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]​

 

[Gammadoodler]

You make a thought-provoking distinction, and I think you're right, most positive laws are going to be more open to interpretation for when they are violated than prohibitive laws. But more open to interpretation is not the same at totally open to interpretation. A paladin would not be able to "higher law" their way out of a secular law forbidding cold-blooded murder, because such a law is pretty clearly "valuing life". And some positive laws are just equivalent to prohibitive laws: for instance, "speak truly" and "don't lie" are two sides of the same coin.

Correct, wasn't saying that they were absolutely open to interpretation. The overall question in my mind, such as it is, is how one distinguishes the CG and NG paladins from the LG paladin invoking "higher law." Assuming they're all good, there is already some natural crossover (except insofar as differing good paladins have different ways of looking at goodness, which is a different topic entirely). The point you'd made about the CG and possibly NG paladins potentially ignoring laws that don't have any implicit moral content makes sense. However, an LG paladin exercising a sufficiently liberal "higher law" interpretation looks pretty similar to other differently-aligned paladins. I wouldn't expect such a problem from most players for a LG paladin unless they're trying to pull something, so it's likely more a social contract issue than anything else. But, it is a pretty open loophole. Not game-breaking, but potentially bothersome.

Well, paladins are a bit of a special case because they have direct(ish) access to the goodness-source. Most lawful good characters have to use their own judgment simply because, y'know, they're like everybody else there.

They certainly can be. Think that's pretty character/game dependent (I kinda like the idea of the paladin who makes the vow and receives power and no other communication, just faith and commitment rewarded by power and silence.), but I see your point.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Well we already have someone claiming that use of an Atomic bomb is a Good act so yeah, people got to justify their actions. The first step is claiming that there are no objectively good or evil acts.

 

[D1Tremere]

Moral relativism.

"Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people's intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it."

If you have been unaware that this is a live question in the field -- indeed, perhaps the live question in the field -- then I don't know what else to say.

People being critical of moral relativism is not the same as debate. Only theological philosophers actually debate it, because nothing else provides an objective standard.
To be sure, people in the philosophy department argue about it all the time. But given the advances in cultural anthropology and psychology, no one really debates it.

 

[D1Tremere]

Well we already have someone claiming that use of an Atomic bomb is a Good act so yeah, people got to justify their actions. The first step is claiming that there are no objectively good or evil acts.

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.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

I must admit that I do feel foolish in trying to discuss Alignment without first checking that everyone understands what the difference between Good and Evil is.

 

[D1Tremere]

I must admit that I do feel foolish in trying to discuss Alignment without first checking that everyone understands what the difference between Good and Evil is.

In 20+ years of running games the one thing i can say is that no one is ever clear on why some things in the game may be good and others not lol. "Why is the town paying us to kill the Goblins but making orks citizens?" "Does having the evil subtype mean i can torture it for information and its ok?" "If he is undead does that mean he is property?" So many weird discussions lol.

 

[Shasarak]

In 20+ years of running games the one thing i can say is that no one is ever clear on why some things in the game may be good and others not lol. "Why is the town paying us to kill the Goblins but making orks citizens?" "Does having the evil subtype mean i can torture it for information and its ok?" "If he is undead does that mean he is property?" So many weird discussions lol.

That is interesting. I was listening to a former CIA agent talking about obtaining information from people and the effectiveness of torture. What decision did you come to in the end?

 

[D1Tremere]

That is interesting. I was listening to a former CIA agent talking about obtaining information from people and the effectiveness of torture. What decision did you come to in the end?

That was a long while back, but i believe the party ended up deciding to bribe the Drow they had captured into telling them where the person who hired them was.

 

[Sunseeker]

Honest question, outside of systems where classes are tied to alignment and maybe certain spells, how much alignment adjudication is actually happening in people's games? My direct experience is pretty much limited to 5E, and I can only think of one time when it's come up in a dungeon puzzle, and even then the DM just used whatever was on folks' character sheet.

Edit: If it only really comes up in these specific corner case-type situations, but is so contentious when it does, what's the value?

Wrong question.

The right question is: how DMs remember that more than Paladins have alignment restrictions?
Starting from the top, 3.5 PHB:
Barbarian: Any non-lawful: CG, NG, CN, NN, NE, CE
Bard: Any non-lawful. See above...
Cleric: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of his diety's...
Druid: Must have a neutral component. NG, LN, NN, CN, NE
Fighter: Any.
Monk: Any Lawful: LG, LN, LE
Paladin: LG
Ranger: Any.
Rogue: Any.
Sorcerer: Any.
Wizard: Any.

Roughly half the classes in the 3.5 (on which Pathfinder is based) require you to have an alignment. But you don't hear tales about how the Monk got put in a sticky moral dilemma. Or a Druid torn between saving people and saving trees. But you hear numerous stories, from numerous players, at numerous tables about how DMs seem to have a woody for putting Paladins in moral conundrums.

Granted, some of these classes allow you to pick an alignment that is essentially "I do what I want, when I want." and maintain access to semi-phenomenal nearly-cosmic power.

But a point of irritation among Paladin players (speaking as one here) is that Paladins often get the short end of the stick when it comes to alignment issues. When another class violates their alignment, even grossly, DMs are often slow to respond, if they do at all.

 

[Shasarak]

That was a long while back, but i believe the party ended up deciding to bribe the Drow they had captured into telling them where the person who hired them was.

That is a good call and smart play too.