A Champion of Justice doesn't get to declare authorities illigitimate just because the authorities go against a particular deity's edicts or anathemas. (Now, they might be illigitimate for other reasons, but for now, let's consider a duly inheriting monarch and their duly appointed agents acting within the law.) If there's a conflict, there's no longer a hierarchy of which is the most important to follow. At the same time, it's not a rigid code where a technical violation while doing their best will cause a Champion to lose their powers, or even one slip-up in an otherwise good track record.
But a Champion of Justice of Cayden Caelian is probably not going to work well in Nidal, and a Champion of Justice of Zon Kuthon isn't going to work well somewhere they're legally required to ease someone's suffering when they can. Failing to follow edicts are generally less punished than breaking anathema, though, so if push comes to shove, failing to respect legitimate authority is less of an issue than going against what their god says not to do.
It's worth remembering, Champions of Justice don't need to follow holy deities! And there are other causes with less focus on the law.
|
I'm asking because I'm about to start as a justice champion in an evil country and I'm asking if such champions are actually able to act as "justice" champions even in an evil country, or if they should just limit themselves as law enforcers, because strictly by rules, that's what they look likes, which is strange considering Paizo wrote:
You're going to want to talk to your GM about this. Pathfinder Society has a rule that doing a pathfinder mission never directly conflicts with any Anathema.
If you're in the Golarion setting, what God and which country are you worried about?
This is one of the rough spots of losing sight of good and evil in the remaster, work against things IMO.
Before the remaster, because Champion of Justice was at that time still called "Paladin" and having the baggage of what paladins were in previous versions of the game...my interpretation was that "evil" governments were not classified as "legitimate" nor were "evil laws".
If the law said that you had to stab an innocent child once a month, you didn't have to follow it because obviously that's an evil law.
With burying good and evil, it's harder to still say the same thing, but that's how I run it still honestly. Paladins were against "cruelty" so any government or laws that fostered cruelty could be ignored.
Also, the whole thing about "following laws" has never really made sense to me. That's something a lawful neutral person might consider doing just for the sake of doing, but lawful good emphasizes doing good over law. So if something conflicts with "doing good" then you can ignore.
All that said, I would still expect a paladin/justice champion to try to follow the law as much as possible. Like I would expect them to try to change the laws in Cheliax regarding slavery. I would expect them to try to buy slaves and free them, rather than stealing them away, and using "legal" methods to achieve their goals. Only resorting to direct violence if they're aware of especially cruel masters inflicting harm on their slaves.
I appreciate the cause getting moved to neutral, so that "upholding the law" isn't treated as particularly associated with being good. It's just as at home with Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon as it is with Torag or Iomedae, while it's most naturally suited to a god like Abadar.
I appreciate the cause getting moved to neutral, so that "upholding the law" isn't treated as particularly associated with being good. It's just as at home with Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon as it is with Torag or Iomedae, while it's most naturally suited to a god like Abadar.
The problem being that it got left in places like the Champion of Justice, which in previous versions emphasized good or lawfulness and if you had a conflict between those two it was a relatively easy choice to understand.
Now it requires a GM to be a little forgiving.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the nuances of the Deity + Cause + Sanctification of a Champion makes for all kinds of cool combinations. Thus, each Champion has the opportunity to face and approach ethical dilemmas unique to them. This is a feature, not a bug.
Outright saying that placing an emphasis on one or the other (Cause, Deity, Sanctification), or placing emphasis on either Anathema or Edicts over one or the other shortchanges the opportunity to face those moral dilemmas when the come up.
Like in real life, sometimes the ethics of a situation isn't black and white. My suggestions is NOT to come here looking for black and white answers ahead of time. Dive into and play out the dilemmas at the table. It sounds like a fun opportunity that shouldn't be hardwired beforehand. I think to do so can derive yourself of a great deal of fun.
I think the nuances of the Deity + Cause + Sanctification of a Champion makes for all kinds of cool combinations. Thus, each Champion has the opportunity to face and approach ethical dilemmas unique to them. This is a feature, not a bug.
Outright saying that placing an emphasis on one or the other (Cause, Deity, Sanctification), or placing emphasis on either Anathema or Edicts over one or the other shortchanges the opportunity to face those moral dilemmas when the come up.
Like in real life, sometimes the ethics of a situation isn't black and white. My suggestions is NOT to come here looking for black and white answers ahead of time. Dive into and play out the dilemmas at the table. It sounds like a fun opportunity that shouldn't be hardwired beforehand. I think to do so can derive yourself of a great deal of fun.
That's nice in theory, but what ultimately happens is the GM just decides. And your GMs conceptual understanding of the choices possibly differs from what you envision for your character.
I agree with whomever said that the "best" way for a GM to run things is to focus mostly on anathema. The player should use edicts as a source of guidance for the kind of character they're playing (the character should want to voluntarily follow those edicts) but if the good Paladin style Justice Champion finds themselves in an evil place, they shouldn't just go "well, I've got to follow the law and do these evil things".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, instead of using AI summaries, you should just read the Champion rules. They're free on Archives of Nethys, and really not that long
A Calistrian Justice Champion is a ... unique decision.
Calistria's Edicts are "pursue your personal freedom, seek hedonistic thrills, take revenge" which don't really jive with the Justice edicts of "follow the law, respect legitimate authorities or leadership" but they aren't necessarily in direct conflict.
Remember that the Champion rules say that "As with any implementation of edicts and anathema in the rules, these are a tool for roleplaying between you, the GM, and the other players at the table—you're still playing a nuanced character, not strictly following a script."
As the rules say, these are not hard and fast rules, but an opportunity for role playing. So how do you roleplay a person who both follows the law but must pursue personal freedom? Maybe you are a letter of the law kind of guy, so if something isn't explicitly forbidden, then it is acceptable? Maybe he leans in on Malicious Compliance? What better revenge is there than petty revenge? It also help you to lean into the Calistrian Anathema of not being consumed by revenge.
I would suggest talking with your GM about who this person is and how they view these different requirements.
Asmodeus Champions can be mostly lawful (there is a Infernalist philosophy in cheliax which was listed as completely lawful)
Also: Asmodeus champions are certainly among the evil characters that *can* work with good characters
They gonna be exsaperated at the goody-two-shoes all the time but if they manage to work towards their ultimate goal and/or collect some souls, broker some contracts in the mean time they are still good to go
the jump from asmodeus to calistria strikes me as wild
I dont know the details of the character but maybe take another look at abadar (or tell us some more character nuances)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like you have a specific type of character you want to play that your GM has told you would not work well this campaign.
Maybe you would be happier not playing a Champion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It seems like you have a specific type of character you want to play that your GM has told you would not work well this campaign.
Maybe you would be happier not playing a Champion?"
Well the problem is being forced as playing as "good", then being nerfed for it, with no workaround.
But if you have an idea for an heavily armored tank/heal class but without roleplay problems, I'm listening.
Try a Guardian, they are the heavy armor tanked class. For healing you can just go with Medicine. No magic needed. Take Assurance in Medicine and level it up at every opportunity. Grab continual recovery and ward medic. You can easily heal your whole party to full as long as you have time. You can grab the Medic Archetype to give your Treat Wounds a boost.
If you still want lay on hands you can grab Blessed One Archetype instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the rough spots of losing sight of good and evil in the remaster, work against things IMO.
Before the remaster, because Champion of Justice was at that time still called "Paladin" and having the baggage of what paladins were in previous versions of the game...my interpretation was that "evil" governments were not classified as "legitimate" nor were "evil laws".
This was categorically untrue. In fact, feats existed to say things like "you don't consider nations ruled by Undead to be legitimate authority."
Without that? Yeah, sorry, that actually IS a legitimate authority and you don't get to simply ignore that because it's inconvenient.
You could disregard laws if they broke a tenant higher up in the list. Otherwise you couldn't do that. The Champions unbound by laws were Liberators.
If the law said that you had to stab an innocent child once a month, you didn't have to follow it because obviously that's an evil law.
You could break this one because it would breach a more important tenant. But you couldn't do that for the "worshippers of Good deities must pay a tithe to the official government religion" law despite it funding an evil church and thus also being an evil law. It's a law in place by a legitimate government and paying taxes doesn't break any higher tenants, and so you're stuck (though you could campaign to change the law).
With burying good and evil, it's harder to still say the same thing, but that's how I run it still honestly. Paladins were against "cruelty" so any government or laws that fostered cruelty could be ignored.
Also, the whole thing about "following laws" has never really made sense to me. That's something a lawful neutral person might consider doing just for the sake of doing, but lawful good emphasizes doing good over law. So if something conflicts with "doing good" then you can ignore.
Lawful Good was about the balance of those things, not "Good with a side of Law." The conflict between the two is intended to be something that is actually relevant, rather than "well I'm Lawful until its vaguely inconvenient, then I'm not." If you're Good first and Lawful when its convenient, then you're Neutral Good.
This was a huge problem in PF1 where people would play a Paladin and then try to argue that literally any behavior was actually fine no matter how Chaotic it was because "it's part of my personal code and therefore it's Lawful".
The excuses people came up with to evade alignment restrictions are my single favorite reason why alignment is gone because that got really old after a while.
All that said, I would still expect a paladin/justice champion to try to follow the law as much as possible. Like I would expect them to try to change the laws in Cheliax regarding slavery. I would expect them to try to buy slaves and free them, rather than stealing them away, and using "legal" methods to achieve their goals. Only resorting to direct violence if they're aware of especially cruel masters inflicting harm on their slaves.
Yeah, this I agree with.
This is one of the rough spots of losing sight of good and evil in the remaster, work against things IMO.
Before the remaster, because Champion of Justice was at that time still called "Paladin" and having the baggage of what paladins were in previous versions of the game...my interpretation was that "evil" governments were not classified as "legitimate" nor were "evil laws".
This was categorically untrue. In fact, feats existed to say things like "you don't consider nations ruled by Undead to be legitimate authority."
Without that? Yeah, sorry, that actually IS a legitimate authority and you don't get to simply ignore that because it's inconvenient.
You could disregard laws if they broke a tenant higher up in the list. Otherwise you couldn't do that. The Champions unbound by laws were Liberators.
If the law said that you had to stab an innocent child once a month, you didn't have to follow it because obviously that's an evil law.You could break this one because it would breach a more important tenant. But you couldn't do that for the "worshippers of Good deities must pay a tithe to the official government religion" law despite it funding an evil church and thus also being an evil law. It's a law in place by a legitimate government and paying taxes doesn't break any higher tenants, and so you're stuck (though you could campaign to change the law).
Lawful Good was about the balance of those things, not "Good with a side of Law." The conflict...With burying good and evil, it's harder to still say the same thing, but that's how I run it still honestly. Paladins were against "cruelty" so any government or laws that fostered cruelty could be ignored.
Also, the whole thing about "following laws" has never really made sense to me. That's something a lawful neutral person might consider doing just for the sake of doing, but lawful good emphasizes doing good over law. So if something conflicts with "doing good" then you can ignore.
I think we're trying to say similar things, but I didn't break it down as much as you did.
A Paladin/Justice Champion would be obliged to follow laws that weren't evil. The whole "paying taxes to evil organization" things is arguable, but I would probably agree they should pay the taxes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to come here to get ammo to throw at your GM that's made a decision on something that is 100% left up to interpretation by design, is bad form, IMO.
How would I rule?
Remember as a Justice Champion, RAW, you must FOLLOW the laws and RESPECT legitimate authorities and leadership. You do NOT have to hold the laws in high regard. And you do not have to LIKE the authorities and leadership. Follow and respect doesn't mean LIKE, it means do.
Calistria edits are to PURSUE personal freedom, SEEK hedonistic thrills, and TAKE revenge. PURSUEing personal freedom may mean that it's taken from you or is limited, but that doesn't mean that ends your PURSUIT of it.
If the legitimate leadership of a land has the authority under the law to conscript into service any individual within their realm to do their bidding, and chooses my Calistria Justice Champion to do do so, I would follow that law and do their bidding, and do it my own way with which I could get away with while still following the law and their wishes.
Now, if that conscription involved taking advantage of another in violation of my Justice ananthema -- this is where I'd have to respectfully try to get out of it. That would be the fun part, but as an ananthema that would be a line that I would consider not crossable. But as a follower of Calistria I'd seek revenge on those authorities in the most lawful and respectful way. In whatever way the legitimate authorities of that land may be determined I may lend my assistance to the opposition successor in a legitimate, lawful fashion.
But if you are just looking to play an evil person in a game that your GM has said evil PCs won't fit, and you are trying to bump up against that just to spite them -- you should probably find another GM to game with. The fit for you just doesn't work.
If the legitimate leadership of a land has the authority under the law to conscript into service any individual within their realm to do their bidding, and chooses my Calistria Justice Champion to do do so, I would follow that law and do their bidding, and do it my own way with which I could get away with while still following the law and their wishes.
Malicious Compliance is very on-brand for Calistria!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Kelseus:
I will highlight the Champion rules to him, throught he is one to read rules in the most black and white fashion possible, so last time I asked failling to comply an edict or anathema is losing my class powers.I've already tried asking him a letter to the law thing, but he already outruled it, explaining that for the sake of the rules, following the laws equal following the law of the place I'm currently am, always.
For example I asked if there was a law priority, like possibly sticking to a set of laws whathever the place I'm in (like Abadar's for example, or a few of the rules Calistria respect, or laws from which my character originates): No.
I asked if with Law skill I could try to interpret law in a fashion which would favor my POV: No.
I asked if I could in a conflict choose which side I consider as legitimates: No.
It seems like I'm kinda stuck to being a law enforcer of the place where my toes currently are, that's why I came here to see If we missed something.
So currently, my only hope is the highlight to the champion rule.
This may be a spoiler for your GMs plans, but it's on the wiki.
So if your game is about playing a good enforcer of Law, it's quite likely you're an agent of the Queen against the corrupt aristocracy.
You might be able to salvage this character by saying an aristocrat (winter witch) killed your family unlawfully(probably before 4713), but escaped punishment. You begged Calistria for revenge. As part of her bargain, she granted you the power to get revenge, but only if you can do it lawfully. You'll have to collect evidence and put the winter witch on trail to get revenge.
I would recommend you try to join the game your GM envisions, or convince him to boarden his game, or sit this one out. Playing a game just to be disruptive is an insult to the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the friction will go beyond the bad laws because it sounds like your party will be operating in enemy territory (and if inspired by an older version of Irrisen, definitely so). Champions of Justice don't do subterfuge & espionage well as that will often require breaking the good laws, standard ones for civilized societies like breaking and entering or theft. Unless it's just that the dungeons & enemies happen to be there rather than an adventure dealing with the government.