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]​

 

[Shasarak]

I'm more thinking about the player's relationship to the GM, than the PC's relationship to other characters within the fiction.

If the GM - or the game system that the GM is administering - takes as a premise that it is impossible to fully realise the good while adhering to lawfulness, then the paladin player knows that s/he has already lost, and that his/her PC's aspirations are hopeless.

It seems an odd position to give up before you even try just because you may not get 100 on the test.

It would be like playing a Fighter who never fights because they wont crit for maximum damage on every strike.

 

[pemerton]

If you sacrifice one innocent to save five then your action is still evil.

This is fairly contentious. Eg most accounts of justice in warfare allow that it is permissible to kill civilians provided that (i) it is not disproportionate, and (ii) it is not avoidable in order to achieve a legitimate military goal, and (iii) the killing of the civilians is not intended/desired.

I'm not saying that those accounts of justice in warfare are necessarily correct; they may be wrong. But they are widespread. And the D&D/PF alignment system contributes nothing to a discussion as to whether or not they are correct; whether it is permissible to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the runaway trolley; whether it is permissible to blow up an attacking tank with a baby strapped to it; etc. (Gygax, for instance, treats the common welfare, human rights, and the greatest happiness of the greatest number all as falling within the category of good. He also includes beauty and truth in there. In other words, he makes no effort to put forward any particular theory of morality, but rather treats good as standing for everything that any mainstream moral framework treats as valuable.)

 

[pemerton]

It seems an odd position to give up before you even try just because you may not get 100 on the test.

It would be like playing a Fighter who never fights because they wont crit for maximum damage on every strike.

I don't thik that's an apt comparison.

If the GM or game system has already decided that being lawful is, in fact, not the best way to be good, then to playa character whose whole raison d'etre is to be good in virtue of being lawful because that's the best way to be good is to play a character who is already known, by everyone at the table, to be misguided.

 

[Shasarak]

This is fairly contentious. Eg most accounts of justice in warfare allow that it is permissible to kill civilians provided that (i) it is not disproportionate, and (ii) it is not avoidable in order to achieve a legitimate military goal, and (iii) the killing of the civilians is not intended/desired.

I would suggest that in this case you are arguing that it would be Lawful to kill civilians in warfare rather then it is not Evil.

I'm not saying that those accounts of justice in warfare are necessarily correct; they may be wrong. But they are widespread. And the D&D/PF alignment system contributes nothing to a discussion as to whether or not they are correct; whether it is permissible to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the runaway trolley; whether it is permissible to blow up an attacking tank with a baby strapped to it; etc. (Gygax, for instance, treats the common welfare, human rights, and the greatest happiness of the greatest number all as falling within the category of good. He also includes beauty and truth in there. In other words, he makes no effort to put forward any particular theory of morality, but rather treats good as standing for everything that any mainstream moral framework treats as valuable.)

I would have imagined that both common welfare and human rights are being violated by the killing of civilians and also that the act is not increasing happiness for anyone really.

 

[Shasarak]

I don't thik that's an apt comparison.

If the GM or game system has already decided that being lawful is, in fact, not the best way to be good, then to playa character whose whole raison d'etre is to be good in virtue of being lawful because that's the best way to be good is to play a character who is already known, by everyone at the table, to be misguided.

So then it is more like a character who is specialised in wielding a Hammer getting upset because there are some things in the game that are resistant to bludgeoning damage and that another character who can use multiple weapons is more effective because they can adapt better to different encounters.

And totally forgetting that they stomp encounters with creatures that are weak to bludgeoning damage.

 

[pemerton]

So then it is more like a character who is specialised in wielding a Hammer getting upset because there are some things in the game that are resistant to bludgeoning damage and that another character who can use multiple weapons is more effective because they can adapt better to different encounters.

And totally forgetting that they stomp encounters with creatures that are weak to bludgeoning damage.

Everything you say here is about effectiveness.

The better comparison in that domain would be this: a player wants to build a PC who is the deadliest warrior in the universe, and builds that character with a dagger, which, by the rules, can only ever do d4 damage and hence can never be the instrument of the deadliest warrior in the universe.

But even that comparison I think is not apt, because in the alignment context I'm not talking about whether or not a character is effective, but whether or not his/her moral vision is viable. If the premise of the alignment system is that law, on its own, can not achieve ultimate goodness then a character whose moral vision is I will achieve ultimate goodness by means of law is already wrong. The game set-up refutes the moral vision from the get-go. And not in some subtle fashion, but quite straightforwardly, by outright denying it.

I would find it silly to play a character whose moral vision is self-evidently wrong, from the get-go, in that fashion.

I would suggest that in this case you are arguing that it would be Lawful to kill civilians in warfare rather then it is not Evil.

No. I'm making the point that nearly every author on the topic of just war takes the view that killing civilians is sometimes morally permissible.

For instance, from Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, pp 155-56:

Simply not to intend the death of civilians is too easy . . . What we look for in such cases is some sign of a positive commitment to save civilian lives. Not merely to apply the proportionality rule and kill no more civilians than is militarily necessary - that rule applies to soldiers as well; no on can be killed for trivial purposes. Civilians have a right to something more. And is saving civilian lives means risking soldiers' lives, the risk must be accepted. But there is a limit to the risks we require. These are, after all, unintended deaths and legitimate military operations . . . War necessarily places civilians in danger . . . We can only ask soldiers to minimize the dangers they impose.​

I would have imagined that both common welfare and human rights are being violated by the killing of civilians and also that the act is not increasing happiness for anyone really.

That's contentious. I've heard many diplomats and soldiers argue otherwise, including earlier this week.

I don't want to actually call out contemporary contentious cases, so I'll mention historical ones instead: as far as I'm aware, the US government still defends the atomic bombing of Japan on grounds that it ended the war sooner than it otherwise would have, thereby achieving a net reduction in human suffering.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This moves the discussion into treacherous terrain!

I'm personally not a big fan of GM-adjudicated alignment, and so take a different approach from TheCosmicKid's. That probably puts me in a minority among posters in this thread.

I don't think I'm making a particularly contentious claim, just a de facto observation. The DM is also the final arbiter of whether or not rocks fall and everyone dies. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for them to make heavy use of that power, but they're the one at the table who has it.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think I'm making a particularly contentious claim, just a de facto observation. The DM is also the final arbiter of whether or not rocks fall and everyone dies. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for them to make heavy use of that power, but they're the one at the table who has it.

When it comes to alignment, I don't take that approach. I treat it as a table matter.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

While I could be wrong, in practice, I suspect paladins' typical "higher laws" are more likely to be positive than prohibitive in nature. Things like "Value life, help people, speak truly, etc." aren't really about defining inappropriate behavior so much as (broadly) describing good behavior. Perhaps "higher laws" are different in other games though, and contain exhaustive lists of prohibited actions or specific instructions for the appropriate action to take in any circumstance.

Even if that were the case though, like any other laws, they are going to be subject to the interpretation of, at a minimum, the paladin and whatever force/deity/whatever grants that paladin power (but realistically, also of the players at the table and the GM). As in your quote from Pathfinder "[Lawful good characters] fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust."

As I said though, this is still likely more an at-the-table issue than an in-game-world issue.

 

[D1Tremere]

Well the results really are immaterial, it is the action that counts. If you act to save one person when you could have acted to save five people then your action is still good. If you sacrifice one innocent to save five then your action is still evil.

I dont think I would take anyone seriously who suggested that it is an evil act to save a baby that turned out to be a mass murderer when they grew up because you did not look far enough down the chain of consequences.

That is your opinion, and you are allowed to have opinions, but it is not an objective criteria unfortunately. Moral philosophy abounds with debate over consequentialism.
Are the results of an action what determine its morality, or the intentions of the actor? Is it a good action to save five instead of one if one of the five is your child? What if the one is someone you hate? Does the actor need to be intentionally trying to help the people for it to be good, or is saving them enough even if unintentional?
There are no good/evil acts in an objective sense, so everything comes down to who is judging and by what criteria.