RIP official Law / Chaos Champion


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scarablob wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D

I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.

Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.

A Champion of Balance is as necessary as polar extremes.

Too much 'holy' or 'unholy' or other things can be horrific.

Take a trip to the Positive or Negative Planes to see why.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that a "Champion of Balance" doesn't fit actual neutral gods like Nethys. Since Nethys is only neutral by virtue of averaging out every extreme at once.

Deities in Pathfinder were more likely neutral because "they simply don't care about whichever axis" than "they wanted to balance them."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But while positive energy and negative energy are very often used as shorthand for good energy and evil energy, they aren't good or evil. The plane that represent "extreme goodness" and "extreme evilness" aren't the positive and negative energy plane, they're the evil and good afterlives, which are, well, absolutely good and evil.

Also "balance in all things" is absolutely lawfull. Even if it's a "moderate" lawfullness as lawfullness itself should be balanced, it's absolutely a lawfull vision of the world (which I think is why paizo shifted the Aeons over to the lawfull side in PF2).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scarablob wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D

I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.

Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.

The main reason I noted that is that I think devs were kinda using "well we don't have good excuse for neutral champion" as excuse to not do lawful and chaotic tenets as well :'D Like that it would be too weird to do 2 out of 3 and leave final alignment combination empty


CorvusMask wrote:
Scarablob wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D

I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.

Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.

The main reason I noted that is that I think devs were kinda using "well we don't have good excuse for neutral champion" as excuse to not do lawful and chaotic tenets as well :'D Like that it would be too weird to do 2 out of 3 and leave final alignment combination empty

To a point; I would say that the lack of mechanics, singular identity, and apparent subtlety would make the class much harder to play than normal. If anything, the Remaster implementing Spirit Damage makes the neutral-based Champions far more viable, since they aren't limited as a result of not being tied to a given alignment type.

And it's not hard to implement the Axiom/Anarch traits to demonstrate Law and Chaos, and "true neutral" still functions all the same with this mechanic in place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarablob wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D

I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.

Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.

That's the issue of tying Champion causes to edicts and anathema and having those tied to alignment. If the causes were tied to alignment without the edicts/anathema in the way all the issues banish. Deities and the extreme alignments (2 step away) can still have their own edict and anathema specific to them.

True neutral is not "black" because it lacks an alignment, its "colorless" or "prismatic" because it can be any alignment at any time and then flip to the exact opposite. That is something that a lot of people seem to not get, True Neutral is opportunistic and will do anything to get what they want. Its why most countries are neutral because they will do both good and evil things to ensure they survive.


I personally don't think 4e was far off when it observed that there were basically five alignments:
- Good, and you do things by the book.
- Good, but they're more what we'd call guidelines.
- None
- Selfish enough to hurt people for personal gain, but you draw a line somewhere.
- Evil: hurting people is the point.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I personally don't think 4e was far off when it observed that there were basically five alignments:

- Good, and you do things by the book.
- Good, but they're more what we'd call guidelines.
- None
- Selfish enough to hurt people for personal gain, but you draw a line somewhere.
- Evil: hurting people is the point.

This is kinda unrelated to the topic though?

Like whether people roleplay the alignments correctly is unrelated to some people wanting Law/Chaos champion x'D

Liberty's Edge

Scarablob wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D

I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.

Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.

The Cause is not the DNA of the Champion. It is its mechanical expression. The DNA of the Class is the code, including the Edicts and Anathemas of their deity. Because the Class is the Champion of a deity and not the Champion of an alignment/cause.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Like whether people roleplay the alignments correctly is unrelated to some people wanting Law/Chaos champion x'D

The point is (and this is kind of related to why they're dropping Law/Chaos in the first place) is that what "Lawful" or "Chaotic" means is pretty muddled.

Like without having rules for these things it's not easier to play a deeply principled anarchist who lives a regimented life away from civilization out of deep respect for the freedom of all living beings. There's nothing contradictory about this character unless you're trying to force everything into a Law/Chaos dichotomy. Likewise there is no difficulty in understanding like a highly placed bureaucrat who knows the rules (written and unwritten) backwards and forwards who is nonetheless a person who is governed by spontaneity and whimsy.

If we losing "Law over all" or "Chaos over all" characters is what enables all these sorts of mixed bag characters, then that's a good trade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is unfortunate but I mirror the sentiment that it's good that more deities will likely be a possible fit for the class and subclasses. I would like to see more causes though at some point because I like to see new mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Like whether people roleplay the alignments correctly is unrelated to some people wanting Law/Chaos champion x'D

The point is (and this is kind of related to why they're dropping Law/Chaos in the first place) is that what "Lawful" or "Chaotic" means is pretty muddled.

Like without having rules for these things it's not easier to play a deeply principled anarchist who lives a regimented life away from civilization out of deep respect for the freedom of all living beings. There's nothing contradictory about this character unless you're trying to force everything into a Law/Chaos dichotomy. Likewise there is no difficulty in understanding like a highly placed bureaucrat who knows the rules (written and unwritten) backwards and forwards who is nonetheless a person who is governed by spontaneity and whimsy.

If we losing "Law over all" or "Chaos over all" characters is what enables all these sorts of mixed bag characters, then that's a good trade.

We could do them already, as long as we stopped considering alignment as a straightjacket.

Also Good and Evil were not that clearly defined either. Most Paladin falls threads were about those rather than about Law and Chaos.


The Raven Black wrote:
The Cause is not the DNA of the Champion. It is its mechanical expression. The DNA of the Class is the code, including the Edicts and Anathemas of their deity. Because the Class is the Champion of a deity and not the Champion of an alignment/cause.

What I meant is that following a code is the DNA of the champion, but no single code can be associated to the "true neutral" alignment, and thus a "true neutral" champion couldn't exist (at least as long as half of a champion code is the alignment code).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Like whether people roleplay the alignments correctly is unrelated to some people wanting Law/Chaos champion x'D

The point is (and this is kind of related to why they're dropping Law/Chaos in the first place) is that what "Lawful" or "Chaotic" means is pretty muddled.

Like without having rules for these things it's not easier to play a deeply principled anarchist who lives a regimented life away from civilization out of deep respect for the freedom of all living beings. There's nothing contradictory about this character unless you're trying to force everything into a Law/Chaos dichotomy. Likewise there is no difficulty in understanding like a highly placed bureaucrat who knows the rules (written and unwritten) backwards and forwards who is nonetheless a person who is governed by spontaneity and whimsy.

If we losing "Law over all" or "Chaos over all" characters is what enables all these sorts of mixed bag characters, then that's a good trade.

Knowing the law inside and out does not make you lawful, it makes you smart. Following those laws makes you lawful. Selectively following those laws makes you neutral. Refusing to follow those laws makes you chaotic.

Being a highly principled anarchist means you are either lawful or neutral, but you specifically don't like the government.

Not to mention that a lot of the "this is complicated" is just "this character is neutral but I don't want them to be neutral".

Alignment is only a straightjacket if you force it. Also having constraints is generally better for creativity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Scarablob wrote:
The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.

While true, TN deities tend to be very focused on their own specific niches, so a champion cause could have simply pointed more heavily in that direction as a replacement.

I feel like that might somewhat be the solution for Core 2 Champions anyways, assuming they don't take the easy route and simply scrub off alignment but leave the class mostly the same.


Squiggit wrote:
While true, TN deities tend to be very focused on their own specific niches, so a champion cause could have simply pointed more heavily in that direction as a replacement.

This is absolutely true, but even so, having causes that focus on these niches don't really make them "champion of true neutrality" (the way paladin are champion of lawfull goodness), but rather champions that happen to be true neutral.

But it is basically what I expect of 2.5, the champion subclasses will still have a "god independant" tenet, but without alignment paizo will be able to make new ones out of causes that don't really fit any specific alignment. I expect the existing ones to stay mostly the same, but it'll open up more possibilities of creating new ones now that the "all must fit a specific alignment, an alignment can only have one" is gone.

Also, I expect the god entry to now implement a "champion subclass" entry that describe which type of champion they allow. It should stay mostly the same for most gods, but I expect a few shakeup, like nocticula allowing reedeemer, or lamashtu allowing desecrator.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like reducing Law vs Chaos to "always follows the law" and "doesn't" with any complication between those being reduced to Neutral would be a bit of an oversimplification. It seems to me obeying the letter of whatever law system you happen to be in is a very shallow interpretation where what it means to be lawful can change depending whether the laws of your land are strict or lax and cruel or just. A lawful person would always do their best to respect the laws of the land, but especially someone like a champion of Law should care about the concept of Lawfulness enough to see that the actual written law is just a manifestation of lawfulness and sometimes they need to be changed to better fit the ideals of order.

... Buuut alignment is supposed to be dead now, so poking its corpse with another alignment debate might not be the best way to mourn it in a thread about Champions.

Incidentally someone upthread said we'll never get lawful or chaotic causes, but I don't think that's necessarily true. For one, unless Liberayor and Paladin are actively going to lose their nuance, we already have a couple, and for another the concept of Axis and the Maelstrom still exist even if those forces don't have their own custom damage type to smite their foes with. Regular old smiting with physical and magical might will have to do.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That and my interest in law vs chaos isn't about how to roleplay characters, but about taking part in cosmic philosophy about order vs freedom and stagnant robo angels vs entropy chaos sneks


I think we'll still keep some of our champion concepts mostly in tact, but this is a good opportunity to give the class a bit more freedom, and rewrite the feats. Champion has a lot of levels (mostly early) where all the feats feel pretty weak. They're comparable in strength sure, but weak.

One change I could see happening is pulling lay on hands out as a class feature. Its a pretty core feature of the class, but moving it into the subclass/cause gives so much more flexibility. The "Good" champion can still get lay on hands, but something devoted to smiting evil could get something more aggressive.

Having each cause give a unique focus spell AND reaction would be cool, or if we could mix and match with say, the reaction from the cause and focus spell from the oath or something.

It'll be interesting to see if they keep the "defender" role too, champion is the only class that does it, and it has put it in a bit of a weird place.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, original classes will remain usable. Barbarian will likely require zero adjustments. Neither should any other CRB or APG class. Champions will require a very minimal amount of adjustment to run as outlined above. And hopefully the remaster gives us a final version that's more than just that hate minimum and opens up a lot of character concepts, including "neutral" and more offensive champions.

Dragon barbarian will likely change, and I think barbarian was on the list for a remaster (probably because of dragon).

I'm stoked for the witch and alch ones though. Witch only needs a little love but it'll be nice to see it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ganigumo wrote:

I think we'll still keep some of our champion concepts mostly in tact, but this is a good opportunity to give the class a bit more freedom, and rewrite the feats. Champion has a lot of levels (mostly early) where all the feats feel pretty weak. They're comparable in strength sure, but weak.

One change I could see happening is pulling lay on hands out as a class feature. Its a pretty core feature of the class, but moving it into the subclass/cause gives so much more flexibility. The "Good" champion can still get lay on hands, but something devoted to smiting evil could get something more aggressive.

Having each cause give a unique focus spell AND reaction would be cool, or if we could mix and match with say, the reaction from the cause and focus spell from the oath or something.

It'll be interesting to see if they keep the "defender" role too, champion is the only class that does it, and it has put it in a bit of a weird place.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, original classes will remain usable. Barbarian will likely require zero adjustments. Neither should any other CRB or APG class. Champions will require a very minimal amount of adjustment to run as outlined above. And hopefully the remaster gives us a final version that's more than just that hate minimum and opens up a lot of character concepts, including "neutral" and more offensive champions.

Dragon barbarian will likely change, and I think barbarian was on the list for a remaster (probably because of dragon).

I'm stoked for the witch and alch ones though. Witch only needs a little love but it'll be nice to see it.

Yes, dragon barbarians will change, but but my point was you can still use the OG barbarian until Core 2 releases. Or even afterwards, if you like. OGL PF2 content will largely remain usable, though you'll likely not want to use anything with a Remastered alternative because with the exception of the hammer/flail critical specializations everything we have heard is staying the same or getting a buff.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarablob wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
While true, TN deities tend to be very focused on their own specific niches, so a champion cause could have simply pointed more heavily in that direction as a replacement.

This is absolutely true, but even so, having causes that focus on these niches don't really make them "champion of true neutrality" (the way paladin are champion of lawfull goodness), but rather champions that happen to be true neutral.

But it is basically what I expect of 2.5, the champion subclasses will still have a "god independant" tenet, but without alignment paizo will be able to make new ones out of causes that don't really fit any specific alignment. I expect the existing ones to stay mostly the same, but it'll open up more possibilities of creating new ones now that the "all must fit a specific alignment, an alignment can only have one" is gone.

Also, I expect the god entry to now implement a "champion subclass" entry that describe which type of champion they allow. It should stay mostly the same for most gods, but I expect a few shakeup, like nocticula allowing reedeemer, or lamashtu allowing desecrator.

Paladins are not Champions of Lawful Goodness though. They are LG Champions of deities.

The difference might seem minute and does not show in their abilities, but it is there. And it is the reason why so many people in the playtest strongly complained about Champions being required to follow a deity and not being able to just follow an ideal anymore.

The True Neutral Champion could simply be : Put your deity's will and needs above anything. Do not become involved in the fight between Good and Evil or the debate between Law and Chaos. In the end all those are only distractions from your true call.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Paladins are not Champions of Lawful Goodness though. They are LG Champions of deities.

If paladins weren't champion of lawfull goodness, they wouldn't have a deity-agnostic lawfull good code to follow, that give them a deity agnostic power. As it stand, the current version of the champions are both champions of their deity, and champions of their alignment. Both aspect are needed, both aspect add half of your character "code", and both add unique powers to your character.

Honestly, given how impactfull the choice of alignment is compared to the choice of deity, I'd say that champion are first champion of their alignment, then of their deity. The deity only give you access to it's deific weapon, along with informing which domain spell you can take if you decide to pick that feat, while alignment decide of your reaction, all of it's evolution, and impact a good half of your feat choices.

People didn't complained because paladin wasn't a champion of lawfull goodness anymore, they complained because it couldn't be only that. In PF2, paladin have to be champion of lawfull goodness and of a deity, it can't just be one or the other. They can stil follow a deity-agnostic ideal (and actually, they have to), but they can't stop there, they have to pick a deity on top of that.

Liberty's Edge

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

My Paladin of Torag is just that. He does not fight for the plane of Heaven or for the cause of Lawful Goodness. He does not praise the value of Good and Law.

He fights for Torag, upholds and extols Torag's way and follows Torag's example, lessons and will as much as he can.

He is the Champion of his deity. Not of his alignment.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I'd like to see holy/unholy tied to each deity like heal/harm is. I'd like to see champion codes and causes tied first and foremost to deity anathema and edicts. I'd like to see the old "law/chaos/good/evil" codes and causes made into oaths that give small bonus if taken but are optional at level 1 and with True Neutral being similar to the wizard Universalist School.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not remember and know not where to to back to look, but I thought it was a part of the designers' intent for the Champion class that it was both a champion of a deity, but also the champion of a particular philosophy tied to the alignment grid. It may instead be that I heard somebody say this about the Champion in a past discussion and I hallucinated it coming from a dev conversation, but this is what I thought.

This is not necessarily to say these are the terms I would frame it in. For example, I considered it important to my champion's character that they were both a devout warrior in service of Shelyn, but also in service of the ideals of Freedom (i.e. "chaotic-goodness" by a more in-character friendly name).

On that note, even for a TN Champion I don't think framing 'neutrality' as a core ideal necessarily makes sense, because that tends to be how you get nonsense ideals like balancing good and evil. Rather, a neutral champion would in my opinion be better written as dedicated to a philosophy or cause which is neither inherently good nor evil. People often take this and run with the TN gods' main themes (nature/death/magic) as a diverse collection of virtues, but I tend to think more in terms of "I protect my own and offer only what harm is offered to me" kind of eye-for-an-eye ideal which can mesh alongside any other cause.

(Though don't take this specific cause as the one, I haven't cracked the TN Cause anymore than anyone else has at this point, though I do feel rather positively about 'protecting ones own [kind]' as a Neutral tenet since that 'kind' can by extended to any category which fits with the Champion's theme. A lawful arbiter champion follows the law and protects the citizens of their city or nation. A champion of Gozreh protects their family and the beauty of their environment. It can be up to context to decide what kind of a group is identified as the champion's ward--their kin, their countryfolk, their order, etc.)


Dragorine wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see holy/unholy tied to each deity like heal/harm is.

As it happens, it seems to be implied that this is basically how it works. We're given to understand that some deities will require their clergy to be sanctified to holy or unholy causes, while others might give the option but not require it, and still others might not even give the option.

Sarenrae strikes me as an obvious example of 'you must be dedicated to holiness' to gain spells/powers from her (which if true gives the lie to those insisting the Cult of the Dawnflower is making a comeback because alignment is gone)

Asmodeus likewise strikes me as an obvious example of someone who requires dedication to unholy (namely because he previously refused power to any but those who bowed before exactly his own ideals of LE; if there were lawful and chaotic sanctification I would expect his demand for obedience to law too).

-

As a big fan of the Champion having a code which may not be strictly part of their deity's teachings, but which they dedicate themselves to nonetheless, I can't say that I hope for Champion codes to be reduced to only what their deity demands. On the other hand, it is clear that people would like to see at least the option for a champion code which is 100% deity and 0% other ideals, so I wouldn't object to that coming in either.

...

Err, didn't mean to start picking apart your thoughts. I just saw your first comment and wanted to share the good news.

Liberty's Edge

My take on the Neutral Tenets from 30 months ago. And it was not that hard to come by.

The Raven Black wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I do not remember and know not where to to back to look, but I thought it was a part of the designers' intent for the Champion class that it was both a champion of a deity, but also the champion of a particular philosophy tied to the alignment grid. It may instead be that I heard somebody say this about the Champion in a past discussion and I hallucinated it coming from a dev conversation, but this is what I thought.

This is not necessarily to say these are the terms I would frame it in. For example, I considered it important to my champion's character that they were both a devout warrior in service of Shelyn, but also in service of the ideals of Freedom (i.e. "chaotic-goodness" by a more in-character friendly name).

On that note, even for a TN Champion I don't think framing 'neutrality' as a core ideal necessarily makes sense, because that tends to be how you get nonsense ideals like balancing good and evil. Rather, a neutral champion would in my opinion be better written as dedicated to a philosophy or cause which is neither inherently good nor evil. People often take this and run with the TN gods' main themes (nature/death/magic) as a diverse collection of virtues, but I tend to think more in terms of "I protect my own and offer only what harm is offered to me" kind of eye-for-an-eye ideal which can mesh alongside any other cause.

(Though don't take this specific cause as the one, I haven't cracked the TN Cause anymore than anyone else has at this point, though I do feel rather positively about 'protecting ones own [kind]' as a Neutral tenet since that 'kind' can by extended to any category which fits with the Champion's theme. A lawful arbiter champion follows the law and protects the citizens of their city or nation. A champion of Gozreh protects their family and the beauty of their environment. It can be up to context to decide what kind of a group is identified as the champion's ward--their kin, their countryfolk, their order, etc.)

Even in PF2, with its restricted alignments allowed for each deity, you could (theoretically) have a True Neutral Champion of a deity that was inherently Good (Kurgess) or Evil (Norgorber), so the proposed definition does not work.

Remember that the Cause (aka Alignment) was that of the Champion and NOT that of their deity.

I think Remastered will deeply change this because Holy or Unholy will be based on the deity and not on the Champion.

Liberty's Edge

Dragorine wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see holy/unholy tied to each deity like heal/harm is. I'd like to see champion codes and causes tied first and foremost to deity anathema and edicts. I'd like to see the old "law/chaos/good/evil" codes and causes made into oaths that give small bonus if taken but are optional at level 1 and with True Neutral being similar to the wizard Universalist School.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

Each deity gives Harm or Heal. It is my understanding that some (maybe many) deities will be unaligned with either Holy or Unholy.

I hope these will have Champions too.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I mean it will likely be just like harm and heal in that some deities allow you to choose. Example: Calistria.


Cori Marie wrote:
I mean it will likely be just like harm and heal in that some deities allow you to choose. Example: Calistria.

Given that 'religious sects of the same God often radically disagree" is a real thing, I would hope that this is most cases and not just the exceptions. Likewise with holy/unholy and even edicts and anathema: I hope there is some flexibility in how you link them up. I fully agree with Raven Black's idea that the design philosophy should be "Champion of [God], which typically means [behavior]" and not "Champion of [behavior], oh and also [God]." But hopefully there will be room in the Golarion setting for different sects of each God with somewhat different notions of how to serve it. I'm not advocating for 'anything goes,' but some flexibility would be fine by me. Not every Champion of Calistria needs to agree on how Calistria wants them to behave.

It also keeps gods a bit more mysterious and standoffish if they aren't completely predictable in the powers (and restrictions) they grant. Why is it Alice loses her power to heal if she eats fish, but Bob loses his power to smite if he lies? It is not for mere mortals to know or understand, only their god knows the path he/she has set each of them on. :) That's much more interesting than "I can heal because I serve healo the healing God who wants me to heal people.' Though, granted, the latter might be an easier play choice for young players or beginner players.

Finally, there could be some great plot and dialogue ideas in exploring those differences (e.g. a cleric and champion in the party disagreeing, or a champion rolling into town to find the local temple to their god doesn't like them and doesn't agree with how they act).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, I think there is room for a non-holy/unholy "Defender" version of the Champion.

Like Brigh's deal is "build complicated things, collaborate" so she's not going on crusades against her enemies, but she might want security.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I like that Champions will be able to pick from dedication to a holy or unholy cause, but I really need for Champions to be able to choose causes which are neither explicitly holy or unholy especially for the eventuality of deities who do not offer either holy nor unholy power to their worshippers.

This part is pretty much why I think there is no way we'll see a mandatory sanctification clause for the champion. The whole idea of the remaster is to remove unnecessary limitations on storytelling and character fantasy. While the individual causes themselves are mostly fine, one of the most common complaints about the champion is how restrictive the current system is. Not even Paizo seems to be happy with it. So for them to then force the champion into an even more restrictive system - as it is now binary - would be absolutely baffling.

So, of all the possible things that could happen, this is about the least likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I like that Champions will be able to pick from dedication to a holy or unholy cause, but I really need for Champions to be able to choose causes which are neither explicitly holy or unholy especially for the eventuality of deities who do not offer either holy nor unholy power to their worshippers.

This part is pretty much why I think there is no way we'll see a mandatory sanctification clause for the champion. The whole idea of the remaster is to remove unnecessary limitations on storytelling and character fantasy. While the individual causes themselves are mostly fine, one of the most common complaints about the champion is how restrictive the current system is. Not even Paizo seems to be happy with it. So for them to then force the champion into an even more restrictive system - as it is now binary - would be absolutely baffling.

So, of all the possible things that could happen, this is about the least likely.

I share the same hope as y'all but I don't think the whole idea of the remasters is to remove unnecessary limitations on storytelling and character fantasy. I think the idea is protect themselves legally and use it as an opportunity to reorganize and errata some things too, while hopefully selling more books.

I think unsanctified champions is a very logical step for Paizo to take and I'm cautiously optimistic that sort of thing is why Champions are getting another year of work before release. But I also don't want to count cockatrices before they hatch it misrepresent the goal of this whole thing. If anything, the better question to ask might be "how would unsanctified champions compare to D&D paladins?"


Captain Morgan wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I like that Champions will be able to pick from dedication to a holy or unholy cause, but I really need for Champions to be able to choose causes which are neither explicitly holy or unholy especially for the eventuality of deities who do not offer either holy nor unholy power to their worshippers.

This part is pretty much why I think there is no way we'll see a mandatory sanctification clause for the champion. The whole idea of the remaster is to remove unnecessary limitations on storytelling and character fantasy. While the individual causes themselves are mostly fine, one of the most common complaints about the champion is how restrictive the current system is. Not even Paizo seems to be happy with it. So for them to then force the champion into an even more restrictive system - as it is now binary - would be absolutely baffling.

So, of all the possible things that could happen, this is about the least likely.

I share the same hope as y'all but I don't think the whole idea of the remasters is to remove unnecessary limitations on storytelling and character fantasy. I think the idea is protect themselves legally and use it as an opportunity to reorganize and errata some things too, while hopefully selling more books.

I think unsanctified champions is a very logical step for Paizo to take and I'm cautiously optimistic that sort of thing is why Champions are getting another year of work before release. But I also don't want to count cockatrices before they hatch it misrepresent the goal of this whole thing. If anything, the better question to ask might be "how would unsanctified champions compare to D&D paladins?"

Yes, the whole legal issue is what kicked things off, but as far as I can recall the "remove limitations on RP/storytelling/..etc." part was explicitly stated during the remaster panel at Paizocon as one of the major goals.

Apart from that, we already know that certain deities explicitly forbid their clerics (and presumably all worshippers) from becoming sanctified. So for them to have champions, there necessarily have to be unsanctified champions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:


Even in PF2, with its restricted alignments allowed for each deity, you could (theoretically) have a True Neutral Champion of a deity that was inherently Good (Kurgess) or Evil (Norgorber), so the proposed definition does not work.

Remember that the Cause (aka Alignment) was that of the Champion and NOT that of their deity.

I think Remastered will deeply change this because Holy or Unholy will be based on the deity and not on the Champion.

Maybe I'm not taking your meaning, but it seems to me like it is Kurgess' prerogative if he wants to grant power to neutral champions who don't adhere to a cause that is either inherently good or evil. The champion will automatically sway a bit good for following a good god's tenets, but this means nothing for the rest of that champion's cause.

For instance, we already have the opposite sway--redeemers of Nethys are sworn to protect the innocent and and offer redemption to the wicked. Nethys allows such worshippers but it's not him who calls for these things. Likewise with many causes not directly on a deity's alignment; neutral good deities don't necessarily have a strong opinion on following the law or on aelf-determination, but they'll still most of them foster both Paladins and Liberators who definitely do.

I don't think the fact that some good or evil deities will foster you even if you don't idealize goodness or evilness is really proof against neutral champions having ideals that also aren't good or evil.

PS as a minor aside, I wanted to note that it's not Norgorber, God of murder and thievery, and assassination who allows neutral worshippers, it's Norgorgber the reaper of reputation. Norgy is funny in that it's actually common for his worshippers to follow a discreet aspect and gain spells independent of his other aspects.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Norgorber is four halflings in a trench coat, so...


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

A Champion of Balance is as necessary as polar extremes.

Too much 'holy' or 'unholy' or other things can be horrific.

Take a trip to the Positive or Negative Planes to see why.

Evil as a force is stupid and there should be less of it. Insisting on equal aid for and treatment of evil things as good things is frequently also evil after a certain point, a denial of the very meanings of the terms. If such is "balance" then by all means bring me the horrible one-sided world such champions would fear. (And until then, reach heaven through violence, preferably metaphorical.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amaya/Polaris wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

A Champion of Balance is as necessary as polar extremes.

Too much 'holy' or 'unholy' or other things can be horrific.

Take a trip to the Positive or Negative Planes to see why.

Evil as a force is stupid and there should be less of it. Insisting on equal aid for and treatment of evil things as good things is frequently also evil after a certain point, a denial of the very meanings of the terms. If such is "balance" then by all means bring me the horrible one-sided world such champions would fear. (And until then, reach heaven through violence, preferably metaphorical.)

Can we even conceive of a world where everyone would be Good all the time and forever ?

Not to mention they would not need PCs.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


Even in PF2, with its restricted alignments allowed for each deity, you could (theoretically) have a True Neutral Champion of a deity that was inherently Good (Kurgess) or Evil (Norgorber), so the proposed definition does not work.

Remember that the Cause (aka Alignment) was that of the Champion and NOT that of their deity.

I think Remastered will deeply change this because Holy or Unholy will be based on the deity and not on the Champion.

Maybe I'm not taking your meaning, but it seems to me like it is Kurgess' prerogative if he wants to grant power to neutral champions who don't adhere to a cause that is either inherently good or evil. The champion will automatically sway a bit good for following a good god's tenets, but this means nothing for the rest of that champion's cause.

For instance, we already have the opposite sway--redeemers of Nethys are sworn to protect the innocent and and offer redemption to the wicked. Nethys allows such worshippers but it's not him who calls for these things. Likewise with many causes not directly on a deity's alignment; neutral good deities don't necessarily have a strong opinion on following the law or on aelf-determination, but they'll still most of them foster both Paladins and Liberators who definitely do.

I don't think the fact that some good or evil deities will foster you even if you don't idealize goodness or evilness is really proof against neutral champions having ideals that also aren't good or evil.

PS as a minor aside, I wanted to note that it's not Norgorber, God of murder and thievery, and assassination who allows neutral worshippers, it's Norgorgber the reaper of reputation. Norgy is funny in that it's actually common for his worshippers to follow a discreet aspect and gain spells independent of his other aspects.

I'm completely lost. I will need to carefully re-read your post to get your meaning. Maybe I will need to bother you with some questions for accurate understanding. My sincere apologies.


The Raven Black wrote:
I'm completely lost. I will need to carefully re-read your post to get your meaning. Maybe I will need to bother you with some questions for accurate...

I may have been unclear in one of my posts; I was working through my thoughts at the same time so it may have been less coherent than I could have made it. I'll be at work today but I'll drop by and see if I can clarify anything as it comes up.


The Raven Black wrote:
Amaya/Polaris wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

A Champion of Balance is as necessary as polar extremes.

Too much 'holy' or 'unholy' or other things can be horrific.

Take a trip to the Positive or Negative Planes to see why.

Evil as a force is stupid and there should be less of it. Insisting on equal aid for and treatment of evil things as good things is frequently also evil after a certain point, a denial of the very meanings of the terms. If such is "balance" then by all means bring me the horrible one-sided world such champions would fear. (And until then, reach heaven through violence, preferably metaphorical.)

Can we even conceive of a world where everyone would be Good all the time and forever ?

Not to mention they would not need PCs.

I meant, like, generally, in the world, because I find 'balance of good and evil' s+~& completely incomprehensible unless they're not actually good and evil. I didn't even advocate for or really mention 'no evil' as a concept, just that if striving for good and having things be generally okay as a result is bad to the balance-of-good-and-evil type then that's a bad I'm comfortable with. So you kind of dunked on a nonexistent post and that wasn't the best feeling ¯\_('•')_/¯

As for the actual thread topic, Champions having options for not being sanctified one way or the other would be nice. You could maybe pair them with Hellknight or Firebrand or something~.


I would say it is a necessity, I dream of a non sanctified champion

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

More thinking about it, even if I never get my "POWER OF ORDER/CHAOS" character, unsanctified champion options of similar nature would be nice consolation prize :'D


RaptorJesues wrote:
I would say it is a necessity, I dream of a non sanctified champion

In the PF2 context of Champion that is an oxymoron. I hope we don't get it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
I would say it is a necessity, I dream of a non sanctified champion
In the PF2 context of Champion that is an oxymoron. I hope we don't get it.

I don't see how. A champion needs to follow a code, and they've got codes. Being sanctified to holy/unholy doesn't make them codier in any meaningfully interesting way, and it restricts the number of deities who could potentially have champions. If anything, making unsanctified champions a viable class path opens the class up to more styles of play without impinging on the essence of what makes a champion a champion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
I would say it is a necessity, I dream of a non sanctified champion
In the PF2 context of Champion that is an oxymoron. I hope we don't get it.

How can it be when non-sanctified champions have existed for years up until now? Sanctified isn't even a game term yet!

Champions can already follow non-good, non-evil deities. All you'd need is an appropriately adjusted set of tenets for ones that don't map to existing good or evil.


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

I'm hoping the "Sanctification" choice is part of character creation and is optional for every class--with some sort of balanced set of interaction with extraplanar forces--so, for example, you could have sanctified rangers and unsanctified divine sorcerers.


Squiggit wrote:
Gortle wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
I would say it is a necessity, I dream of a non sanctified champion
In the PF2 context of Champion that is an oxymoron. I hope we don't get it.

How can it be when non-sanctified champions have existed for years up until now? Sanctified isn't even a game term yet!

Champions can already follow non-good, non-evil deities. All you'd need is an appropriately adjusted set of tenets for ones that don't map to existing good or evil.

Sanctified is a word that has been in our language for a long time. Champions need to be religious and devout. Not being sanctified implies a half hearted commitment. Ergo it is not appropriate for a Champion.

1 to 50 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / RIP official Law / Chaos Champion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.