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]​

 

[mellored]

I agree. You could replace the paladin class entirely with a ranger that took fiends as a favored enemy, just as you could replace the druid class entirely by taking a cleric with nature-type domains. Paladins and druids only really make sense in the context of a pseudo-Medieval European setting where monotheism is the norm. They lose something when you try and transfer them to Faerun or Golarion, which is why we're left with the paladin being the way that it is.

Well... it looks like paladins are taking on the tank role, as they get the best armor skills. So that's a niche for them at any rate.
As compared to fighter's who get the best weapons skills.

Also, there was a 5e pool that said druid's most iconic ability was shapeshifting. So if they make druids a shapeshifter class and less of a spell caster, they can separate it from nature clerics.
It could possibly take over barbarians as well with things like Rage of the Hawk, Rage of the Wolf, etc...

 

[pemerton]

I think that is reasonable for other classes, but my contention is that Paladin's are a special case. They literally have an objective definition of good (as they see it), provided by whoever provides their power (and can revoke it).

I don't quite see how this bears on the possibiity of a CG "paladin".

Again adding the caveat that I'm working from 40 year old AD&D books, a good person (which includes a paladin) values, respects and promotes wellbeing, human rights, truth, beauty and similar valuable things. (Yes, these may come into conflict. No set of D&D alignment rules I'm aware of tells us how to resolve those conflicts, which seems reasonable given that in the real world that is also a matter of debate.)

A LG person things that those valuable things are best secured and promoted through social organisation and cooperation. This is why a paladin, as traditionally conceived, must be LG - because the traditional paladin archetype sees service, structured relationships of interpersonal loyalty, community, eand the like as the best and proper ways for securing wellbeing, rights, truth and beauty.

A CG person doesn't dispute a LG person's values. S/he disputes that person's sociology and psychology. A CG person thinks that all those valuable things - wellbeing, rights, truth, beauty, etc - are best secured and fostered by individuals pursuing their own self-realisation. There is no absence of an "objective" definition of good. The dispute is about means, not ultimate ends.

I would expect a CG "paladin" classs (I use inverted commas because the character wouldn't literally be a paladin) to reflect "bottom up" or anti-establishment conceptions of a heroic and holy figure rather than "top down" noble conceptions: a certain sort of knight errant, or warrior hermit, for instance.

A chaotic character wouldn't want to enslave themselves to a power that both dictates to them how they must act, and holds the cords to their class features as reward/punishment. Thy would obviously be free to follow whoever they like, but to allow another to subsume that much of their personal agency would clash with Pathfinder's definition of the alignment as best I can tell.

I don't really follow this. Devotion isn't the same as enslavement. A holy warrior hermit, who pursues his/her own self-realisation and supports others in doing so, could be devoted to some divine ideal or power (we can see models of or inspiriation for this possibility in real human history, although I'll avoid naming any because of board rules).

If that character was to fall short of his/her ideals and devotion, that could bring sanction from the divinity in question.

 

[Yaarel]

Fair enough. This seems a reasonable enough distinction for general play. The chaotic good paladin doesn't care about speed limits and dress codes, got it. It does still seem like at any point a lawful good paladin doesn't like a particular rule, they can just "higher law" their way out of it, but I'm willing to concede that, at that point, perhaps its a player thing more than an alignment thing.

The Chaotic Good paladin cares about speed limits, for the sake of self preservation. But couldnt care less about them when rushing a woman in labor to the hospital.

Obviously, the Chaotic Good paladin doesnt care about uniforms. Heh, unless it is part of some ironic commentary about the harmfulness of conformity.

 

[Yaarel]

In the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, I emphasize the conflict between the society and the individual.

The Lawful champions belonging to the group, (legislating) human rights, and public wellfare projects.

The Chaotic champions the uniqueness of each individual, personal freedoms, and equal opportunity to contribute ones strengths and talents.

But both agree about the priority of altruism and the value of helping others.



The Lawful Good hero wants to help make the *society* better. The Chaotic Good hero wants to help make an *individual* better.

The True Good hero goes with whichever tactic seems more helpful in a particular circumstance. True Good is more about *negotiating* to optimize the most good possible.

 

[Garthanos]

PSSSH! Clearly the paladin uses his charismatic skill to convince the lava not to hurt the baby.

And it works because the rool of cool ... ie there is a lava elemental who quickly creates a gust of vapor with a cooler inner buffer and levitates the baby into the paladins arms.

Lancelot removing woman safely from boiling water comes to mind.

 

[D1Tremere]

Law and good are not subjective in Pathfinder. They are defined independently of deities. Furthermore, the paladin's code is defined independently of deities. The paladin's requisite association with a god is more likely due to a stricter definition of "divine magic" than WotC-era D&D has allowed (see also: the Forgotten Realms) than to a philosophical commitment to moral subjectivism. Imagine a deity of indiscriminate misery and mayhem trying to make paladins of its followers by saying they were lawful good. Would they match the book's definition of lawful good? No. Would their behavior line up with the book's paladin's code? No.

Law and Good are only generally defined in Pathfinder. While they are defined independently of gods (in general), they are more specifically defined by gods for Paladins. The Paladin's code may be defined independently of the god they serve, but the interpretation of their fulfillment of that code is in the hands of said god.
Example: Good characters respect life and protect innocent life. A wizard and a paladin are both forced to choose between saving one person or five. The wizard can choose either and argue the choice's merits. They are not wrong or right, so long as they have a reasonable defense. They also lose nothing from their moral stance. The Paladin may choose to save five instead of one, but lose their Paladinhood because their god sees the five as less worthy than the one. Because of this, the Paladin must do the best they can to follow the tenants of their faith, instead of contemplating the morality. Deontology. We are not capable of knowing right and wrong, so we must rely on a set of rules strictly. Hence the need for Lawful Good Paladins.
This is very different than the more teliological approach of Clerics, who have a less controlling relationship with their god.

 

[D1Tremere]

I don't quite see how this bears on the possibiity of a CG "paladin".

Again adding the caveat that I'm working from 40 year old AD&D books, a good person (which includes a paladin) values, respects and promotes wellbeing, human rights, truth, beauty and similar valuable things. (Yes, these may come into conflict. No set of D&D alignment rules I'm aware of tells us how to resolve those conflicts, which seems reasonable given that in the real world that is also a matter of debate.)

A LG person things that those valuable things are best secured and promoted through social organisation and cooperation. This is why a paladin, as traditionally conceived, must be LG - because the traditional paladin archetype sees service, structured relationships of interpersonal loyalty, community, eand the like as the best and proper ways for securing wellbeing, rights, truth and beauty.

A CG person doesn't dispute a LG person's values. S/he disputes that person's sociology and psychology. A CG person thinks that all those valuable things - wellbeing, rights, truth, beauty, etc - are best secured and fostered by individuals pursuing their own self-realisation. There is no absence of an "objective" definition of good. The dispute is about means, not ultimate ends.

I would expect a CG "paladin" classs (I use inverted commas because the character wouldn't literally be a paladin) to reflect "bottom up" or anti-establishment conceptions of a heroic and holy figure rather than "top down" noble conceptions: a certain sort of knight errant, or warrior hermit, for instance.

I don't really follow this. Devotion isn't the same as enslavement. A holy warrior hermit, who pursues his/her own self-realisation and supports others in doing so, could be devoted to some divine ideal or power (we can see models of or inspiriation for this possibility in real human history, although I'll avoid naming any because of board rules).

If that character was to fall short of his/her ideals and devotion, that could bring sanction from the divinity in question.

A cleric has devotion, they can act on their own and so long as there alignment stays within range of their god they continue to be clerics. Even if they stray, they can just find another god more in line with their views.
A paladin is beholden to a god to approve of their actions, and to strip them of their class identity if they get out of line. That is ideological enslavement of the type that only the devoted and self sacrificing are likely to seek.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Fair enough. This seems a reasonable enough distinction for general play. The chaotic good paladin doesn't care about speed limits and dress codes, got it. It does still seem like at any point a lawful good paladin doesn't like a particular rule, they can just "higher law" their way out of it, but I'm willing to concede that, at that point, perhaps its a player thing more than an alignment thing.

Well, in order to "higher law" their way out of it, the higher law actually has to be against it. That ain't arbitrary. In real life, police officers and military service members in most modern democracies are sworn to uphold their nation's constitution. They can disobey a law or refuse an order if it violates the constitution. In practice, that's a pretty high bar. You don't have soldiers mutinying left and right just because they want to. It's a far cry from free spirits who actually don't give a rip about laws or orders.

I will also add that the current Pathfinder rules state explicitly, "[Lawful good characters] fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust". So I'm not just making up gibberish here.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, I emphasize the conflict between the society and the individual.

The Lawful champions belonging to the group, (legislating) human rights, and public wellfare projects.

The Chaotic champions the uniqueness of each individual, personal freedoms, and equal opportunity to contribute ones strengths and talents.

But both agree about the priority of altruism and the value of helping others.



The Lawful Good hero wants to help make the *society* better. The Chaotic Good hero wants to help make an *individual* better.

The True Good hero goes with whichever tactic seems more helpful in a particular circumstance. True Good is more about *negotiating* to optimize the most good possible.

What do you think of the studious monk who wanders the earth seeking to perfect her own discipline, not interfering in the affairs of princes?

Or the anarchist firebrand who seeks to build a society where all are free and equal?

And if a "neutral" character is more open-minded and flexible in his tactics than a "chaotic" character, which one is really the more chaotic?

 

[pemerton]

What do you think of the studious monk who wanders the earth seeking to perfect her own discipline, not interfering in the affairs of princes?

Or the anarchist firebrand who seeks to build a society where all are free and equal?

I can answer for my own part: in nearly every alignment thread I've ever posted in on these boards, I've made the point that the D&D alignment rules leave the sorts of things you ask about an open question. Likewise non-anarchist rule-of-law advocates, who believe that the rule of law is the best way to secure a zone of self-realisation for each individual. (I would expect this sort of worldview to be popular among at least some Americans!)

I don't think these sorts of questions can be answered by scouring the rulebooks for interpretive clues. And I don't know what Gygax, or the 3E team, or Jeremy Crawford think the answer is. I think this is something that each table has to work out for itself.

(I do think there are parts of the rules that push in unhelpful directions - eg whereas it makes sense to require paladins to be LG, given the way the traditional archetype is connected to notions of allegiance, church, nobility, etc, I think the Lawfulness requirement for monks is pretty unhelpful, given there are many exemplars of the archetype who reject community and are wanderers, hermits purusing self-reaslisation, etc.)