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]

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.

You are correct. I forgot that officially they are divorced from such things, largely due to the fact that they make no sense without some form of divine patron being expressly stated (given that said unnamed force can remove their powers).
Regardless, the definitions would then be set by whatever faction/force/Etc. that defines their code. In other words, that which defines your code (and grants your powers) ultimately judges.

 

[D1Tremere]

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.

I see Paladins as being different from the other classes in this case, due to the fact that both the concept and their powers are tied to a specific other's interpretation of their alignment.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

You have, of course, read these definitions and agree with their clarity, utility, and that they are consistent with how you've applied them?

 

[Yaarel]

There is like what? 10 posts about armor and paladin features?

And over 140 posts about debates about alignment?

This is exactly why D&D becomes a better game by eliminating alignment from D&D mechanics.

Debates about alignment are too contentious and too situational. It is an area where DM adjudication disregards reallife value systems of players. Thus DM adjudication in this case is a problem − the opposite of a solution.

Alignment belongs in the personality description in the character sheet. It is a narrative for each player to decide for their character on the players own value system.



Maybe it is possible to create a game that models ethical views and respective challenges. But D&D has never been that game. (For one thing, it is a game that rewards *killing* with advancement! It could never model an ethical good.) D&D mechanics cant handle alignment mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

So, "Here's what I think a paladin is". "RPG paladins may vary from this description"."Who cares?"

Well, I didn't force you to reply to my post - but apprently you care enough to do so!

Is it odd to assume that a character seeking to adhere absolutely to a set of idealized values in a less then ideal world would have to be some combination of foolish, naive, utopian, etc.?

If you assume that paladins are, per se, foolish, naive, uptopian etc then yes, you either simply allow that they will fail, or - as PF2 seems to - you build that into the code.

Personally I don't see the attraction of playing, or GMing, a paladin under such an assumption. I mean, when a player wants to play a thief do we build into our starting assumptions for the game that crime doesn't pay? When a player wants to play a fighter, do we build into our starting assumption that one who lives by the sword, dies by the sword?

 

[pemerton]

The paladin then tracks down the assassin, and finds the assassin on a rope bridge over a volcano with a new born baby on his back.
The paladin can cut the brige, sending both the assassin and baby to their doom, or let the assasin escape (the assasin will cut the bridge when he reaches the other side).

He has to act fast before the assassin escapes again. He can kill both, or let the asssassin escape. What does he do?

This is drifting into first year moral philosophy territory. Can the paladin push the fat man over the edge of the bridge to stop the runaway trolley killing five people?

But no one thinks you can kill the innocent man to save one person. And in your story the assassin isn't about to kill someone, so killing the baby wouldn't even be directly saving a life.

So the answer seems fairly straightforward.

Of course, in the context of a FRPG adventure, the paladin player should be looking for another way out, and - because it is a FRPG - such a way might be possible.

 

[pemerton]

In Gygax's AD&D rulebooks, alignment is defined with some degree of clarity. (There are also contradictory bits.)

Good = honouring rights, promoting both individual and collective welfare, respecting and promoting truth and beauty. Nothing is said about how to handle clashes between these values, should they come up - so when it comes to a paladin confronting a runaway trolley and a fat man on a bridge, the rules have nothing to say.

Evil = indifference to, or active contempt towards, those values. "Purpose is the determinant" ie the ends justify the means, whatever the means and no matter how self-regarding the end.

Law = a belief in the power of social order, Chaos = a belief in the power of self-realising individuals.

So LG = the values of good are best realised collectively through social order. CG = the values of good are best realised through self-realisation.

On the other hand, LE believe that the best way to pursue their goals, without being restrained/constrained by those who think that values like rights, wellbeing, truth and beauty, is by collective, organised action. Whereas CE think that self-realisation is the only way to get what you want, and organisation is just a hindrance.

The disagreements aren't purely aesthetic, and obviously not all these people can be correct: if CG are right, then social organisation is a threat precisely because it enables LE. If LG are right, then criticisms of and attacks on social organisation pave the way for CE villains to dominate the world.

LN is something like a fallen version of LG - so concerned about establishing and maintaining order that they puruse it even when it burdens rather than fosters wellbeing, truth, beauty, etc. CN is, similarly, a "fallen" version of CG - so concerned about the primacy of self-realisation that they don't acknowledge the need to orient it towards those same values.

NG is something like CG-lite; and NE is something like CE-lite. I don't think they add much to the AD&D set-up.

I think that the PHB Appendix IV, and then more obviously Planescape , 3E and 5e depart from the above in various ways that reduce the coherence of the basic set-up. In particular, the idea is put forward that the various alignments can all be correct - or to put it differently, that they are about valuing and promoting different things; rather than that LG and CG ultimately value the same thing but disagree about what will conduce to them.

 

[D1Tremere]

There is like what? 10 posts about armor and paladin features?

And over 140 posts about debates about alignment?

This is exactly why D&D becomes a better game by eliminating alignment from D&D mechanics.

Debates about alignment are too contentious and too situational. It is an area where DM adjudication disregards reallife value systems of players. Thus DM adjudication in this case is a problem − the opposite of a solution.

Alignment belongs in the personality description in the character sheet. It is a narrative for each player to decide for their character on the players own value system.



Maybe it is possible to create a game that models ethical views and respective challenges. But D&D has never been that game. (For one thing, it is a game that rewards *killing* with advancement! It could never model an ethical good.) D&D mechanics cant handle alignment mechanics.

I tend to agree with this, except in the case of the Paladin. A Paladin operating on a deontological framework isn't concerned with situational ethics. They have a job to do, and the person/god/organization/etc. that serves as their center defines those concepts for them in an operational manner. You could take that out of the Paladin, but then it losses the defining elements as I see it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Fixed that for you.

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

Okay. Let's back up a minute. There's a recurring pattern in our conversation: I propose an interpretation of lawful goodness which allows paladins to function, and then you impose different definitions on the scenario (often, as here, by putting words in my mouth) which create contradiction and dysfunction. Why? What are you hoping to accomplish here? Are you trying to persuade me that I should abandon an interpretation that works for an one that doesn't? Why would I do that? And why would you want me to do that? If your readings of "law" and "good" break the system, should you really be so insistent that those readings are the correct ones? If you're really interested in this problem, wouldn't it make more sense to give a good-faith effort at understanding how I've resolved it?

Concrete example: paladin opposes an evil law.

You say that the paladin is drinking straight vodka.
I say that the paladin is rejecting the orange juice they've been served, and insisting on a screwdriver.

Your interpretation renders the lawful good alignment impossible: the paladin ends up either neutral good or lawful neutral (at best). My interpretation preserves lawful goodness as a coherent concept. So what is there to recommend your interpretation? Why are you trying to twist my words into something which, as you are not just conceding but loudly promoting, does not make sense?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Of course, in the context of a FRPG adventure, the paladin player should be looking for another way out, and - because it is a FRPG - such a way might be possible.

Rope bridges are made of ropes. The true purpose of ropes is to facilitate dramatic swinging rescues. QED.