Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!

It was a long bank holiday weekend here in the UK, and I sent most of it in the (rare) sun eating BBQ; there were two big Pathfinder 2 blog posts which went up in the meantime. The first dealt with armour and shields; the other was our first look at the new Paladin class!

​

• Armor now affects Touch AC; each has a different bonus for AD and TAC.
  • Studded leather +2 AC, +0 TAC
  • Chain shirt +2 AC, +1 TAC, noisy
• Armor has traits, such as "noisy".
• Armor has a Dex mod cap to AC, penalties to STR/Dex/Con skill checks, a Speed penalty, and a Bulk value.
• Potency Runes -- Items can be enhanced with potency runes.
  • Bonuses to attack rolls, increase on number of damage dice (weapons)
  • Bonus to AC, TAC, and saving throws (armor)
  • Example studded leather with +3 armor potency rune gives +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves.
  • Potency runes can be upgraded.
• Shields -- requires an action to use and gain an AC and TAC bonus for one round.
• Other gear -- gear has quality levels (poor -2, expert +1, master +2)
• Interact -- this is a new action, used for grabbing objects, opening doors, drawing weapons, etc.

​

• Paladins! Apparently the most contentious class.
• Core rules have lawful good paladins only (others may appear in other products)
• Paladin's Code -- paladins must follow their code, or lose their Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature.
• Oaths are feats and include Fiendsbane Oath (constant damage to fiends, block their dimensional travel)
• Class features and feats --
  • Retributive strike (1st level) -- counterattacks and enfeebles a foe
  • Lay on hands (1st level) -- single action healing spell which also gives a one-round AC bonus
  • Divine Grace (2nd level) -- saving throw boost
  • Righteous ally (3rd level) -- house a holy spirit in a weapon or steed
  • Aura of Courage (4th level) -- reduce the frightened condition
  • Attack of Opportunity (6th level) -- presumably the basic AoO action
  • Second Ally (8th level) -- gain a second righteous ally
  • Aura of Righteousness (14th level) -- resist evil damage
  • Hero's defiance (19th level) -- keep standing at 0 HP
• Litanies -- single action spells, verbal, last one round.
  • Litany of righteousness -- weakens enemy to your allies' attacks
  • Litany against sloth -- slows the enemy, costing reactions or actions

[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[D1Tremere]

If you're just saying that the people who enforce the law expect them to follow it and might arrest them if they don't, then sure, that's true of every character. But I'm not sure how that proves anything. As you say, characters of differing alignments can feel differently about following the law, and there's nothing to indicate that a lawful good character should feel obliged to follow a law that is not good. Not to keep beating a dead horse, but their convictions are not neutral on the whole "is it good?" question.

It's a bit of both, really. A character decides what ideals to espouse and what actions to perform. A paladin, in particular, chooses to swear an oath to behave in a specific way. That's what I mean by alignment selection. But the label we give the character's ideals and actions is from us, the players. A character who works as a professional assassin for a criminal cartel but sees themselves as "basically good"... isn't.

Again, paladins swear an explicit oath. Other characters who follow a higher law rather than the laws of society, like archetypical monks for instance, might evince their lawfulness implicitly by acting in a rigorous and consistent manner.

I don't even understand the question. Not all lawful good characters are paladins. Perhaps not all paladins are lawful good, but it's the lawful good ones who are relevant to this discussion. And certainly not all lawful good paladins behave the same way. Depending on the campaign setting, they may or may not all swear the same oath, but even those who do swear the same oath are different characters with different backgrounds, personalities, and outlooks.

By virtue of all being lawful good paladins, however, they do share some common traits. They all frown upon butchering random people in dark alleys, to give a trivial example.


Where do I come to the conclusion that they are in all cases to be considered lawful good? I have given no less than five cases in which they are not to be considered lawful good. Your choosing not to regard the morality of the laws is causing you to miss the point entirely.

A paladin who follows and enforces the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is good.
A paladin who follows and enforces the spirit of the law is lawful good... if and only if the spirit of the law is good.
A paladin who ignores or breaks the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is not good.

So if there is a law that abolishes slavery, then a paladin who follows and enforces it is lawful good, and an alleged paladin who ignores or breaks it is not lawful good. But if there is a law that allows slavery, then an alleged paladin who follows and enforces it is not lawful good, but a paladin who ignores or breaks it is lawful good.

In short, lawful good = wants good laws. I am not sure what part of this is getting lost between me and you.

I don't think this is accurate.
It depends on exactly who is defining Lawful, and who is defining Good. In this case, the god/religion a paladin follows defines these otherwise subjective cultural constructs.
So it would be more like:
A paladin who follows and enforces the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is good to their god/religion.
A paladin who follows and enforces the spirit of the law is lawful good... if and only if the spirit of the law is good to their god/religion.
A paladin who ignores or breaks the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is not good to their god/religion.

 

[zztong]

If nothing else, these last few pages demonstrate exactly the problem with an LG paladin: nobody can agree on what LG actually means...

I'm with you that far.

... without a code of behaviour to define the alignment. And if we have a code of behaviour to define the alignment, shouldn't that be what Paladins follow? Which in turn would make them Lawful Good? Instead of wandering around not knowing their hinie from a hole in the ground?

And then we diverge. The previous pages, plus the endless debate being mirrored on the Paizo site, and decades of in-game debate, and... well I'm of the opinion that codes implemented in the rules of the game are as equally worthless as alignment.

Let in-game NPC organizations fret over codes of conduct. Divorce character class powers from codes and alignment. Let the NPC organizations strip you of in-game titles and benefits, but let a class be a bag of abilities.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm with you that far.



And then we diverge. The previous pages, plus the endless debate being mirrored on the Paizo site, and decades of in-game debate, and... well I'm of the opinion that codes implemented in the rules of the game are as equally worthless as alignment.

Let in-game NPC organizations fret over codes of conduct. Divorce character class powers from codes and alignment. Let the NPC organizations strip you of in-game titles and benefits, but let a class be a bag of abilities.

Codes of conduct would be tied to NPC organizations. Churches related to the appropriate deities. Laws of certain Kingdoms. To be fair, most of these codes are likely to be generic anyway. Take 5E's codes for example. None of them are specific to one god or another, to one nation or another and could be readily applied to almost anything with a similar vibe. The Codes shouldn't be specific such as naming names, but reasonably speaking the code of a NG Goddess of Nature would probably say something about encouraging life to bloom and respecting your environment while the Code of the LN City might say to respect your superiors, to not question the law, or something along those lines.

Frankly, if you think codes are as worthless as alignment, then your followup: "Let NPCs in game handle it" makes absolutely zero sense. Because in that context the same can be said for alignment: let the game-world handle it. The point is to avoid that entirely. To avoid the constant "No, at my table alignment means fish!" only to in your next game find out that the DM has no idea how to handle alignment. Because the game gave no guidelines. That's the point. For the game to give guidelines as to what "LG" actually means.

PF2 is apparently going for a more "This is Golarion!" vibe which I'm fine with. IF they do the appropriate world-building. They can't say "This is Golarion!" and then just name-drop gods in our lap and expect us to be able to play in their world.

I understand some people want a very generic, everything-neutral game-playing toolkit, but even while I may not be a particular fan of any published setting, including setting lore in your game is one way to differentiate your product from its competitors.

Look at the end of the day I'm perfectly happy with no alignment restrictions on any class* but my argument needs to be taken within the context of PF2 already choosing to bake in alignment with their classes. If they're gonna do this, they must define alignment.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Where do I come to the conclusion that they are in all cases to be considered lawful good? I have given no less than five cases in which they are not to be considered lawful good. Your choosing not to regard the morality of the laws is causing you to miss the point entirely.

You do so two lines down..here.

A paladin who follows and enforces the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is good.
A paladin who follows and enforces the spirit of the law is lawful good... if and only if the spirit of the law is good.
A paladin who ignores or breaks the law is lawful good... if and only if the law is not good.

In short, lawful good = wants good laws. I am not sure what part of this is getting lost between me and you.

No, what you really are saying is the lawful good paladin only cares about the good part of the law. Your screwdriver only needs vodka; orange juice is optional.

 

[zztong]

The notion of letting NPCs handle in-game codes is that those NPCs don't have the ability to remove character class abilities. The equivalent would be that your employer cannot strip you of your work skills. The Catholic church can excommunicate you, but they cannot take away your ability to digest food. (Well, short of torture or surgery, anyways.)

But I do get where you're coming from and you are likely to be accurately presenting Paizo's perspective. In their world, deities intervene and take away character abilities. They have every right to present it that way, and GMs have every right to make house-rules. There's no debate there. In fact, I'm not debating. I'm expressing an opinion and conveying advice -- nothing more.

My advice to Paizo is not to carry on with the lowsy tradition of alignment because that approach yields a lack of agreement that has never be resolved since it appeared in RPGs. The interpretation of alignment boils down to opinion. It will be forever inconsistently applied via GM-fiat. Similarly, codes implemented in a manner similar to alignment, will meet with the same fate.

 

[D1Tremere]

The notion of letting NPCs handle in-game codes is that those NPCs don't have the ability to remove character class abilities. The equivalent would be that your employer cannot strip you of your work skills. The Catholic church can excommunicate you, but they cannot take away your ability to digest food. (Well, short of torture or surgery, anyways.)

But I do get where you're coming from and you are likely to be accurately presenting Paizo's perspective. In their world, deities intervene and take away character abilities. They have every right to present it that way, and GMs have every right to make house-rules. There's no debate there. In fact, I'm not debating. I'm expressing an opinion and conveying advice -- nothing more.

My advice to Paizo is not to carry on with the lowsy tradition of alignment because that approach yields a lack of agreement that has never be resolved since it appeared in RPGs. The interpretation of alignment boils down to opinion. It will be forever inconsistently applied via GM-fiat. Similarly, codes implemented in a manner similar to alignment, will meet with the same fate.

Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the Paladin I don't believe alignment is as subjective nor as dispensable as with other classes.

 

[zztong]

Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the Paladin I don't believe alignment is as subjective nor as dispensable as with other classes.

Certainly there are many who share your opinion, and I respect it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't think this is accurate.
It depends on exactly who is defining Lawful, and who is defining Good. In this case, the god/religion a paladin follows defines these otherwise subjective cultural constructs.

Paladins are not necessarily attached to gods or religions. Law and good are defined in the D&D Player's Handbook and PF Core Rulebook independent of such entities. Within the fiction of the game, at least, the alignments are assumed to be objective qualities. If you have some philosophical objection to that state of affairs, you can run your own campaign with a subjectivist bent, but it doesn't make what I'm saying about the standard-issue, straight-out-of-the-book paladin inaccurate.

 

[Sunseeker]

Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the Paladin I don't believe alignment is as subjective nor as dispensable as with other classes.

That depends on where "alignment" ranks in your world. I'll provide some sample ranks: Cosmic (like the laws of the universe), Godly (subjective definitions but with exemplars: the gods themselves), Mortal (completely defined by mortals aka "shades of grey"
If Alignment is Cosmic, where even Gods who are LG/whatever must adhere to certain ways of acting, then no, alignment is not subjective.
-In this context, Paizo would need to define what being any Alignment means. If at least to the degree of Colossus' "4 or 5 moments". Here, Codes of Ethics are unnecessary because what is or isn't good is universal. With this system, Gods become actors of alignment. When one of their followers steps out of line, the Gods do not punish him because they have violated some Godly tenents, the Gods punish them because the Gods must in order for the Gods themselves to remain their respective alignment.

If Alignment is Godly, (and there is no higher Cosmic Alignment), then each God can have subjective definitions of good or evil, but there is communal consensus. Asmodeus may consider killing angels to be a Good thing, but because most angels do good things, and most gods agree the things they do are good, Asmodeus's view is an outlier and therefore does not play into what mortals perceive as "goodness". In this context, a God may choose whether or not to revoke the powers of one of their followers, since that God is at least, in a microcosm, defining what good and evil is for themselves. A God not revoking the powers of one of their followers may provoke the ire of other Gods. So here a God is more likely to revoke over a violation than not in order to maintain the status quo among the gods and their agreed-upon definition of alignment.

If Alignment is Mortal (and there is no Godly or Cosmic Alignment) then a Paladin's alignment is as subjective as alignment is in real life. One part "If there are no witnesses, it didn't happen." and one part "I can choose what parts of Alignment to follow as the situation calls for it." In this context, Gods are likely non-interventionist except in extreme cases. What determines if a God is good or evil is the same for humans: perception. But a God is no more bound to revoke the powers of a Paladin over mass murder of babies than he is over jay-walking.

The problem is that there isn't a strong push in ANY edition of D&D (or Pathfinder) to say where Alignment rests. And to make it worse, it vacillates from setting to setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, non-believers are punished by having their souls imprisoned in "The Wall", a metaphysical Sarlacc Pit where their souls are digested over a thousand years. Even ostensibly good Gods support this system. Why? Because the power of a God is based on their number of followers, so all the Gods got together and said: "Hey! Lets punish all the non-believers horribly in order to maintain our power!" What part of that sentence says "good" to anyone?

In other settings, like Greyhawk, Alignment is more Cosmic. In yet others, Alignment is more Mortal.

But yet, even in these settings, even in the rulebooks for these settings, Alignment is ill-defined.

If we're going to have alignment restrictions, they NEED to be more wide-spread than just the Paladin. The Warlock, the Cleric, the Druid, the Monk, etc... If alignment is Cosmic, every class should have alignment restrictions. If alignment is Godly, then no classes should have alignment restrictions, but characters would based on their Gods. If alignment is Mortal, then alignment restrictions are meaningless.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You do so two lines down..here.

Explain how you get from "A paladin who follows and enforces the spirit of the law is lawful good... if and only if the spirit of the law is good" to "they are in all cases to be considered lawful good". Because I don't see how those two sentences are equivalent in meaning at all. But what do I know? I'm only the one who wrote them.

No, what you really are saying is the lawful good paladin only cares about the good part of the law.

Yes. Why is that surprising, implausible, or problematic? They are lawful good.

Your screwdriver only needs vodka; orange juice is optional.

That doesn't follow. The paladin wants both: they want laws, and they want them to be good ones. If you serve them orange juice without vodka, they're gonna be like, "No, this isn't what I want." If you serve them vodka without orange juice, they're gonna be like, "No, this isn't what I want." But if you have a paladin who enforces the laws regardless of whether or not there's any good in them, that's the version who's drinking the orange juice regardless of whether or not there's any vodka in it.