favor and/or Class bonuses they have ... at least until they seek and attain attonement.
Like I'm all for "Champions of Causes" (since the Champion should be a class defined by their cause) but I don't think you can cover all the neutral deities this way, or maybe even most.
Well what does each Deity stand for? Anything beyond self interest? If they do stand for something it should be possible to create an appropriate Cause. If they don't then they shouldn't really get Champions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the pop culture Van Helsing is much more the domain of the Thaumaturge than a 2e Inquisitor at this point, but that depends on which Van Helsing your touchstone is. "The Monster Hunter" is firmly the niche of the 2e Ranger and Thaumaturge, and to preserve those identities and that of the new class as distinct, I think centering it on faith is the smarter thematic pull.
The PF2 team has been very clear about not bending the Alignments of deities: the fanatical Sarenite Cult of the Dawnflower and the aberration that was Lawful Good followers of Asmodeus have both been explicitly discarded from canon, while Iomedae dropped Lawful Neutral followers so that she could be more fully Good. Trying to decouple a class whose fantasy is about faith from the bindings of Edicts and Anathema opens the door to followers of Goodly gods burning people on pyres - which nobody wants.
A divine martial distinct from the Champion by trading out armor and endurance for greater offensive capabilities (with a couple handy tricks from their god to help in the task) feels like a coherent class identity that can stand alone in the game we have today. I want support for the Inquisitor (I'm increasingly inclined to just call it the Arbiter, and avoid inquisitorial discourse) to be a follower of a god because most media examples I can name are, and they're the titular point of Divine magic.
I'm not opposed to non-theistic Arbiters existing at all, but one without the option for the classic flavor is a non-starter for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I'm all for "Champions of Causes" (since the Champion should be a class defined by their cause) but I don't think you can cover all the neutral deities this way, or maybe even most.Well what does each Deity stand for? Anything beyond self interest? If they do stand for something it should be possible to create an appropriate Cause. If they don't then they shouldn't really get Champions.
Well, take for example a hypothetical "God of Turnips". This God wants you to grow turnips, eat turnips, encourage other people to grow and eat turnips, share the best ways to grow turnips, show the best way to cook turnips, create turnip themed art, etc. That deity would be naturally Neutral since "turnips" are not good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.
But do we need to have Champions of the Turnip god? What would a heavily armed and armored Turnip Champion even be about?
Just like it's feasible to imagine a deity refusing to invest in Champions, it should be likewise possible to imagine a deity for which Champions simply aren't applicable. There can be a deity for basically anything, but they don't all need martial champions. I want a Turnip God and a God of Socks and a God of Kites and all of those things; I do not see a lot of value in figuring out what their Champions are about.
After all, the less we tie classes and mechanics to your "standard" religions, the more creative we can get with "nonstandard" ones!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 'champions of domains' makes more sense. So instead of a specific champion of nethys, pick one of the domains [Destruction, Glyph, Knowledge, Magic, Protection] so if you worship nethys you might be a destruction champion or a magic champion. Or a turnip god for a toil champion or a nature or earth one. To me it makes more sense to focus on a particular aspect of a god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 'champions of domains' makes more sense. So instead of a specific champion of nethys, pick one of the domains [Destruction, Glyph, Knowledge, Magic, Protection] so if you worship nethys you might be a destruction champion or a magic champion. Or a turnip god for a toil champion or a nature oe earth one. To me it makes more sense to focus on a particular aspect of a god.
Death Domain Champions, for all your undead-slaying needs, would be very popular.
Like I'm all for "Champions of Causes" (since the Champion should be a class defined by their cause) but I don't think you can cover all the neutral deities this way, or maybe even most.Well what does each Deity stand for? Anything beyond self interest? If they do stand for something it should be possible to create an appropriate Cause. If they don't then they shouldn't really get Champions.Well, take for example a hypothetical "God of Turnips". This God wants you to grow turnips, eat turnips, encourage other people to grow and eat turnips, share the best ways to grow turnips, show the best way to cook turnips, create turnip themed art, etc. That deity would be naturally Neutral since "turnips" are not good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.
But do we need to have Champions of the Turnip god? What would a heavily armed and armored Turnip Champion even be about?
Just like it's feasible to imagine a deity refusing to invest in Champions, it should be likewise possible to imagine a deity for which Champions simply aren't applicable. There can be a deity for basically anything, but they don't all need martial champions. I want a Turnip God and a God of Socks and a God of Kites and all of those things; I do not see a lot of value in figuring out what their Champions are about.
After all, the less we tie classes and mechanics to your "standard" religions, the more creative we can get with "nonstandard" ones!
A Turnip god is not really different to self interest. Its got little impact on the broader community. So Champions would make little sense there. For sure other types of characters would be appropriate. But gods have to have some broader view point like promotion of agriculture, protection of knowledge, etc etc to be relevant and interesting beyond a comedy setting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All hail Terrornip! Deity of Turnips and Terror. Feast and be Feasted upon. Their dirt will take us all.
Considering the sheer ratio of "people who never go further than 20 miles from their birthplace" to "Player Characters" there should probably be a lot more gods that are of precisely zero interest to someone who gets in fights as a matter of course.
Like you can't have a deity that's a hardliner on pacifism as a player option in a game like this since "never fight anyone" doesn't work in a game like this. But it absolutely works for a whole lot of people who aren't PCs.
I think 'champions of domains' makes more sense. So instead of a specific champion of nethys, pick one of the domains [Destruction, Glyph, Knowledge, Magic, Protection] so if you worship nethys you might be a destruction champion or a magic champion. Or a turnip god for a toil champion or a nature or earth one. To me it makes more sense to focus on a particular aspect of a god.
Actually, this might be something to base an Inquisitor/Advocate on. I have more thoughts, but I'll expound on them in the other thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All hail Terrornip! Deity of Turnips and Terror. Feast and be Feasted upon. Their dirt will take us all.
Brassica, the reaper, lord of all cruciferous vegetable who will fertilize the soil with the blood of his enemies! Imagine a turnip Root Leshy with a large scythe, stalking those that drag his brethren out of the ground and feast on their flesh!
Considering the sheer ratio of "people who never go further than 20 miles from their birthplace" to "Player Characters" there should probably be a lot more gods that are of precisely zero interest to someone who gets in fights as a matter of course.
That assumes a particular setting and game world. You could be a character dedicated to local defending, but they would be hard to motivate to adventure more widely.
Like you can't have a deity that's a hardliner on pacifism as a player option in a game like this since "never fight anyone" doesn't work in a game like this. But it absolutely works for a whole lot of people who aren't PCs.
As a GM copying a player build, changing alignment and reflavouring for a new religion, would be the least I'd do.
A Pacifist could work up to a point, just like a Superstition Barbarian could have worked if they had done it right. You'd just have to be reasonable. A prohibition about doing energy or physical damage would be playable for some characters in PF2. A stricter pacifist would need some new spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to make a certain character work and man, am I hurting for some sort of holy/unholy Barbarian Instinct. Where's my option for demon-blooded berserkers, or those who wield righteous fury against the forces of Evil?