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]​

 

[Kobold Boots]

All I can say is this thread makes me glad that I don't play with people who agonize over things like this and cannot spend 5 minutes making the game their own.

I still base my games on the ideals of Greek Mythology, where even the gods were fallible and made mistakes.

Funny thing is, as a DM I rarely need to bring up alignment conflicts. My players call each other out "Wait... aren't you lawful? You wouldn't be doing... blah blah blah"

I'm pretty sure that anyone spending the time debating this stuff has the time because they're not actually playing in the first place. Work + Game Prep + Game + Family doesn't leave much time to really wax poetic about a game that isn't even out yet.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Thank you for your service. It's clear there is great value to be had in silencing people whose opinions you don't care about. If only you'd done so sooner..

 

[Kobold Boots]

Thank you for your service. It's clear there is great value to be had in silencing people whose opinions you don't care about. If only you'd done so sooner..

Seems like you're a last word kind of guy. So I'm going to put you on ignore.

Note: My putting you on ignore, will result in your getting a notification in email about this post, allow you to read this post, then make it so I can't see your replies and you can't see mine.
This is a function of VB and not an indication that I have some passive-aggressive tendencies. I really don't care if you read my stuff and I'm not going to mention anything about you going forward. I just wish the forum had one way ignore where I didn't have to see you and it didn't affect you.

 

[D1Tremere]

Okay. You clearly do know that the arguments are out there, so I don't need to give you a litany of names like Foot, Parfit, Nagel, Railton, Sayre-McCord, and Boyd to convince you that moral realists exist (although perhaps I should point out that none of their arguments are theological). So what on earth makes you think that the ongoing conversation these philosophers are having with their counterparts in the other camp (Ayer, Hare, Mackie, Blackburn, etc.), a conversation in which in which anthropological and psychological discoveries and indeed anthropologists and psychologists themselves weigh in on both sides, does not constitute a "real debate"? What is a "real debate" to you? Are the participants required to be true Scotsmen?

To have a debate ( in the technical sense) you need to establish and argument or refute one.
The idea of objective good/evil is itself a positive claim. In order to make a positive claim you must have evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support objective good/evil.
To my knowledge, no one has ever produced a true objective criteria for morality.

"Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal."

"A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way.
For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you." -Alexander S. King

"For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements." -Scott Martin

Without invoking a deity there is no circumstance where a moral claim is both universal and constant. You can generalize elements of a moral claim to make it appear more universal, but the details still differ. If not killing is a universal objective good, for example, then it would always be bad to kill. There are some who think this, but killing in many circumstances is often necessary and excused due to judgement of circumstance.
Also, without invoking a deity, there is no universal and objective consequence to morality. Doing something bad at one point does not necessarily change anything, and indeed even the memory of such an event is not inviolate.

All attempts to argue moral objectivity fail to get away from subjective judgement (including Kant, who proposed a system for avoiding subjectivity that is itself subjective).

That is why people argue, but not debate this issue. Much like proving god, it cannot be done without making a positive claim that has no evidence to support.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

To have a debate ( in the technical sense) you need to establish and argument or refute one.

That's what you need to do to win a debate, not to have one.

The idea of objective good/evil is itself a positive claim. In order to make a positive claim you must have evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support objective good/evil.

Moral realists are offering what they claim to be evidence all the time. Yes, you can examine it and find it inadequate, but if you do, you're participating in the debate. (And if you don't, your own position is on shaky ground.)

To my knowledge, no one has ever produced a true objective criteria for morality.

Not even the true Scotsmen?

-Alexander S. King

...participating in the debate.

-Scott Martin

...participating in the debate.

Without invoking a deity there is no circumstance where a moral claim is both universal and constant. You can generalize elements of a moral claim to make it appear more universal, but the details still differ. If not killing is a universal objective good, for example, then it would always be bad to kill. There are some who think this, but killing in many circumstances is often necessary and excused due to judgement of circumstance.
Also, without invoking a deity, there is no universal and objective consequence to morality. Doing something bad at one point does not necessarily change anything, and indeed even the memory of such an event is not inviolate.

Congratulations, you are... participating in the debate. (Mostly with strawman arguments, but nevertheless.)

 

[D1Tremere]

That's what you need to do to win a debate, not to have one.

Moral realists are offering what they claim to be evidence all the time. Yes, you can examine it and find it inadequate, but if you do, you're participating in the debate. (And if you don't, your own position is on shaky ground.)


Not even the true Scotsmen?

...participating in the debate.

...participating in the debate.

Congratulations, you are... participating in the debate. (Mostly with strawman arguments, but nevertheless.)

A formal debate has rules, one of which being
• Gather supporting evidence and examples for position taken.
without evidence it is just an argument.
I am not aware of any evidence for an Objective criteria of ethics.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A formal debate has rules, one of which being
• Gather supporting evidence and examples for position taken.
without evidence it is just an argument.
I am not aware of any evidence for an Objective criteria of ethics.

Then you need to read more of the literature in the field.

Or, heck, search YouTube for "formal debate moral relativism" and you will find concrete examples of such debates occurring. Not that they are the primary medium by which academics advance their fields anymore, but if they're what you care about, there they are.

 

[D1Tremere]

Then you need to read more of the literature in the field.

Or, heck, search YouTube for "formal debate moral relativism" and you will find concrete examples of such debates occurring. Not that they are the primary medium by which academics advance their fields anymore, but if they're what you care about, there they are.

Then enlighten me. Give me one example of objective morality.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Then enlighten me. Give me one example of objective morality.

I gave you six names to look into. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned a couple more. You yourself brought up Kant. You don't have to agree with them -- they certainly don't all agree with each other -- but if you want to be a meaningful part of this metaethical conversation, you do have to take them seriously. I can assure you, the professional philosophers who argue against them do. If you tried this "there is no debate" line on any of them, I can only imagine you would get the same response you've gotten from me and pemerton.

 

[pemerton]

we're again getting to the conclusion that the character's rationalization of their actions determines their alignment which I, personally, find to be shaky ground on which to base such a system.

Well, what you call "rationalisations" I would call reasons and convictions, revealed by conduct as well as by word. And what else would be indicative of a person's moral outlook?

Honestly those core objections by both paladins sound fairly similar to each other (damage is being done to the community and therefore I disobey)

I don't agree with this - I think that the LG person is concerned about damage to the community, usurpation, etc; whereas the CG person is concerned about damage to individuals, power structures, hierarchy etc.

If these seem small differences - and I can see that they well might - then I think that is a view that the whole lawful/chaotic set-up isn't picking up on anything too profound or important. Which would also be a reasonable view.

Robin Hood is, I think, a fairly frequently used example of Chaotic Goodness, and his core objection is that Prince John and the Sheriff are unfit by virtue of the damage they do to the community, but he maintains allegiance to King Richard as "rightful king".

I think this is one of many examples that shows that the general distinction between lawful and chaotic is unstable, and that the details have to be worked out table-by-table, either in play or as part of the prep for play.

Upthread I said that I tend to see NG as CG-lite. A Robin Hood that adheres to the rightfull throne but is rather casual about resisting and robbing the sheriff and his/her friends in the meantime might be an instance of NG, though.

For a really clear example of CG I think you need to find a figure whose repudiation of received social structures in favour of self-realisation is more thorough-going. A certain sort of hermit, or knight-errant, or wild person of the woods, might fit this description. Robin Hood comes close, but (for the reasons you give) probably isn't quite there.