>Paladins are martial-oriented holy warriors
>Clerics are caster-oriented holy warriors
Where's the stealth-oriented holy warriors though? Are there any holy versions of a rogue?
>Paladins are martial-oriented holy warriors
>Clerics are caster-oriented holy warriors
Where's the stealth-oriented holy warriors though? Are there any holy versions of a rogue?
4e did it with the Avenger, but I have no idea how the flavour for that class went (have never played 4e but would like to try)
The flavour is you're a religiously motivated murderer with usually no armor and two handed weapon. Their gameplay gimmick was that they designate an enemy and get huge bonuses against them as long as they can stay isolated from other foes.
I thought they were pretty neat but fluffwise their niche could absolutely have been taken by an established title like Assassin.
Huh. The two-handed weapon is kind of interesting. I love robed swordsmen with big swords - WHFB Elven Swordmasters and the emphasis on the mysticism of their training always really appealed to me.
>I love robed swordsmen with big swords
You are my brother.
Thou'rt mine companion faithful and true.
Yeah I really like playing monks with greatswords, I had a Pathfinder character based around that who would just jump around like an anime character and do YUGE damage with his YUGE sword
what, you two think you're niche? we all enjoy jedi here
The flavour was I've got a huge sword and and I'm coming ta get ya.
A holy rogue would be much like the Peacekeeper from For Honor that you posted: an agent of the church who stamps out heresy and sedition on the homefront and isn't afraid to employ subterfuge and assassination to do it. A Peacekeeper on the front lines or on an adventure is likely in the middle of dealing with a broad conspiracy or is handing a situation that has spiraled out of control and necessitates a war footing of some kind.
The Avenger mentioned in would be more like a paladin variant, as their specialty is not unlike that of an inquisitor: rooting out heretics and putting them to the sword with prejudice. Like a Peacekeeper, they would operate outside of a battlefield in most cases, albeit with slightly closer proximity than PK.
The Avenger is classed in 4e as a "divine striker" class, meaning they employ divine powers while engaging as a primary damage dealer for the party (with some control on the side). They wear cloth armor and a two-hander of their choice, and apart from divine powers, they can mark a target with a censure and get bonuses against that target, making them a potent duelist. They are esoteric and reclusive in their teachings and rites, typically part of some form of secret society within their religion, but nonetheless, they act as the arm of punishment and vengeance for their faith. If an Avenger is after you, you are already marked for death as far as they're concerned.
Play an Avenger if you want to be a divine-themed edgelord.
"Striker" specifically means they specialize in single-target DPS, with the rogue being the flagship striker. The other roles, for comparison, were Controller (deal with large groups of enemies with offense and some control, flagship is wizard), Defender (frontline tank, flagship is fighter), and Leader (party buffs and support, flagship is cleric).
"Zealot" is the most common by-word to describe the avenger. Their faith is blinding and arguably more extreme than even a paladin's, but it keeps them focused on their task and their target.
Hashishim or Dervish would be unironically good ways to spin it (is there a pun in there on Dervish?). Leaving your body unprotected by armour and in the hands of God, moving swiftly and inscrutably, guides by His hand, etc
Hashishim/Dervishes are underrated as frick, I'm a big fan of the sneaky fanatic with a knife and no fear archetype. It can be much spookier than a regular Rogue if leveraged right.
>Leaving your body unprotected by armour and in the hands of God, moving swiftly and inscrutably, guides by His hand, etc
So a monk with daggers?
>Hashishim
Didnt they chew on marijuana to be a little bit more psychotic? That needs to be a game mechanic.
Combat drugs are a thing in plenty of systems. They pop up in cyberpunk more often.
No, it was just a myth perpetuated by confused europeans who thought their name actually referred to hash. It still needs to be a game mechanic though.
Hashishin. With an N not an M. But that's not what they called themselves. That was given to them by their enemies to discredit them and spread by Marco Polo. They were simply Nizari Ismaili. Some others say that it's a corruption and refers to followers of Hassan ibn Sabah, the man who established them but was never actually called the old man of the mountain, and that may be possible, but even in Arab they are Hashishin. And unlike in Europe where letters may be mistaken, in Arab it's REALLY hard to do so, since every line matters and scribes were trained for decades to not make mistakes. The myth of hashish however persisted even though, no, there is no evidence for it. Nor is there evidence of them being drugged and shown Heaven and Hell by their masters.
3.5 had the Black Flame Zealot PRC
Witch hunter, inquisitor.
An inquisitor or something along those lines is probably the best thematically.
there isn't even a stealth-orientated arcane magic user let alone a holy one.
Fact of the matter is that people's imagination of what a rogue is, is somehow even shallower than their understanding of martial arts.
There is a magical version of the rogue, though, in the form of the bard.
What about the beguiler?
Arcane Trickster
İllusionist
>where is this thing in a hobby that's based on being able to make what you want
Make some.
If I had my way? The druid would be this. Also Rangers I suppose, though if I had my way Rangers wouldn't be casters at all.
I love paladins but they shouldn't be a base class. Rangers, Paladins, Battlemages etc. should be multiclass prestige classes. So, what do you get when you cross a rogue and a cleric? Druids or monks could work depending on execution.
Also clerics should not wear armor.
The paladin has become too iconic an image to leave out of the base game at this point, or at least gate behind multiple requirements.
inquisitors, but ppl usually put this on clerics before considering anything else
This Black person hasn't made a Stealthy Cleric or a Stealthy Paladin
But if you are looking for a specifically divine stealthy sort, then inquisitor
Seems like something that would go to an Inquisitor? Though it would focus a little less on stealth and more on skillmonkeying for investigative work. Also, PK a cute with her racism against kidneys.
I make warlocks a divine class, and they seem to fit into the niche pretty handily.
I dunno, dude, I don't argue with the divine caster class, more just that they're not exactly sneaky rogue-types. They're more like "Ever more esoteric casters".
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor
The assassins moron
Unpopular opinion
STEALTH ISN'T HOLY
That's like saying violence isn't holy.
Sometimes you gotta do what you have to do.
The inquisitor. Social rogue with limited divine power. Sub out sneak attack and uncanny dodge for divine channel and a short spell list.
Why is this still a question?
Thuggee?
Stealth is fine. Poison is unholy and evil but stealth isn't inherently bad.
It's underhanded. It's like the definition of underhanded.
Poison is one of nature's weapons against its foes. It can be therefore considered holy.
"Nature" includes things like sharks eating their own babies.
Which isn't evil, it just is.
But when a human does it?
We run on a different morale.
Sounds like "Nature does it" is a weak argument for considering something holy then.
Don't think this will really deter a druid casting poison spells to defend himself and nature against its enemies.
No one ever said all druids are holy and good.
>holy
Pretty sure they are divine spellcasters.
>and good
Nobody ever said anything like that at all. "Religious" does not necessarily mean good, especially not in the context of ttrpg's, where you can play clerics of evil gods and blackguards.
Don't even think there is a real life religion that pretty much states "you must always use the most honest and direct means when combating your foes".
>Pretty sure they are divine spellcasters.
So are Evil Clerics. You know, clerics who use unholy magic. Unholy, as in, the exact opposite of Holy.
>Nobody ever said anything like that at all.
Holy does not mean simply religious.
And, real world religions value honesty and fairness, even though few of them outright ban lying.
>You know, clerics who use unholy magic
You got a point here, but neither stealth nor poisons could really be considered unholy, as they are part of nature and nature as it is is not unholy.
Unless you got something like with Tolkien where Morgoth corrupted the natural world, but that's very setting-specific.
>real world religions value honesty and fairness
A lot of them also value peacefulness, yet a paladin is allowed to genocide orc babies in the name of his divines.
>neither stealth nor poisons could really be considered unholy, as they are part of nature and nature as it is is not unholy.
You just completed a full circle. You're right back at "Being part of nature must mean if can't be unholy" and then you have to address the whole business about sharks eating their own babies. Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean humans should do it, and I think it stands to remind you that humans don't naturally produce any kind of toxin or venom.
In general, you have this weird thing where you fail to appreciate that religions that don't prohibit war still value peace, that religions that don't prohibit lying still value truth, and so on and so forth. Holiness is reaching towards ideals, and even though a religion may not outright bar certain criminal or unfair acts, many will still discourage them.
Stealth towards violence is far from Holy. It's malicious subterfuge. While violence itself is not great, in extreme circumstances it might be necessary. And while stealth may also be necessary in extremely extreme circumstances, it's still not great.
>and then you have to address the whole business about sharks eating their own babies
Which nobody said is either holy nor unholy.
>in extreme circumstances it might be necessary
And that's pretty much why I would argue that subterfuge, poisons and stealth could still be considered holy in the right circumstances. If subterfuge and poisons are the right means to achieve a goal that can be seen as good and righteous, and any other means would fail, that's where the divine rogue that OP is talking about could come in handy. Like sneaking into the badguys lair in order to stealthily free the hostages, when the paladin would just burst into the front door, alarming the badguys and force them to kill them, as they have threatened to do.
>Which nobody said is either holy nor unholy.
Eating your own baby, solely because it is available at hand (as a shark does) and not out of some great necessity from some unthinkable circumstances, is unholy. The fact that this needs to be stated makes me wonder how you still think it's possible to present yourself as an authority on what is or isn't holy.
If the shark ate the baby, it was because it was hungry, a drive that serves its ability to make more babies, in a system where it is understood that reproductive adults have more value in the baby making system than do nonreproductive young, and that babies are present in sufficient numbers to ensure a healthy supply of baby making adults. This chain of actions is bereft of malice or sadistic pleasure, because the shark's evolutionary history has not emphasized the mental capacities to apply those things to itself and others. Before you continue to be a smug little self satisfied self righteous homosexual who dares to judge the vast majority of organic life as somehow inferior to himself and who deserves to be fed feet first into an incinerator, I don't have an answer for the Conundrum facing humans in the choices between behavior exhibited by our fellow animals that is violent yet self-beneficial but without malice, and it troubles me every fuxking day. But I do know you are such a slobbering moron that any answer you provide can be promptly used as toilet paper. Also, have a nice day.
>If the human ate the baby, it was because it was hungry, a drive that serves its ability to make more babies, in a system where it is understood that reproductive adults have more value in the baby making system than do nonreproductive young, and that babies are present in sufficient numbers to ensure a healthy supply of baby making adults.
You really need to not try to be smart, because it just makes how dumb you are show through.
>y-you're dumb!
Thank you for conceding
Holy frick you really are dumb.
Hence why you should never say "it's done in nature, so it's okay for a human to do it."
Nobody sane said it was ok for human to do it.
>present yourself as an authority on what is or isn't holy
Neither me nor you or anyone else gave a definition on something that is pretty much depending on the setting. In some, it's directly related to some dark energies and powers. Often it requires deliberate effort to be wicked and evil. Eating your own child might seem cruel from the point of view of us humans, but there is no willingness to be cruel and wicked in this case I actually don't know shit about sharks, but I hope you get my point
In any case, I won't argue about what constitutes unholy any further, because as I said, it depends largely on the system and setting, and it's not even the topic itself. What has been argued is what counts as holy or what could be argued is still an appropriate means for a holy rogue-type, as I have given an example in my post that you didn't adress.
>there is no willingness to be cruel and wicked in this case
And, you can say the same about poison use in nature. Bottom line is that there is a big difference between what animals do, and what's right for humans to do. This really shouldn't even have to be explained. Hell, we're literally talking about the Appeal to Nature fallacy, one of the most blatant fallacies.
Okay, so what is the big difference between killing someone by cleaving their body apart through sharpened steel and killing through venom and poison? Both isn't in itself holy or unholy, it's all about the circumstances and the context. And when killing silently and stealthily through means as poison is the right thing to do in some circumstances in order to reach some righteous goal, why couldn't it be considered holy?
Again, some religions (also fantasy religions) make a point about being peaceful, yet a paladin being a murdermachine is not a problem?
One is straight forward and direct, without any duplicity beyond perhaps the expected feints and misdirections found ordinarily in combat. It also takes more effort and skill to kill someone with an unpoisoned weapon than a poisoned one, meaning that more training and discipline must be used to realize that power, making it an automatic check against people who would want to use violence without investment.
It's similar to how guns make killing easier, so people kill more when they have them. Generally, anything that makes violence easier is "more evil."
Remember, we're not talking absolutes. It's not "This is holy, this is unholy," but more "This is holier, this is less holy."
Holiest? Non-violence. Followed by Non-lethal violence. Followed by unavoidable Lethal Violence, where the lethality does not exceed the barest limits to stop the opponent from inflicting further harm themselves. And below all that is Lethal Violence with Poisons where the poison may not even kill the opponent before they kill you and only die afterwards.
Can you use lethal poisons for good? Sure. Does it require extreme and rare circumstances that would make them extremely unappealing for any Holy institution to seriously consider investing resources into training people into their usage? Also likely yes.
>It's not "This is holy, this is unholy," but more "This is holier, this is less holy."
I guess we can leave it at that.
A human knows better.
Poison is a tool just like a sword. If you use it to kill someone innocent for personal gain it's an evil act, but if you use it to slay an evil monster it's a good act.
>Poison is unholy
>nooo you can't lay out poison for ants or roaches, that's eeevil!
If eastern reincarnation was real then you would have a mortal duty to exterminate all lesser life so they could reincarnate as something less shitty sooner.
That's the exact kind of attitude that gets you reincarnated as something shitty
Well no, because you've insulated yourself against that. You can't get reincarnated as an ant if there are no ants left to give birth to more ants.
Enjoy reincarnating in hell, moron
>going to hell so that no one else ever has to get reincarnated as an ant
Worth it tbh.
>going to hell so everyone else can go to hell forever instead of briefly being reincarnated as an ant
You've basically replaced a few months of community service with a life sentence in tijuana, I don't think you've thought this through
Yup, that's my Necromancer antagonist in Nechronica. Makes sure there's a low, miserable, horrible state of existence so that souls can start going back up the ladder instead of going to hell forever.
That's NOT how Samsara works, holy shit
>Paladins are the embodiment of the chivalric ideal and possess divine casting powers because piety is part of chivalry
>Clerics are holy warriors and possess superior casting powers to the paladin because religion is the focus of their character rather than a single aspect
Fixed that for you.
Of course if you want to keep doing it your way and want an actual answer then yeah, everyone else is one the right track, either Hashashin or Inquisitor
>Are there any holy versions of a rogue?
Inquisitors.
Inquisitors.
Well shouldn't stealth be considered unholy by nature?
That would depend on what type of god one follows.
>Avoiding unnecessary bloodshed by using physical skill and cunning to not be seen is ""evil""
If anything, deceit and trickery would be the preferred way for holy warriors to dispose their foes. Making sure the works of evildoers will fail. Cripple their ability to fight by sabotaging their social and physical tools. Make room for God's wrath and do nothing but heap burning coals on their heads.
Sicarii
How would you translate the "mythic hero" archetype to tabletop? As in the sort of characters where they are exceptional martial fighters with some divine connection who can pull off feats like catching arrows or their body being harder than stone?
Have you tried playing 4e?
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
Have you tried playing a classless system that lets you build a character to fit your wants without unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions?
Have you tried playing the GURPS?
I noted martial to specify that they are skilled at physical non-magical combat, armed and unarmed. The archetype is functionally a fighter that can perform feats of dexterity and that, in a pinch, holds divine favor. But they aren't necessarily war gods, and they also frequently engage in acrobatics.
And you may think that describes monks, but they can engage in armored combat, aren't necessarily pious, and can be tricksters in their own right. The traditional epic heroes.
>A church spy adept at covert operations. Equally adept with a sword as they are with incantations
They missed out on making stealth something you could build around. It's good for opening backstabs on unsuspecting mobs but little else.
That's.... that's all you'd need it for.
Nah, I want a Sekiro type system where you're able to take off half of a bosses health if you manage to sneak up on them in the overworld. Not to mention the fact that by sneaking passed evryone you forfeit any souls or item drops you'd get by killing them.
>Confessor
Eh... Sounds like an Inquisitor archetype.
>Sicarii
Sicarius can actually work for the divine stealth guy. Yeah, Sicarius sounds pretty good. Thank bruv.
>Was the Avenger stealthy? Or was he just a divine duelist?
The latter. While not specifically evoking the imagery of a duelist, the Avenger specialized in the 1v1. It would be something along the lines of "My faith has marked you for death. You will see me coming, but there is nothing you can do to stop it."
Thanks for answering bruv. What would you name a stealth oriented divine class? Or an arcane one for that matter?
The "stealth arcane" character would be the Arcane Trickster.
That's a prestige class. And the convention for base classes is for a single word name.
Would Trickster work as a base class name? And would it be better for an arcane stealth... stelather? Is that a word? or for a divine stealth expert.
I never played 4e, did it have archetypes like Pathfinder or was that one of their path things? Could the paths in 4e change the attributes a class uses?
I would be okay with the divine stealth class being good with 2-handers, would work with the dervish/zealot thing.
You're really leaning hard on the "stealth" thing, given it's only one skill out of several you might expect out of the class. You already threw out the Inquisitor because you don't want a skillmonkey, but rather you want someone who can hide.
On a general level, stealth isn't just for setting up an ambush. It's for hiding from someone, it's for tailing someone without them noticing, it's for evading security when infiltrating somewhere, it's for stalking silently through an area.
>You're really leaning hard on the "stealth" thing, given it's only one skill out of several you might expect out of the class.
It's what OP was asking about, and it hit me that while bards and inquisitors CAN be stealthy, it's not their main flavor.
Rogues on the other hand can do other things but their main flavor is stealthy guy.
These games aren't designed around evading detection outside of the open world. You could still potentially do it with spells anyway. All more effective against other players. This isn't metal gear.
The only thing i am mostly mad about is that the darkness incantation doesn't fricking linger
5e warlocks do it at will.
There was a Dex/Wis avenger good at Stealth you mongs.
A stealthvenger still swings a 2-hander, so it looks weird.
Ninjas two hand katanas so I don't really consider it much of a stretch
Look at
. That's the official signature art of the avenger. What about that looks subtle?
>Was the Avenger stealthy?
Depends whether you go WIS/DEX or WIS/INT.
3.5's Shadowbane Stalker, PF1's Jinyiwei Investigator.