| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't really have "tenets of neutrality" that are "do not care about good, evil, law, or chaos" but that's for sure how Nethys feels.
Why can't you? Arguably the one most defining thread connecting Neutral deities is that they tend to eschew strong concerns over Good and Evil with an emphasis instead focusing on their primary agenda.
So Tenets of Neutrality should probably reflect that and emphasize the importance of focusing on that agenda over and above greater concerns about morality or selfishness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said all edition that Edicts and Anathemas are a much more interesting morality system than Alignment. They care about what you believe rather than how you believe it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil."
True, in the same way that tolerating good is still good.
Alignment just doesn't make sense for actual people 99% of the time. I hate most everything it brings to the system. Alignment damage is terrible. Having the only true tank class tied so tightly to alignment and tenants is Anathema to me...
I'd much rather it not exist.
I get your point, some more neutral form of Champion would be interesting from a roleplaying point of view. Neutral causes should exist. On top of that we do need another tanky class as Champions and Monks both have roleplaying baggage. We are at 22 classes. So on a porportional basis, a third tank class is overdue.
Alignment itself is a useful tool. I can see that a proper separate discussion about what it brings to the table is appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never liked alignment for PCs and only really engage with it as required by the system outside of specifically setting out to challenge it. It's mildly useful as basic behavior summary and as a method of assuring a GM that doesn't know you that you aren't about to burn down an orphanage.
Good and evil? Those definitions vary wildly from person to person. As an example, I'm very left wing politically and ethically and there are things in the setting I frankly cannot view as simply 'neutral' despite the labeling.
Law and chaos? Functionally meaningless. 'Chaos' is just a word for a limited perception of a universe built on fundamental laws and constants without fully understanding those principles. Everything is chaos when you zoom in enough on it but zoom out and predictable patterns emerge.
So yeah, I'm generally in favor of loosening restrictions based on alignment or shoring up those that exist with more concrete guidelines as opposed to lvague statements and gestures at moral absolutism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.
Intolerance is also evil.
Down the rabbit hole we could go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of that we do need another tanky class as Champions and Monks both have roleplaying baggage. We are at 22 classes. So on a porportional basis, a third tank class is overdue.
Alignment itself is a useful tool. I can see that a proper separate discussion about what it brings to the table is appropriate.
I find that "tank" is a niche that can be filled by nearly every martial. On paper, a sword and board Fighter is a tank, an Armor Inventor is a tank, an Animal Barbarian is a tank, a level 10+ Swashbuckler is a tank, etc...
Maybe adding more options to make a tank out of any character (a Rogue Racket focusing on dodging for example). But I don't feel there's a need for tanky characters.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of that we do need another tanky class as Champions and Monks both have roleplaying baggage. We are at 22 classes. So on a porportional basis, a third tank class is overdue.
Alignment itself is a useful tool. I can see that a proper separate discussion about what it brings to the table is appropriate.
I find that "tank" is a niche that can be filled by nearly every martial. On paper, a sword and board Fighter is a tank, an Armor Inventor is a tank, an Animal Barbarian is a tank, a level 10+ Swashbuckler is a tank, etc...
Maybe adding more options to make a tank out of any character (a Rogue Racket focusing on dodging for example). But I don't feel there's a need for tanky characters.
In this context I disagree. Tank means character with significant defensive features. Beyond the basic trade off between offense and defence that every character gets with a shield.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this context I disagree. Tank means character with significant defensive features. Beyond the basic trade off between offense and defence that every character gets with a shield.
So you don't consider Armor Inventors, Animal Barbarians and level 10+ Swashbucklers to be tanks? I will disagree with you on that. I even think some of them are better tanks than Champions (AC is not everything).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.Intolerance is also evil.
Down the rabbit hole we could go.
Of course, the Paradox of Tolerance isn't quite as much of a gotcha as it first seems. Tolerance itself is not, in fact, a virtue (merely tolerating people of different backgrounds and walks of life will not get a person very far) and it is relatively well known that unlimited tolerance will inevitably limit a society's capacity for tolerance. With time, a society that buys into the myth of unlimited tomerance finds that bad actors, bigots, and other forms of intolerance edge out vulnerable groups with their hostility. In short, a policy of intolerance against intolerance is not only not evil, but necessary for even so little as tolerance to exist within a society.
While avoiding the ban on politics talk, the usual story goes "it might seem harmless to let one, well-behaved member of this hate group hang out at this bar, but if you don't kick them out immediately soon they bring their friends and eventually their presence creates an unwelcome environment for those they hate. Once that happens you find you now have a hate-group bar where once there was a diverse community."
The rabbit hole doesn't go down that deep once the nature of the Paradox is well understood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the way certain groups of people treat that as some sort of grand universal truth and not some British dude talking out his ass in a very limited context (and even worse, tend to take the idea to an extreme as a way to justify s@+&ty behavior).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this context I disagree. Tank means character with significant defensive features. Beyond the basic trade off between offense and defence that every character gets with a shield.So you don't consider Armor Inventors, Animal Barbarians and level 10+ Swashbucklers to be tanks? I will disagree with you on that. I even think some of them are better tanks than Champions (AC is not everything).
I don't.
Animal Barbarians have an AC penalty at least after they errated them. Animal Skin only brings them back to par. Armour inventors only get minor miscellaenous abilities - nothing significant beyond heavy armour and a little resistance. Resistance is typically very modest in PF2 compared to damage amounts that get thrown around. Inventors resistance is always limited in scope. I really don't see what high level swashbucklers have at all that makes you think they might be a tank.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see what high level swashbucklers have at all that makes you think they might be a tank.
Well, with Goading Feint and Dueling Dance you're on par with the medium or light armor Champion in terms of AC if the feint lands. The Swashbuckler also wants to get people to attack them in order to make ripostes. So there is a "hangs out in danger and is hard to hurt" version of the class.
But in terms of "we need a defensive class other than the Monk and Champion" I think I agree and I think you manage to thread the needle here by making the class focus specifically on heavy armor (monks get legendary unarmored defense and Champion get legendary in all armors.) Give us a class that absolutely wants to be in heavy armor all the time (like a "Vanguard" class) and you have space for the defense focused class that has less thematic baggage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think a hypothetical Warlord could pull double duty as our atheist heavy armor class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see what high level swashbucklers have at all that makes you think they might be a tank.Well, with Goading Feint and Dueling Dance you're on par with the medium or light armor Champion in terms of AC if the feint lands. The Swashbuckler also wants to get people to attack them in order to make ripostes. So there is a "hangs out in danger and is hard to hurt" version of the class.
Thanks. So maybe the Fencer Swashbuckler, which I haven't seen much of. But there is a roll, and its only one enemy and one attack.
Think a hypothetical Warlord could pull double duty as our atheist heavy armor class?
It depends on how much of the class budget is on the "support" features of the Warlord. Hypothetical "defense first" class ought to be able to rush into danger feeling safer there than anybody else and make it hard for dangerous things to get away from them more than "I give people buffs" which is I think what the Warlord is supposed to do?
I don't.
Well, first and foremost, I think you are vastly overvaluing Champion's tankiness. Heavy Armor Proficiency is no more stellar since the release of Sentinel, they have one of the worst save array outside casters, so their main asset is a +2 to AC at level 7+ and a few class defensive abilities. Nothing incredible even if it's enough to put them apart most martials. The main asset of the Champion is how well rounded it is (good defensive abilities + healing + ally protection) but it has a big weakness to magic.
I really don't see what high level swashbucklers have at all that makes you think they might be a tank.
Once you get the Riposte feats (ranged Riposte, True Strike Riposte, Extra Riposte and even Riposte on a failure (but there's competition with advantage on saves)) you are a real grinder against any AC based attack. You have Monk AC thanks to your Stance (even if you can't add a shield). And one of the best save array in the game (Greater Evasion is definitely what you're looking for at high level). High level Swashbucklers are crazy tanks, in my opinion better than both Champions and Monks outside some hyper specific builds.
Animal Barbarians have an AC penalty at least after they errated them.
Animal Barbarians are the best buffer tank in the game. Between their massive hit point pool, their excellent physical resistances, the easy usage of a shield (Bastion + Quick Shield Block is so obvious and doesn't reduce your offensive abilities) you can tank absolutely anything for a time. If you want to be obscene you can add the Vibrant Thorn combo and you can get rid of an encounter without even attacking.
Unlike the Swash, your save array is not incredible but still better than the Champion's.The Armor Inventor takes some time to get online but it can grab resistances to nearly everything. I agree with you, it's not as good as a Champion/Monk but it's still nice.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Think a hypothetical Warlord could pull double duty as our atheist heavy armor class?It depends on how much of the class budget is on the "support" features of the Warlord. Hypothetical "defense first" class ought to be able to rush into danger feeling safer there than anybody else and make it hard for dangerous things to get away from them more than "I give people buffs" which is I think what the Warlord is supposed to do?
I wonder if "I'm a sturdy-enough martial support character" and "I'm a really damn sturdy non-divine tank" could share enough to be subclasses of one thing. It might work if the tank is doing some provoking/marking, something to draw threat to themself, rather than dishing out actual buffs and debuffs?
I don't.Well, first and foremost, I think you are vastly overvaluing Champion's tankiness. Heavy Armor Proficiency is no more stellar since the release of Sentinel, they have one of the worst save array outside casters, so their main asset is a +2 to AC at level 7+ and a few class defensive abilities. Nothing incredible even if it's enough to put them apart most martials. The main asset of the Champion is how well rounded it is (good defensive abilities + healing + ally protection) but it has a big weakness to magic.
It is the AC advantage. Yes everyone can get heavy armour if they want it. The main benefit of the class is you have everything you need at level 1 so you can invest in whatever you want.
the Riposte feats
Riposte is good. I can't say I'm a fan of riposte on a tank. The bigger problem you have is getting them to attack you over other softer targets. Riposte is very easy to pick up anyway.
grab resistances to nearly everything.
Resistances
are just not that good as the resistance doesn't get high enough.
It is the AC advantage. Yes everyone can get heavy armour if they want it. The main benefit of the class is you have everything you need at level 1 so you can invest in whatever you want.
The AC advantage only starts at level 7, which gives you an extremely small level bracket (7-10) where you can really consider the Champion the best tank bar none. Some classes get Expert at level 11 and once at level 13 saves become easily as important as AC, and Champion is bad at saves.
I play a Champion next to a Fighter in AoA and the Fighter tanks more than my Champion (thanks to a bigger hp pool (Orc + higher Constitution + Toughness) and the fact that he benefits from my Reactions periodically). Overall, I don't really feel that the Champion class makes my character massively tanky, it just makes it slightly tanky.The bigger problem you have is getting them to attack you over other softer targets.
Technically, there's nothing like that in the game. The closest thing are reactions like Attack of Opportunity and Champion's Reaction, but even them are not forcing the enemy to attack you and just hinder their attacks against your comrades.
Anyway, if you consider that you need a way to force the enemies to attack you to qualify as a tank, then the Monk is no more a tank.Riposte is very easy to pick up anyway.
Without the high level feats, Riposte is nice but not strong. The 2 main feats you need are the one allowing you to ignore reach and the one allowing you to Riposte on failures. Without them, you won't Riposte much.
Resistances are just not that good as the resistance doesn't get high enough.
A +1 to AC reduces damage by 10% roughly so at level 20 a Resistance of 5 is equivalent to a +1 to AC. A Resistance of 5 is really a low resistance, it's easy to get higher than that and compensate the equivalent of a +2 to AC.
And then you have the ability to apply multiple Resistances to a single damage pool and the fact that Resistances also apply against spells. So I vastly disagree with you on Resistances being bad. It's just that PF2 numbers are in general quite low.
I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.Intolerance is also evil.
Down the rabbit hole we could go.
That's kind of my point, trying to constrain morality or ideology in a 2 way axis with absolute values just doesn't work. Specially when it is involved in a character creation process. An absolute system like this reinforces absolute character concepts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of my point, trying to constrain morality or ideology in a 2 way axis with absolute values just doesn't work. Specially when it is involved in a character creation process. An absolute system like this reinforces absolute character concepts.I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.Intolerance is also evil.
Down the rabbit hole we could go.
Only if you let it.
It has never bothered me before. Quite the opposite.
|
|
You can't really have "tenets of neutrality" that are "do not care about good, evil, law, or chaos" but that's for sure how Nethys feels.Why can't you? Arguably the one most defining thread connecting Neutral deities is that they tend to eschew strong concerns over Good and Evil with an emphasis instead focusing on their primary agenda.
So Tenets of Neutrality should probably reflect that and emphasize the importance of focusing on that agenda over and above greater concerns about morality or selfishness.
Seems like the perfect place for a self-quote
My take on the Neutral tenets :
. You must never perform acts anathema to your deity.
. You must never put your own needs before those of your deity. You must never knowingly harm an innocent unless doing so furthers the goals of your deity.
Taking from both Good and Evil tenets without forbidding aligned acts, and putting your deity's goals above anything else. No need for protecting innocents but also no need for oppressing them. And no talk of "your master" because it smacks too much of Evil.
|
|
I absolutely miss the (anti)Paladin being an "Alignment Class" rather than a "God Class" because trying to map "alignment rules" across deities that are largely unconcerned with a lot of them does become incoherent when you try to stretch it.
You kind of avoid the Palatin/Tyrant of Abadar problem by just viewing the evil Champions as "not for PCs without thorough pre-clearance". But when we get Neutral champions you're going to have characters that are inconsistent with the lore themselves; like the TN champion of Nethys who is a strong proponent of moderation, good judgement, and lack of excess- completely unlike Nethys.
Nethys himself is TN, I believe.
Nethys himself is TN, I believe.
Nethys is a fun example of what TN means, because that's the average of what everything Nethys does or cares about. He absolutely builds incredible things, but he also wracks incredible descrution that balances it out. He's capable of both immense kindness and terrifying cruelty and it balances out.
He's TN because that's what happens when you average the rest of the alignments.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nethys himself is TN, I believe.Nethys is a fun example of what TN means, because that's the average of what everything Nethys does or cares about. He absolutely builds incredible things, but he also wracks incredible descrution that balances it out. He's capable of both immense kindness and terrifying cruelty and it balances out.
He's TN because that's what happens when you average the rest of the alignments.
I personally think he is TN because he does not care a single iota about being Good or Evil or Chaotic or Neutral.
He only cares about magic and its being used, whatever the purpose.
Much like every other TN deity actually.
Not caring about being something is profoundly not the same as not being it.
I say Nethys is a bad example because while he has TN on the sheet he really has three alignments based on the lore of his shattered mind. He acts Lawful Good when his preserver/protector aspect is dominant. He acts Chaotic Evil when his destroyer aspect is dominant. Finally he acts True Neutral in his rare moments of lucidity displaying his original pre-ascension personality but that's the "doesn't particularly care about Good/Evil/Law/Chaos," version of TN. It's some of his worshipers who try to understand Nethys in his entirety who practice the "balance," version of TN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've reworked alignment for my own setting (partially due to how integrated it is to the mechanics in the first place) there's some world building push and pull still, but the general vibe is that since our gods and spirits are constructed from the energies produced by the soul during life before its cleansed and returned to the world in a new life, its more about darkness and light in the 'human' heart, with creatures like fiends and celestials representing concentrations of mortal peoples. I'm less focused on right and wrong actions, and more on the state of the heart-- someone with a dark outlook gets to use cool hellfire and such regardless of their fight for justice, while someone who is very tranquil and open or altruistic might get to use holy light, but be hurting people left and right. It makes a lot of sense with the themes at work in my setting, and most importantly, allows for a lot of cool anti-hero characters. That said 'only' spirits have alignment in my setting, which is everything that isn't mortal or animal, pretty much-- only certain mortals have alignment, mainly the handful of people who make up a god's Divine Household (clerics, champions) and they're actually just infused with their God's alignment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really wished champion would have becomes less alignment resticted and took a more D&D approach (never thought I'd give props to wotc) where you just follow the cleric alignment list and the causes were decoupled from alignment. We already have the catch case in the class where it mentions some gods and some causes are mutually exclusive (like torag redeemers), so it's not like it adds more DM adjudication
Personally, I like removing alignment altogether and replace alignment damage with anathema damage; so like a desnan divine lance would hurt people who spread fear, bigots, etc because those things are anathema to her alignment detection pings either for those who act in accordance to edict or those who embody anathema, depending on which spell you used, protection wards off being that are anathemic, etc. It's also got the benefit that rewards players for roleplaying (a champion that purposely seeks their enemies gets to use their coolest powers more), makes these power come up more (the desnan above can shoot the CN pirate that is terrifying the village), and deals with all the bad stuff alignment normally brings to a game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO that's a feature rather than a bug. Various sects of real-world religions fight and bicker all the time, so why not fantasy ones? I've personally always felt it was stranger that so many fantasy faiths act like monoliths rather than being as fractious as real-world faiths tend to be. The debates are the same, if writ larger because gods in Pathfinder are demonstrably real, or real enough, and I like seeing the people act the same, too.Oh, I very much disagree. The fact that gods don't exist IS the reason there are various sects and religions which always fight and bicker: there's no anchor, no model, no source. No messengers, no 'real' visions, no divine intervention, no way to talk with a deity. Anything you could imagine lucidly or in a delirium could become your evidence or decree of the divine, sincerely or in self-interest. And there we have what we have.
That's why monolithic fantasy faiths in imaginary worlds where gods do exist and act are actually more convincing. (Even if they are so monolithic because of different reasons)
That said, people will always find occasions to fight and Golarion gods aren't that obvious and despotic most of the time to completely control everything.
I feel like there remains much room for variation in practice to cause infinitesimal differences between branches of the faith which blow up into huge disagreements. Things beneath the deity's notice but which are serious business between the feuding sects. The cultural differences between Ustalav and Osirion are no doubt different, this very well should be reflected in regional variations in the Pharasmin faith; an Osirian priest may well decide to condemn Pharasmin Penitence as bordering on heretical.
Of course, since those two examples are so far apart it's unlikely they actually have much occasion to come into conflict, but regional variations have a way of blowing up into regional feuds. With good gods it's unlikely these disputes come to real bloodshed, but doubtless there's a lot of things beneath the deity's intervention, particularly for deities who believe in free will.
I think sometimes people get stuck on, "if the deity is real they can just..." but I'm not sure that is reflected in the depiction of the setting. As an extreme example, Sarenrae could not manage to sway her own faithful away from settling at Gormuz even with visions and messengers. There were interfering factors then, but it shows that deific communication us not a flawless system without room for error. Even the four sun gods of Mzali ended up lost and forgotten by their worshippers.
Certainly major conflicts like the historical "pope fights" wouldn't have much room to exist in a faith that cares about its hierarchy as presumably any high priest that directly challenged the reigning leader of their faith would be sorted out pretty quickly by their deity, but I don't think that deities are really all that interested in administrating every single regional variation of their faith which falls short of actual heresy.
I like alignment for the good vs. evil, chaos vs. law mechanics. Works well for the planar creatures.
Never much used alignment to box people in too much. I still let the player have some shades of grey with alignment acting as a guidepost that affects their decision making.
Hmm, people are talking a lot about tanks, but I generally disagree with what people seem to be focused on.
I'm not interested in playing a champion because they are hard to kill, I'm interested because they make everyone around them much harder to kill. They have more AC than everyone else, but their reactions allow them to protect allies.
Some other martial characters can protect ranged allies very well (even better than champion probably). A monk with a maneuver focus, tangled branch stance and whirling throw does make a pretty good tank. Not for a Melee investigator, but certainly for a wizard.
There's a few other things in there that can push enemies to try and target you or protect your allies, but it's still mostly a champion thing. Unfortunate then that they have such heavy roll playing baggage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree protecting your allies is an important part of being a tank. Only really Champions have got the features to do it. We could do with another class that can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Champions force you to attack them or get punished. Other classes can tank in different ways like using maneuvers, but Champion using a reaction is very efficient.