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]

Heh, I hate to get sucked into the blackhole of alignment disputes. But,

Neutral Good is the purest Good possible, optimizing between Law and Chaos in order to prioritize Good at every opportunity.



Really, the alignments deserve to be called:

True Good, True Neutral, True Evil.
Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil.
Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil.



Anyway, at this point, I will try escape the gravitational pull of the blackhole, and hope to avoid responding to any alignment debates.

There really can't be a purest good, as good is subjective. Shaped by cultural normatives and personal bias. Even in D&D/Pathfinder the guidelines are general, leaving the particulars of any situation highly subjective.
That is the case for everyone except Paladins, because their class existence hinges on a very specific definition/interpretation as imposed by who/whatever grants their power.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's that both the lawful good and chaotic good paladin are similarly unconstrained by societal constructs (traditional law and the attendant expectations that come with it) and both justify their freedom from constraint by claiming adherence to their alignment. The chaotic good paladin can say, I "go my own way, a better way". The lawful good paladin can say "I follow a higher law". But to an outsider, they're both just folks who aren't doing what they've been told.

As far as methodologies, as you said, that is going to be character and situation specific. The point is that, as it's been presented, the lawful good paladin may take any action a chaotic good or neutral good paladin would take, using the exact same methodologies, go with a "higher law" rationale, and hey..still lawful. This is where "indistinguishable" comes from. Where are the sticking points, as you see them?

You're only looking at the paladin's actions in one specific circumstance. There may be other circumstances where the differences are more obvious. For example, when confronted with a law where there is no obvious harm one way or the other, a lawful paladin is likely to respect the law because maintaining the orderly rule of law is ultimately a good thing, whereas a chaotic paladin is more likely to ignore it because pointless rules are smothering and wrong.

 

[D1Tremere]

I contend that a chaotic paladin shouldn't even be possible.
The Chaotic alignment is all about "unfettered personal freedom," which should make devotion to a set of rules defined by another more or less impossible.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, this is an example of what I have in mind when I say that later ideas, and even aspects of the AD&D books themselves, undermine the coherence of what Gygax puts forward.

As Gygax presents it in the Alignment sections of the PHB (around about p 30) and DMG (around about p 20), LE and CE aren't commitments to anything, let alone commitments to two, potentially competing, schemes of value (Law/Chaos, and Evil). Rather, LE = I think that social organisation is the best way to ensure that I get what I want out of others, which is whatever I can get out of them; CE = I think individual self-realisation is the best way to ensure that I get what I want out of others, which is whatever I can get out of them. Both a LE and a CE are maximally evil, in the sense that neither accepts values such as rights, wellbing, truth, beauty, etc as a constraint on action. What they disagree on is social theory.

The approach you seem to prefer - that (say) a LE person is committed both to scorning/overturning truth, beauty, welfare etc and to pursuing promoting order - is something that I think is found in AD&D Appendix IV and then really comes into its own in Planescape.

I have to admit I don't really understand it. For instance, this approach implies that when a NG person says to a LG person, "You're not doing as much good as you good", the LG person has to agree: "You're correct - I'm trading off some good against some law". I'm not even sure what this is really meant to mean.

Whereas under the approach I've set out, when a NG person says to a LG person, "You're not doing as much good as you good", the LG person can retort: "On the contrary, your wishy-washiness about upholding social institutions undermines the good by reducing the extent to which welfare, truth, beauty and respect for rights are upheld and promoted." That makes more sense to me.

I guess if I was to explain it using your terminology then NE would be the most evil because they would be able to recognise when using social organisation or individual self-realisation would get the most out of others.

Likewise a NG person would not be wishy washy when they realise that social institutions are all very well and good but may not be the most effective in any one particular situation. Like Keynes said 'When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?'

 

[Garthanos]

Here is a weird example.

Elric of Melnibone had a relationship with a very chaotic deity who considered him his favorite ... arguably they were very similar in some ways each valuing freedom and beauty and the god even took his face when it rarely appeared in humanoid form and the two spent a lot of effort on either bribing/coaxing one another to get them to do what they wanted or relying on the others nature to accomplish their own goals. One can probably argue that Elric is his Cleric but a Plate armor, Shield and Sword using guy who invokes a god somewhat less than he just kills it with his weapon is kind of a D&D Paladin with the details filed off LOL.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I contend that a chaotic paladin shouldn't even be possible.
The Chaotic alignment is all about "unfettered personal freedom," which should make devotion to a set of rules defined by another more or less impossible.

So you're saying that chaotic characters should not be free to devote themselves to whatever rules they please? That sounds kind of like you're fettering them to me.

 

[Yaarel]

Here is a weird example.

Elric of Melnibone had a relationship with a very chaotic deity who considered him his favorite ... arguably they were very similar in some ways each valuing freedom and beauty and the god even took his face when it rarely appeared in humanoid form and the two spent a lot of effort on either bribing/coaxing one another to get them to do what they wanted or relying on the others nature to accomplish their own goals. One can probably argue that Elric is his Cleric but a Plate armor, Shield and Sword using guy who invokes a god somewhat less than he just kills it with his weapon is kind of a D&D Paladin with the details filed off LOL.

On balance, Elric might be True, playing both sides of Lawful and Chaotic. I cant decide if he leans toward Good, Neutral, or Evil. His Evil is heavy, is there enough Good to outweigh it?

Regarding class, I always saw Elric as an archetypal summoner class. All of his magic comes from his pacts with various kinds of demons. He is the best example of what the word ‘sorcerer’ actually means: binding/bribing supernatural spirits to perform harmful magic.

To be fair, in terms of D&D, some of his demons seem more like fey than fiend.

 

[pemerton]

a NG person would not be wishy washy when they realise that social institutions are all very well and good but may not be the most effective in any one particular situation. Like Keynes said 'When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?'

But this is taking for granted that the relevant facts can change. If, in fact, social organisation is always the best way to promote wellbeing and other valuable things (as the LG contend), then the NG - by casting doubt on this - are simply getting in the way of realising and upholding the good.

I contend that a chaotic paladin shouldn't even be possible.
The Chaotic alignment is all about "unfettered personal freedom," which should make devotion to a set of rules defined by another more or less impossible.

My understanding of CG (which admittedly might be 40 years out of date, given that it draws on Gygax's AD&D books) is that CG people think that things worth valuing (rights, flourishing, truth, beauty, etc) are better promoted and secured via self-realisation, than via participation in social structures and collective endeavour.

Because the paladin archetype is connected to service (to a king, a church, etc) a CG "paladin" is necessarily going to depart from that archetype. But I think it is quite easy to envisage something like a CG "paladin" that combines elements of the archetype (devotion, hope, courage, honour) with romantic conceptions of individual achievement and self-realisation which yields quite a playable concept - a certain sort of approach to a knight errant could work, for instance.

Of course, we would then have the question - who is right, the LG paladin (who thinks service and society are necessary conditions of realising and upholding the good) or the CG paladin (who denies that) or the NG paladin (who has a bet each way)? But addressing that question would head into new territory for this thread - namely, how ought alignment conflicts to be framed and resolved in play? - and so I'm not going to go there on my own!

 

[pemerton]

Elric of Melnibone had a relationship with a very chaotic deity who considered him his favorite ... arguably they were very similar in some ways each valuing freedom and beauty and the god even took his face when it rarely appeared in humanoid form and the two spent a lot of effort on either bribing/coaxing one another to get them to do what they wanted or relying on the others nature to accomplish their own goals. One can probably argue that Elric is his Cleric but a Plate armor, Shield and Sword using guy who invokes a god somewhat less than he just kills it with his weapon is kind of a D&D Paladin with the details filed off LOL.

I'm a long way from being an Elric expert - but does he affirm and uphold values beyond his own pleasure and pursuit of his own desires (and the desires of people he personally cares about)? I have the impression that the answer is "no", and so in classic D&D terms he is not good. Which seems to rule him out as a paladin. (The archetype seems intimately connected to upholding and promoting values beyond one's own concerns.)

 

[Garthanos]

I'm a long way from being an Elric expert

Arguably his goals at the beginning of the story are about discovery as to whether is country can be turned to accomplish the goals we would identify as good... and even the discovery of the nature of "good" which his very fae people do not understand too well but which Elric was exposed to via a human mother and books.

The character is more about transition than being locked down ie the Chaotic element mentioned earlier however even in more classic stories of Samson, Cu Cuhlaine and Lancelot, the characters each and every broke their oaths as climactic story lines where they lose their power The details of the Oaths involved hardly matter in some sense Cu Culaines was about learning to serve others but in general you could say his over all story was the value of learning itself. Samson's behavior was not particularly benign but didnt lose power till cutting of his locks etc... I think early D&D picked a subtype instead of the full archetype.

Another strong parallel for the three oath bound heroes mentioned above, all three fought using berserker rage. (in comparison Elric only did so perhaps unwillingly with Stormbringer pulling his chains and lancelots is perhaps part of his down fall making it impossible to forgive himself in the end)