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]​

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Bolded for emphasis: the problem with this argument is that even if that were true, which I would happily argue it is not, alignments are not defined.

Objective qualities of reality can be measured, quantified, and detailed. Especially ones that affect your day-to-day living.

But the books provide no details on what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or Neutrality mean. Do the Lawful follow every law, regardless? Do the Good do what they think is right, or what someone else thinks? Do the Neutral worry about Cosmic Balance, or do they just not give a doop? Do the Chaotic ignore the law all the time, or only when they feel like it? Do the Evil murder babies? Or just work to gain power for themselves?

If the "standard-issue, straight-out-of-the-book" alignment is truly objective, why does the book not actually define alignments?

 

[mellored]

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.

But why does lawful good = fighter + holy magic?

I mean, I get the desire for a fighter+holy magic class.
And I get the desire for lawful good.

I just don't see why they are connected.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Bolded for emphasis: the problem with this argument is that even if that were true, which I would happily argue it is not, alignments are not defined.

Objective qualities of reality can be measured, quantified, and detailed. Especially ones that affect your day-to-day living.

But the books provide no details on what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or Neutrality mean. Do the Lawful follow every law, regardless? Do the Good do what they think is right, or what someone else thinks? Do the Neutral worry about Cosmic Balance, or do they just not give a doop? Do the Chaotic ignore the law all the time, or only when they feel like it? Do the Evil murder babies? Or just work to gain power for themselves?

If the "standard-issue, straight-out-of-the-book" alignment is truly objective, why does the book not actually define alignments?

So all of this is mostly true (and sort of what I've been getting at all along). But in at least the 5E handbook, there is some level of definition (pg. 122) for each of the combinations of attributes.

However, it's also kinda useless, and not at all objective. For example, LG creatures "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

 

[TheCosmicKid]

...even if that were true, which I would happily argue it is not...

*glances at Planescape*

Good luck with that!

Objective qualities of reality can be measured, quantified, and detailed. Especially ones that affect your day-to-day living.

That is not what it means to be objective, and it is not necessarily true of objective qualities. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds of metaphysics here, but... no.

But the books provide no details on what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or Neutrality mean. Do the Lawful follow every law, regardless? Do the Good do what they think is right, or what someone else thinks? Do the Neutral worry about Cosmic Balance, or do they just not give a doop? Do the Chaotic ignore the law all the time, or only when they feel like it? Do the Evil murder babies? Or just work to gain power for themselves?

Do mammals walk on two legs, or four? Do birds have long necks, or short? Do fish live in salt water, or fresh?

If the "standard-issue, straight-out-of-the-book" alignment is truly objective, why does the book not actually define alignments?

It does, though. By your logic, that a definition must provide exacting detail on every usage and circumstance, dictionaries don't define words.

 

[Sunseeker]

So all of this is mostly true (and sort of what I've been getting at all along). But in at least the 5E handbook, there is some level of definition (pg. 122) for each of the combinations of attributes.

However, it's also kinda useless, and not at all objective. For example, LG creatures "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

RIGHT!? And therein lies the problem. We've got a competing Cosmic and Mortal definition. Who cares if Bobby thinks you're a good guy when what matters is you adhere to Cosmic Alignment? But yet, there it is. Bobby thinking you're a mean old bad guy for arresting his near-do-well kid holds just as much water as the fundamental aspects of time and space and alignment!

And this is why we're here. In yet another argument about LG Paladins. Because games think it's "classic" or "traditional" or "the best" to make Paladins LG...but then fail to actually provide any support for what being Lawful Good entails.

 

[zztong]

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.

And, of course, another variation on your "Alignment is Mortal" category... Gods are only legends, they don't really exist. "Divine" powers are really just slightly different "Arcane" powers. Religions exist, but they are entirely creations of man based on a combination of ignorance of the vast material universe and social need and/or greed.

Indeed, "Atheist" is a choice if you use Hero Lab, though Paizo redefined it to be that the believer rejects the notion the gods are truly divine, which is much more in line with your post.

 

[Sunseeker]

That is not what it means to be objective, and it is not necessarily true of objective qualities. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds of metaphysics here, but... no.

Tough, that's what objective means. You brought it up. Either back it up or admit your argument is indefensible.

Also, Objectivity and Rationality are objectively at odds with metaphysics. Don't bring metaphysical relativism to a rational objectivity debate.

Do mammals walk on two legs, or four? Do birds have long necks, or short? Do fish live in salt water, or fresh?

Animals aren't moral codes. Good is either good, or is it something else. Good cannot be both Cosmicly Objective and ill-defined.

It does, though. By your logic, that a definition must provide exacting detail on every usage and circumstance, dictionaries don't define words.

Providing exacting detail is not required. Providing some detail is. The books provide no detail.

Your example of one offshoot of D&D that is regularly regarded as this kinda of weird kid brother that it is is insufficient. There have been no less than 5 editions of D&D. (more if you count half-editions and variant editions) countless spinoffs like Pathfinder and you know what the overwhelming majority of them have in common?

No definition of the Alignment System.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But why does lawful good = fighter + holy magic?

I mean, I get the desire for a fighter+holy magic class.
And I get the desire for lawful good.

I just don't see why they are connected.

Because Christian European cultural heritage. Holy is good and perhaps lawful, oathbound knights are hella lawful, ergo, lawful good paladin.

Feel free to expand the holy warrior to other alignments and ideologies. 4E and 5E did, and I certainly do. But there's nothing wrong with the classics either.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Sure thing. You had 3 options 2 of which directly conflict with each other (1. Follow the law and 3. Ignore/break the law), and all 3 of them were permissible to a lawful good character if good. Note that specifically, one of these options (3. Ignore/break the law) is not lawful by literal definition.

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

Fixed that for you.

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.

#3. (Ignore/break the laws) is all vodka no orange juice, and your paladin drank it anyway.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Tough, that's what objective means. You brought it up. Either back it up or admit your argument is indefensible.

Because of our physical limits and fallibility as humans, not all objective facts about the universe are accessible to our observation. The truth does not begin and end with what we can perceive.

Also, Objectivity and Rationality are objectively at odds with metaphysics. Don't bring metaphysical relativism to a rational objectivity debate.

I'm sorry I used the M-word, Dr. Wittgenstein. I meant to say "questions about the nature of fact and reality that are definitely not metaphysics, no sirree, no metaphysics here".

Animals aren't moral codes. Good is either good, or is it something else. Good cannot be both Cosmicly Objective and ill-defined.

And yet your method for illustrating what you claim to be a problem in the definition of the alignments serves just as well to "prove" a problem in the definition of animal clades.

Providing exacting detail is not required. Providing some detail is. The books provide no detail.

Your example of one offshoot of D&D that is regularly regarded as this kinda of weird kid brother that it is is insufficient. There have been no less than 5 editions of D&D. (more if you count half-editions and variant editions) countless spinoffs like Pathfinder and you know what the overwhelming majority of them have in common?

No definition of the Alignment System.

There is a page in every edition of the PHB that looks something like "Lawful Good: [definition] / Neutral Good: [definition] / Chaotic Good: [definition]" and so on. What you are saying is simply at odds with the facts. If you don't like the definitions, fine. But don't deny they're there.