|
One of my favorite characters in Pathfinder Society was Malacath, a CG half-orc inquisitor of Gorum with the conversion inquisition and the preacher archetype. In combat he used knowledge to identify monsters, magic to buff himself up to the nines, and a bow to kill things. In social situations, he was diplomatic or intimidating and had most of the knowledge skills. Very versatile, lot of fun.
If I were to re-create this PC, it would certainly be a thaumaturge. Here’s why:
Bane, Greater Bane ⇒ Exploit Vulnerablity, Intensify Vulnerability
Stalwart ⇒ Resolve, Greater Resolve, Juggernaut
Judgments ⇒ Implements (easy to mix-and-match, can have more active several at the same time at higher levels)
Narratively, a thaumaturge PC could be a wandering priest, using sacred relics to slay unholy monsters.
I could go on (I haven’t even gotten into class feats!). And it’s true that the usage of implements is like the Occultist, but the Amulet implement, for instance, could easily have been named Protection Inquisition or something. And that’s true for all the implements.
My question is: Since the thaumaturge can be used to play a 1E inqusitor, are we even likely to get a 2E version?
I know there’s an NPC with that class and she, unlike the thaumaturge, can cast divine spontaneous spells. But she’s also a small-i inquisitor, in charge of religious persecution and rooting out dissidents. That’s not enough to hang an entire class on, plus RL inquisitor were the bad guys.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's enough space in the Thaumaturge that you could easily flavor it as an inquisitor and cover similar mechanical and thematic space.
But it also very blatantly fails to encapsulate the 'offensive divine magical warrior' archetype entirely. So in that respect, clearly no.
... sort of like how a rogue or fighter with a rapier can be a Swashbuckler, but it isn't really the same thing as a Swashbuckler.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the opinion that if something has the capability of filling out its own niche, it should. In that regard, thematically Inquisitor is different enough to merit a second look at, even though Thaumaturge is similiar.
Kind of comes back to the oft repeated ideas that certain Classes we now have weren't distinct or compelling enough to be their own thing. And Paizo has proven that they can be if they want them to. Some new and innovating mechanics to make an Inquisitor unique is all it needs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Thaumaturge has everything I would personally want from a 2e Inquisitor. It leaves behind most of what I actively disliked about the 1e Inquisitor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that a Fighter covered in dirt is not a Ranger, and a Wizard with a guitar is not a Bard, I don't personally take an especially-pious Thaumaturge as an Inquisitor. "Knowing things and fighting monsters" is hardly a unique niche in the d20 fantasy space, and if it was, then we'd just have Investigators with a penchant for the occult instead of the Thaumaturge existing.
There's room for another class, especially when the flavor is radically different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that a Fighter covered in dirt is not a Ranger, and a Wizard with a guitar is not a Bard, I don't personally take an especially-pious Thaumaturge as an Inquisitor. "Knowing things and fighting monsters" is hardly a unique niche in the d20 fantasy space, and if it was, then we'd just have Investigators with a penchant for the occult instead of the Thaumaturge existing.
There's room for another class, especially when the flavor is radically different.
There are a lot more more similarities between Inquisitor and Thaumaturge than "knowing things and fighting monsters", see above.
Is the flavor radically different? 1E inquisitors were more like specialized monster hunters than a church militant. Thaumaturges fill that niche.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Narratively, a Thaumaturge could be a wandering priest... but that's not really the thematic identity of the Inquisitor is it? It's not even close. That's not really different from saying that a Thaumaturge who uses a holy symbol as an implement effectively replaces Champions just because both are good at smiting fiends and wielding symbols.
An Inquisitor which isn't thematically the offensive arm of their faith isn't really much of an Inquisitor even if they have all the hunting-enemies vibe down. There's a lot more that's wanted than just monster hunting, though that's a good start. I say this as somebody who wasn't terribly invested in Inquisitor until I saw certain proponents' vision for divinely-empowered assassins/hunters. Now it strikes me as one of the coolest options not already available to us (thanks to the Kineticist playtest having just confirmed the other, and Shifter at least having a few bones thrown to the concept)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that a Fighter covered in dirt is not a Ranger, and a Wizard with a guitar is not a Bard, I don't personally take an especially-pious Thaumaturge as an Inquisitor. "Knowing things and fighting monsters" is hardly a unique niche in the d20 fantasy space, and if it was, then we'd just have Investigators with a penchant for the occult instead of the Thaumaturge existing.
There's room for another class, especially when the flavor is radically different.
There are a lot more more similarities between Inquisitor and Thaumaturge than "knowing things and fighting monsters", see above.
Is the flavor radically different? 1E inquisitors were more like specialized monster hunters than a church militant. Thaumaturges fill that niche.
The thematic heart of an Inquisitor is their devotion to faith, belief strong enough to have forged that person into a weapon for their god/church/cause. There’s not really anything resembling that in the Thaumaturge’s flavor, while shaking a big gaggle of religious symbols at monsters is indeed the opposite of what one should do. Thaum also isn’t touching on the gish niche much at all, whereas a lot of folks here have voiced wanting to see a 2e Inquisitor with Focus Spells (at least) and (potentially) being a divine wave caster.
At the end of the day, the narrative fantasy of the two is pretty distinct. Can you play a Thaumaturge as a monster hunter? Absolutely. But the existence of the Aberrant Bloodline Sorcerer didn’t disqualify the Psychic from existing, and I see the same thing in play here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like the idea of "person who is sent out by their god or church to solve problems". Gods aren't that interventionist and churches aren't that organized. Champions and Clerics don't get specific instructions from their gods or their hierarchy, after all. Someone who works outside the church based on their sincere belief about what problems need solving is a maniac or just "any player character."
You can have a person who is really serious about their faith who goes out and does things, but that could be a wizard or a fighter.
I mean, there should probably be a divine gish (and an occult gish, and a primal gish) but I *really* want to make something more interesting and appropriate than the Inquisitor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose the Cleric and Champion do nothing in the name of their church or deity then?
There are also literally mechanics in the game that involve interacting or speaking to one's deity. From spells to Divine Intercession. Iirc, there is literally and adventure coming out that will involve having tea or lunch with a deity at some point (I may be misremembering here).
Golarion's Deities are hardly hands off. They certainly aren't at everyone's beck and call. But given that they aren't in any way omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, they heavily rely on their mortal followers to enact their will.
And if Desna needs someone to hunt down followers of Ghlaunder, who better to do that than an Inquisitor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we do get a Divine Gish or Inquisitor Analogue, I'd like the class to not be necessarily specific to a deity or a religion. Since the whole "I'm a troubleshooter for [God]" is never going to be a thing that's going to be equally appropriate for all deities PCs are going to have.
You can have divine empowerment and some sort of supernatural mandate, but I'd like it to not be specific to a deity (though your character might worship one deity over others, just like a character of any class could.) Since like, the Inquisitor I played in 1e was an Inquisitor of Ng, as a joke character because the entire idea is absurd - "Ng wants me to go out and do things! What things? I don't know and no one will tell me, and I wouldn't tell you even if I did know- I might know and am just not telling you."
Tying the class to a pantheon or a specific outer plane is a lot better than tying it to a specific deity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what I'm hearing is that, for some of you, an Inquisitor should be a damage-dealing class with divine magic, sort of like the 4E Avenger, with either bounded spellcasting, like the magus, or with focus spell, like the warden ranger.
Does it also need to be good at Recall Knowledge and exploiting monsters' weaknesses? Or could it still be an inquisitor without those?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we do get a Divine Gish or Inquisitor Analogue, I'd like the class to not be necessarily specific to a deity or a religion. Since the whole "I'm a troubleshooter for [God]" is never going to be a thing that's going to be equally appropriate for all deities PCs are going to have.
Not every deity is going to have magical healers or armored knights sworn to redemption, either, and yet here we are. I don’t really understand how “person who hunts the enemies of their deity” is at all a terribly narrow concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I'm hearing is that, for some of you, an Inquisitor should be a damage-dealing class with divine magic, sort of like the 4E Avenger, with either bounded spellcasting, like the magus, or with focus spell, like the warden ranger.
Does it also need to be good at Recall Knowledge and exploiting monsters' weaknesses? Or could it still be an inquisitor without those?
For me, personally, the monster knowledge and weakness bursting isn’t all that essential; it’d be nice to have, but I could get by without. For agents of gods who hunt things like demons and undead, alignment or positive energy are enough, while if your gods has a more nebulous foe like “tyrants” or “kidnappers,” I think you just slay them the old fashioned way.
The 4e Avenger is a very good touchstone. I think the real core of the class fantasy is being a weapon of your god - or as I sometimes put it, a “holy secret agent.”
Sarenrae’s Inquisitors hunt the servants of Rovagug. Milani’s go after oppressors - in Cheliax, everything from the lesser wardens on up to the lords of Hell. Kazutal and Nocticula might both have agents among the Alijae elves, fighting the fiendish invaders in Nagisa. The Old Sun Gods need a different skillset than a Champion or Cleric can bring to the shadowed streets of Mzali. The list goes on and on - I think the class opens up an exceptional number of stories, and that’s before even considering Evil PCs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snip
^ This ^
With the Thaumaturge and Ranger, frankly I can do without the monster hunter aspects of it. Can just MC into either one of those two.
If they instead replaced it with more innovative or thematically appropriate abilities, I'd much prefer they do that. After all, almost every Clsss that has made the jump is different from their 1e counterpart in some way. It doesn't, and shouldn't, simply be a rehash of the exact mechanics of a 1e Inquisitor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really understand how “person who hunts the enemies of their deity” is at all a terribly narrow concept.
I would offer that "the enemies of my god" is a big ask for the GM, since some deities have highly specific enemies. If you show up with an Inquisitor of Milani and the campaign that I have planned is not about "standing up to tyrants to free an oppressed people" then either I'm going to have to make an abrupt about-face or you're just not going to have a lot to do.
If the Inquisitor was more about "the Enemies of Elysium" or "the Enemies of Nirvana" or "the Enemies of the Boneyard" instead of "the Enemies of Cayden" or "the enemies of Shelyn" or "the enemies of Gozreh" it would be a lot easier for the GM to make work. No current PC class asks the GM to do extra work just by showing up, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. There might be no artistic or ZK focus for the story I have in mind, but "broadly in favor of Neutral Good in the service of Shelyn" is much easier to work with.
That's specifically the joke with the Inquisitor of Ng- Ng has no enemies that anybody knows of and no agenda that anybody is aware of. Literally anything you do is plausibly "in service to Ng's grand plan" unless it involves staying in one place too long or failing to remain mysterious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure everything the Inquisitor does has been divied up between the Warpriest and the Thaumaturge at this point; monster lore and bane are the domain of the Thaumaturge, and the warpriest is your holy warrior devoted to a specific god. The difference between an inquisitor and a crusader there is just skill selection, there is nothing stopping a warpriest from preferring stealth and intimidation over athletics.
Of course, this is hampered by the fact that people are generally dissatisfied with the warpriest's implementation...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would offer that "the enemies of my god" is a big ask for the GM, since some deities have highly specific enemies. If you show up with an Inquisitor of Milani and the campaign that I have planned is not about "standing up to tyrants to free an oppressed people" then either I'm going to have to make an abrupt about-face or you're just not going to have a lot to do.
Yes, you can make characters that are bad fits for campaigns.
Of course, this is hampered by the fact that people are generally dissatisfied with the warpriest's implementation...
I mean, the warpriest in and of itself is okay enough, but it's a poor replacement for the inquisitor for the same reason that giving a wizard a sword doesn't make a magus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason giving a wizard a sword doesn't make a magus is because the magus is associated with spellstrike. I don't think the Inquisitor has anything that spectacular that hasn't already been given to someone else.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason giving a wizard a sword doesn't make a magus is because the magus is associated with spellstrike.
That's a little reductive.
The overall package that the wizard provides was simply not conducive to creating the types of characters people were looking for. Which is why, despite all the baleful cries of "just multiclass" or "just get weapon proficiency on your wizard" ... we got a magus class.
Similarly, the total package the warpriest offers is a poor substitute for the offensive divine martial concept space. It's not just inquisitors, the PF1 versions of the paladin (particularly its smite-driven aesthetic), PF1 warpriests, omduras, and many other concepts outside Pathfinder.
The warpriest is not good at making these characters. The warpriest has never been good at making these characters. The Warpriest was, frankly, never designed to make those characters in the first place.
So people are expressing their wish for a class that actually does feel that space. Seems reasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really understand how “person who hunts the enemies of their deity” is at all a terribly narrow concept.I would offer that "the enemies of my god" is a big ask for the GM, since some deities have highly specific enemies. If you show up with an Inquisitor of Milani and the campaign that I have planned is not about "standing up to tyrants to free an oppressed people" then either I'm going to have to make an abrupt about-face or you're just not going to have a lot to do.
How is that literally any different than Clerics or Champions of Milani?
Should we not have an Investigator class just because some campaigns are set in the wilderness?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure everything the Inquisitor does has been divied up between the Warpriest and the Thaumaturge at this point; monster lore and bane are the domain of the Thaumaturge, and the warpriest is your holy warrior devoted to a specific god. The difference between an inquisitor and a crusader there is just skill selection, there is nothing stopping a warpriest from preferring stealth and intimidation over athletics.
Of course, this is hampered by the fact that people are generally dissatisfied with the warpriest's implementation...
I never played 1e and that iteration of the class has no bearing on why I want a 2e Inquisitor or what I want in it. Plenty of 2e classes have few mechanical similarities with their 1e takes.
The ability to play a sneaky Warpriest Cleric doesn’t make the fantasy of a holy avenger/divine assassin/left hand of the church any less worthy of a class unto itself. And as you say, the Warpriest isn’t satisfying a lot of people in the role set aside for it, let alone stretching to cover another.
A Champion is a shield, an iron wall. A Cleric is support, magical healing and buffs. The niche of an offense-focused divine character is wide open, and has rich thematic ground to build upon. I want to hand out meaty smites and have some clever miracles on hand - there’s not a ready option in PF2 for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that literally any different than Clerics or Champions of Milani?
Because there's a meaningful difference between "proactive, I go out and do what my God needs doing" and "reactive, I do what I think is right in accordance with the teachings of my deity." The cleric can still set a good example and guide others along the correct path, the champion can always set a good example and defend their friends and allies- these are classes that are fundamentally about "helping others." What is the less selfless "I fight the enemies of my god" class supposed to do if said enemies never show up?
Like it was a good thing we got rid of the favored enemy focus for the ranger since a player's choice of class shouldn't depend on or dictate what goes on in the campaign.
There should be an offense-oriented divine class. It absolutely should not be "My god has enemies, I go out and beat them up." I would straight up ban a class with that premise from my games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason giving a wizard a sword doesn't make a magus is because the magus is associated with spellstrike. I don't think the Inquisitor has anything that spectacular that hasn't already been given to someone else.
This is kind of ignoring the fact that several if not all the classes got a fresh coat of paint in some way. I don't understand the idea that anything coming from 1e is going to be represented as it was.
Judgment wasn't gutted by anything we have. Also, given how Warpriest was handled, they could reasonably justify pulling from its 1e iteration for inspiration. Some take on Sacred Weapon, Sacred Armor, and Fervor work well imo; being able to use any weapon or armor to enact you Deities will, and even heal through sheer will of faith. And even if these aren't used, new mechanics can always be developed or altered, as they have almost every class.
---
I also don't get the argument that an Inquistor isn't going to fit every deity. Warpriests don't fit Deities like Korada, whose dogma pushes for peace, kindness, and forgiveness. He is incredibly skilled at martial arts, but abhors violence. Likewise, there are a few of Deities I've seen whose teachings hardly fit certain Champion Causes, despite being the correct alignment to take them. Mother Vulture is a good example imo, whose edicts state that one must kill without mercy if it benefits your community. That doesn't really suggest any flexibility there, and yet her followers can be Redeemers, which kind of seems like conflicting Tenets if tour granting an enemy mercy to redeem their ways.
Point being, some poor pairings between a Deity and what an Inquisitor is meant to do is hardly reason to simply not do it.
---
I also kind of feel like the argument of "hunt enemies of faith" is instantly crossing a line in a world with defined and very real forms of evil is moot. Shouldn't slay those followers of Rovagug and the Qlippoth it summoned because it gives me bad feels. I get being uncomfortable with the idea of going around and putting anyone not of your faith to the sword, but that defiently is not what is happening in this instance. Inquisitors of Gozreh and Abadar aren't going to be at each others necks over the progress of nature and civilization, Calistrians aren't going around killing Caydenites because she finds him annoying, and Ironians are trying to beat down every Iomedaean, Caydenite, or Norgorberite because Irori feels their apotheosis was undeserved. No one here is placing innocent people in stockade or burning accused witches at the stake. And the argument that someone, somewhere, is is very likely going to not be at your table might do it is hardly a reason to punish others for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely believe that "offensive class, divine edition" needs to be something that happens to you (like the oracle, or the blessed one archetype) rather than something you choose or train for. I would prefer if, like the Blessed One archetype, it's possible to leave your benefactor wholly mysterious- perhaps it's not even an actual god, it's just a powerful outsider who wanted to point you in a direction.
Like in Pathfinder 1e you could play Paladins who weren't fond of any particular god, but something invested power in you anyway. Let us do that with the "Divine class, offensive edition."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask - isn’t the existence of a vocal portion of the fanbase who want this class fantasy a justification for having it? The archetype has a history both in Pathfinder and in wider pop culture/media/fiction, and fans of it surely deserve the same chance that all the swashbuckling pirates and telepathic psychics got.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telepathic psychics and swashbucklers are not tied to a specific gameplay though.
I'd rather prefer to have classes not meant to be played in a specific way or, to say it better, to have more mechanics I can play the way I want without being forced into some unwanted flavor.
That went out the window with the Investigator, Oracle, Witch - and honestly, the Champion before them. PF2 is a game meant for Golarion.
And again, I don’t understand how an Inquisitor of a certain god is any more restrictive than playing a Cleric of that same god.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that a Fighter covered in dirt is not a Ranger, and a Wizard with a guitar is not a Bard, I don't personally take an especially-pious Thaumaturge as an Inquisitor. "Knowing things and fighting monsters" is hardly a unique niche in the d20 fantasy space, and if it was, then we'd just have Investigators with a penchant for the occult instead of the Thaumaturge existing.
There's room for another class, especially when the flavor is radically different.
There are a lot more more similarities between Inquisitor and Thaumaturge than "knowing things and fighting monsters", see above.
Is the flavor radically different? 1E inquisitors were more like specialized monster hunters than a church militant. Thaumaturges fill that niche.
The thematic heart of an Inquisitor is their devotion to faith, belief strong enough to have forged that person into a weapon for their god/church/cause. There’s not really anything resembling that in the Thaumaturge’s flavor, while shaking a big gaggle of religious symbols at monsters is indeed the opposite of what one should do. Thaum also isn’t touching on the gish niche much at all, whereas a lot of folks here have voiced wanting to see a 2e Inquisitor with Focus Spells (at least) and (potentially) being a divine wave caster.
At the end of the day, the narrative fantasy of the two is pretty distinct. Can you play a Thaumaturge as a monster hunter? Absolutely. But the existence of the Aberrant Bloodline Sorcerer didn’t disqualify the Psychic from existing, and I see the same thing in play here.
The chief thematic heart of an inquisitor is surpise and fear.
The two thematic hearts of the inquisitior are surprise, fear and ruthless efficency.
The three thematic hearts of the inquistor are surprise, fear, ruthless efficency and an almost fanatical dedication to their god.
And smart, red uniforms!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've personally always felt that inquisitor's story backing is mostly a description of a personality type or job - anyone could be the troubleshooter for their god. A wizard. A rogue. A cleric.
If they can bring interesting mechanics in, that's great, but as is inquisitor really feels the most like you can make any character be one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The three thematic hearts of the inquistor are surprise, fear, ruthless efficency and an almost fanatical dedication to their god.
?? The thematic heart of the inquisitor was being a divine spellcaster who uses a combination of skill and martial prowess to defeat their enemies in the name of their deity.
Similar to the paladin, but with a skillset closer to a ranger or rogue's than a fighter's.
They got a bonus to intimidate as a class feature, but they also got a bonus to sense motive, knowledge checks, and survival. So it's weird to single out only one of those as "the heart" of the class when to be honest they're all fairly minor features.
... Nothing within the class requires them to be 'fanatical' any moreso than a paladin or cleric was. Actually maybe less so, the ex-inquisitor language was a bit more permissive than the ex-cleric one.
So this assessment seems blatantly inaccurate on its face.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The three thematic hearts of the inquistor are surprise, fear, ruthless efficency and an almost fanatical dedication to their god.?? The thematic heart of the inquisitor was being a divine spellcaster who uses a combination of skill and martial prowess to defeat their enemies in the name of their deity.
Similar to the paladin, but with a skillset closer to a ranger or rogue's than a fighter's.
They got a bonus to intimidate as a class feature, but they also got a bonus to sense motive, knowledge checks, and survival. So it's weird to single out only one of those as "the heart" of the class when to be honest they're all fairly minor features.
... Nothing within the class requires them to be 'fanatical' any moreso than a paladin or cleric was. Actually maybe less so, the ex-inquisitor language was a bit more permissive than the ex-cleric one.
So this assessment seems blatantly inaccurate on its face.
Squiggit, siegfriedliner is making a Monty Python reference. I'm frankly surprised that it took this long to come up.
Edit: Here's a link to the sketch
Edit 2: Did you know that sketch is why Imrijka the iconic 1E inquisitor wears bright red?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is any Class that I felt was worse than Inquisitor in terms of design/flavor/sincerity to the lore then I honestly don't know what it would have been with the POSSIBLE exception of the initial 1.0 version of the Shifter which was just a Class that was straight up non-functional and broken (as in someone who fell off a 20 story building is broken).
Well over half of the deities in the setting wouldn't hesitate to balk at the idea of the Inq, and most of them are the Good and Neutral ones meaning that the majority of the faiths that make sense to support, hire, and approve of these religious cultist murderhobos would be Evil to start with...
Additionally, if we want to get EXTRA real about things here, I personally find the fantasy of going around doing missionary work on behalf of your church, performing rites of religious cleansing on outside populations, and just outright having a license to kill heretics according to your faith to be more than a bit problematic given that nearly ALL of the major historical tragedies done against foreign peoples were justified by religious zealotry and dogma. This kind of thing is literally still going on to this day in just about every nation on Earth.
Just my 2c, but again, I'd rather get it out here as I don't see any redeeming value in supporting a class and idea like this with PF2. It's pointless, goes against the lore of deity non-intervention and retention of Alignment meanings, and makes light of realized and cultural genocide that exists in our own human society TODAY.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm...fairly certain that Paizo could figure out a way to reframe/update the class from a lore perspective to be more in line with current sensibilities, as they have with a number of others.
This isn't the days of early-to-mid PF1 where things are edgy for edginess's sake, I doubt the theoretical 2e version of the class would resemble either any historical inquisition or the nightmarish satirical take from Warhammer 40,000 - not anymore than champions have their roots in crusaders and templars.
Either way, leaving the class's existing fans (of either its mechanical role or place in the game world) in the dust rather than try to figure out a way to make it fit into the current edition would be...Disappointing, to say the least.
I love the thaumaturge, both mechanically and narratively - it's maybe my favorite class in the game currently. I don't think it's an adequate replacement for an inquisitor.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think perhaps some people are taking the "Inquisitor" name too literally, rather than seeing what is actually being asked... a divine spy assassin sort whi hunts villains. I don't see why goodly deities would balk at wanting a disciple skilled at infiltration to find and root out demon cults or find the undead society that lives beneath the streets and feeds upon the daylight population...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think a good part of the popularity of the Inquisitor in 1e was based on "It was a really strong bundle of mechanics" and "unlike the Paladin you're open to non LG characters."
I'm not sure the lore/thematics are salvageable, nor should they necessarily be central to a class. You can have an offensive/skills oriented divine class, but "person who fights who (they believe) are the enemies of their gods" is potentially any PC and "person whose singular zeal gives them divine powers" is an archetype.
I mean, even the Witch baked way off of the child-eating stuff in 2e, so the Inquisitor is going to need a severe retrofit for thematics if/when we do it. Pathfinder 2e is a significantly less "edgy for the sake of being edgy" in August of 2022 than it was in August of 2010 and I don't want to see that stuff claw back.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little baffled by the repeated insistence that the class needs to be "edgy for the sake of being edgy" or is somehow "incompatible" with the alignment system or certain deities.
The PF1 inquisitor, mechanically and thematically, was the rogue-cleric counterpart to the paladin's fighter-cleric design space. You had thematic baggage as an agent of a deity, but no more so than the aforementioned Cleric or Paladin. That's it.
All this other stuff is stuff people are essentially creating themselves to inject into the class. On the one hand, that's fair, because everyone has their own headcanon and take on things.
But it's strange to essentially homebrew your own rules for the class (they must be evil, they must be fanatical, they must be cruel, they must be singularly devoted to only fighting a specific enemy) and then point to that homebrew as evidence that nothing like the class should ever exist again.
It's like writing a setting where all druids wear orange and then telling people the Druid is a bad class because you don't like orange.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might help you understand why some of us feel the way we do.I'm a little baffled by the repeated insistence that the class needs to be "edgy for the sake of being edgy" or is somehow "incompatible" with the alignment system or certain deities.
The PF1 inquisitor, mechanically and thematically, was the rogue-cleric counterpart to the paladin's fighter-cleric design space. You had thematic baggage as an agent of a deity, but no more so than the aforementioned Cleric or Paladin. That's it.
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.
Role: Inquisitors tend to move from place to place, chasing down enemies and researching emerging threats. As a result, they often travel with others, if for no other reason than to mask their presence. Inquisitors work with members of their faith whenever possible, but even such allies are not above suspicion.
If that doesn't scream edgy, underhanded, and religious/cultist murderer and crusader to folks... I don't really know what to say. It's pretty starkly defined by that flavor explicitly and to be frank, there are very few things in real life that I find more appealing than this kind of self-centered/selfish, greedy, and single-minded zealotry that actively makes the Earth a worse and more dangerous place.
So yeah, it's not about the color orange and if you like it or not, but rather, it's about a kind of religious/terroristic belief system that is oppressively and violently enforced on non-believers. Disliking Orange /=/ Disliking systematic brainwashing, murder, torture, and forced assimilation of people of "lesser" faiths.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is "I root out the enemies of my faith" is a job in a church hierarchy, it's not a thing a God would tell you to do. The church of Asmodeus absolutely has people like that, The church of Pharasma probably does too, but there's no Shelynite organization that would care about this. Since low level characters don't deal directly with deities or powerful outsiders you're not even likely to know anything more about "the enemies of faith" beyond what your holy book and church dogma tell you anyway. "I have decided that you are the enemy of my faith and my God backs me up on this" is a truly bizarre ability to give to weird antisocial loners (i.e. PCs.)
Cleric/Rogue or "divine offense" are fine things to have as the premise of a class, but the flavor of the inquisitor is not something I want anywhere near this game. If you're inclined to take a rosy view of the Inquisitor as "I'm just a guy who solves problem for Desna" (as though "travel around and keep the roads safe for travelers" is not the mandate for every Desnan) the first thing that needs to change is "the name of the class."
You can bring a lot of what was good about a class from the last edition with a new class with a different name after all- the Thaumaturge keeps a lot of what was great about the Occultist. For similar reasons, if the Arcanist gets ported forward it's for sure going to have a different name too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be happy with "Intercessor"- since your job would be to go out and find earthly problems and people who need help, then sincerely request assistance from your deity on the behalf of the aggrieved. Since your deity probably does not keep particularly close tabs on terrestrial problems, so the relationship is "you find them then you ask the divine for help."
"I I go out and find people's problems and ask for Torag's help resolving them" is a much less thematically fraught space than "I go out and fight the enemies of Torag." This diverts from the Champion via your job is to solve the problem thereby helping the people, rather than defend the people suffering the problem- Proactive vs. Reactive.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real-life knights were murderous bastards, and those who waged wars of faith often doubly so - and yet, somehow, the many crimes of the Crusaders or the conquistadors somehow don’t preclude us from having Champions/Paladins in the core rulebook. The crimes of the Spanish Inquisition 500 years ago doesn’t taint the idea of being a cool holy assassin in my eyes.
Not that I’m married to the name, of course, but a lot of the objections I’m hearing are being projected onto the class, rather than having anything to do with what I want from it.
EDIT: Genuinely asking, for those with more 1e knowhow than me - was Imrijka, the Iconic Inquisitor, ever a "murderous zealot"? Was she torturing people? Persecuting other members of her own Church? I ask because I don't truly know, but I see Neutral Good on her wiki page and have never heard of any atrocities committed by her hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Holy Assassin" is a troublesome thing itself, since not a lot of deities straight up condone murder if the ends justify the means. The classes who receive divine power should be held to a higher standard than "random worshipers who don't get divine powers."
Reconnaissance, espionage, infiltration? Sure. Assassination? Well, Rogues aren't assassins, Rangers aren't assassins, Swashbucklers aren't assassins. So this is a weird thing to bake into a class.
I think the important thing is you have to be extra careful when you have a divinity giving their tacit or explicit endorsement to something that is probably bad. This hypothetical divine gish should be a little less obligated to color between the lines champion or cleric, but not as unrestricted as like "a fighter" or "a wizard" in that particular faith would be.