Camellen's page

Scaling proficiency in advanced weapons not specific to an ancestry or culture should be available to non-fighters/non-humans, but it probably should have a non-negligible cost.

Yeah, this is what I'd think. If they had a feat similar to the fighter's advanced weapon training it would open up a ton of builds. Even if it required the character to be trained, that's a lot easier what would currently be required (by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat followed by the relevant class feat).

Rogue should have something specific too, I think, even if just for agile/finesse weapons. Since they don't have martial weapon proficiency, it's even more difficult for rogues to enter themed archetypes than other martial classes- even archetypes that are thematically very close to rogue.

OP is missing Tengu Weapon Familiarity, which lets you pick a common advanced sword.

Unconventional Weaponry might qualify if you're not from Taldor, since the weapon is cuturally specific there and potentially uncommon if you're from across the world.

breithauptclan wrote:

I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

Don't be a dick about it.

The general problem the OP is highlighting applies to a huge variety of weapons. If you dislike Falcatas, then pretend they're asking about karambits or daiikyus or any of the other extremely underwhelming advanced options that exist.

Ah, you're right! I was assuming all the weapon familiarity feats were similar, passed over the Tengu. That would allow someone (even a non-tengu) to make that ranger build with Adopted Ancestry, allowing the build to come online around levels 3-5 instead of level 12. Thanks!

Though that still makes it difficult to gain proficiency in common non-swords (such as the broadspear), and requires some really odd workarounds that could be easily fixed by a class feat for martials.

I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

What exactly is the difference between a falcata and similar martial category weapons?

Falcatas are cool. What other reasons does a person need? Regardless, motivation isn't the issue here. The issue is that there is an entire class of weaponry that is nearly inaccessible to most martials.

Edit: Inaccessible as in weaker than other alternatives. From levels 3-4 it's equal, and from levels 12+, but only with heavy feat investment

With the release of Treasure Vault, I was excited to look over the new array of weapons available for characters to take- but I noticed some snags as I planned out specific builds. The build I had in question was a Ranger using falcatas, but this issue expands to other build types as well. So the question was, "How do I get this build to work?" So I thought I would gather all the ways a player could gain training in advanced weapons.

Level: 1
[Ancestry] Weapon Familiarity: Reduced proficiency requirement in specific weapons.
[Human] Unconventional Weaponry: Reduced proficiency requirement in ancestry weapon OR an uncommon weapon belonging to a specific culture.
*[Class] Fighter. Scaling proficiency in all advanced weapons one step behind martial weapons.
Level: 2
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Aldori Duelist and Red Mantis Assassin. Grants scaling proficiency in specific weapons. Must have proficiency to begin with. Increase level to 4 for non humans. Required Feats: Two. RIP rogues that wish to take the Red Mantis Assassin dedication.
Level: 3
[General Feat] Weapon Proficiency: Limit of Trained.
Level: 4
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Butterfly Blade Dedication. Grants scaling proficiency for butterfly blades, must have proficiency to begin with.
Level: 6
*[Class] Advanced Weapon Training [Fighter], all advanced weapons in one group scale to your highest proficiency.
Level: 10
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Provocator Dedication: Increase to one advanced weapon to trained.
Level: 12
[Archetype] Diverse Weapon Expert (Req. Fighter Dedication), trained in all advanced weapons. Total Feat Cost: Two
*[Archetype] Advanced Maneuver (Req. Basic Maneuver, Fighter Dedication), take the Advanced Weapon Training feat. Total Feat Cost: Three.
Level: 16
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Performance Weapon Expert (Req. Provocator Dedication), gains expert proficiency in one advanced weapon.
Special:
*Same applies to Gunslinger, but only to firearms and crossbows. Uncommon.

All these together show that it's very difficult to get scaling proficiency with an advanced weapon that you aren't explicitly incentivized to get via a specific route. Rogues have an especially difficult time compared to other martials due to the need to gain martial weapon proficiency before they can gain access to advanced weapons via weapon proficiency, making certain archetypes difficult to qualify for. Going back to my first example, the only way to make a functional ranger using a falcata would be through the fighter archetype. This would take three feats (one of which providing little benefit), wouldn't come into effect until level 12, and take up space that could be used for other class feats and archetypes to fit the build.

I can't help but compare this to Pathfinder 1e. A martial character could (from levels 1 or 3, depending on BAB) take exotic weapon proficiency to have access to a specific weapon with the same level of proficiency as other weapons. Yet in this, a non-fighter martial struggles to gain proficiency. I understand the idea of fighters as being "experts of weaponry," yet fighters are already a level of proficiency higher than all other classes- there is no need for them to be the exclusive owners of advanced weaponry. Certainly, advanced weapons aren't so powerful that they are worth 3 feats of up to 12th level, right?

With that in mind, I think there are a few options available to allow non-fighter/gunslinger martials to use their preferred methods of destruction:
-Martial Classes can gain access to advanced weapons at a level one proficiency lower upon reaching expert proficiency
-A class feat is added to all martials 1 level after expert proficiency that functions identically to the fighter's "Advanced Weapon Training" feat.
-All martial classes gain a themed version of the above feat. Rogues can gain scaling proficiency with an agile or finesse weapon, barbarians with a melee or thrown weapon, monks with a monk weapon (requiring Monastic Weaponry), and so forth. This keeps the theme of individual classes, but allows them access to advanced weapons that fit that theme.

In any case, I just hope there are feats added that allow me to live out my fantasies of a falcata ranger without having to resort to multiclass shenanigans. If I missed anything, please fill me in, because this wrench in my character build does sting.

GM here. I originally ruled against it, as I had thought that Eldritch Trickster stated that you could take a multiclass archetype that had access to the Basic, Expert, and Master spellcasting benefits- which Magus does not have (it has the Basic, Expert, and Master bounded spectating benefits).

However, after going back to Eldritch Trickster, I noticed the exact text read, "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat." While Magus has the bounded spellcasting, the feats themselves are listed as "Basic Magus Spellcasting," and so on. The feat's description does state that it grants bounded spellcasting benefits, but I rules in favor of the name since "feat" was specifically called out rather than the benefits themselves.

To Paizo, sorry if this is too early to be discussing Magus multiclass stuff! Delete if you need to.

So I'd like to make a warpriest work, playing a melee (or even an archer) oriented cleric sounds like a fun idea. But the Warpriest doctrine as depicted in the core rules seems sorely lacking. To compare what the 20th level benefits are of each doctrine:

Cloistered:
Legendary in Spellcasting
A free Focus Spell (1st lvl class feat)
Expert in Unarmored
Expert in Deity's Weapon
Expert in Fortitude

Warpriest:
Master in Spellcasting
Expert in Light and Medium Armor
Expert in Deity's Weapon
Trained in Martial Weapons
Master in Fortitude

The warpriest has to sacrifice legendary in spellcasting, which is huge- they're the only spellcaster that doesn't actually get legendary in spellcasting. This makes their offensive actions for spellcasting sorely lacking, as their spell attack and DCs are going to be behind the other classes. They don't even get better weapon attack to make up for it, since they reach the same proficiency as a cloistered cleric in their deity's favored weapon (and only trained in all martial weapons). Sure they get it earlier, but that doesn't mean much when you realize you've gotten all you're gonna get out of your proficiency at level 7 (and at the cost of expert spellcasting).

Now take this: the Sentinel Dedication feat. For a small 2nd level dip, you get light and medium armor proficiency, which increases at the same rate of warpriest's improvement. In that case, the cloistered cleric (with one feat) now equals or eclipses warpriest in all areas except in fortitude saves. However, there is no similar feat for Warpriest to shore up its weakness in spellcasting.

I remain optimistic that the Magus playtest releasing Monday will have a better presentation of what a mixed martial/caster can accomplish and how we could improve the warpriest to better scale along with the other classes. Hopefully, what we learn in the Magus playtest can help with an errata for the Warpriest as well!

I have a party if 6 and they still get tossed around on occasion. You might give some extra HP to solo monsters to help them last just a tad bit longer if adding monsters would make it more awkward. You know your party best though, so I'd say it depends on how well they deal with the threats presented.

Core Rulebook pg 86, the Deer animal instinct has the "charge" trait in its attack, which sounds interesting, except I cannot find the trait in either this book or the bestiary. I apologize if I've missed it or if it's been addressed already. Feel free to post any other missing traits/rules here!

That cover art... wow! Using this as my phone's background now, can't wait for the real deal!

FowlJ wrote:

They are almost definitely low grade. It's possible this part was written before grades of material were finalised, or else someone just plain forgot to include it.

Correct. Materials and treasure were finalized at the very end of the process, and this one slipped through the cracks; we were assuming silver weapons functioned the same as in 1st edition still at this point and didn't know that there was going to be different grades. The lowest grade is correct, since that's the one that makes the most logical sense for the level in which they're gained.

Thanks James! I put in a post on Fantasy Grounds so hopefully it'll be fixed before it interferes with too many campaigns.

In the treasure for these two areas, the players receive:

Thank you for any clarification you can give on this issue.

I think PF2 works even better for more powerful ancestries (in some situations), for different reasons than Vali Nepjarson described. Take the drow noble example. You start as a drow, maybe taking a requisite heritage if necessary. Take some drow magic feats (just like the feat tree in ARG), and eventually take the Drow Noble feat (level 7 feat perhaps?). In this case, the "more powerful race" is a higher level version of the base race, and a non-noble would simply take different feats.

Take monsters that are simply stronger, say a dragon (as an excessive example). You might start as a hatchling, with very few abilities, and gain more as you level up and select them as racial feats. Level 4 as a prerequisite for flight, level 7 for breath weapon, a size up option at 11, and a frightful presence like ability at 14 (this is an extreme example and not balanced well, but you get the idea). This doesn't work quite as well as the example above, but you can swing it.

Pathfinder 2 facilitates strong races in the sense that strong directly equates to the level of the monster (a noble does have better access to tutors and trainers after all), it only falls slightly short when that progress is by maturity (such as driders, dragons, trolls, etc).

Finally, all hail our kobold overlords. That is all.

Relics, eh? A throwback to Weapons of Legacy perhaps?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like the idea of Aasimar as an ancestry where the heritages are things like Angelkin, Musetouched, etc. than I do with Aasimar as a heritage or archetype available for any ancestry.

This is my preference by far.

Going along the same line of thought, we could add something like "Native Heritage," granting access to feats of an ancestry you specify and changing your size to fit the ancestry (or work the size differences into the planetouched as a base).

I'd really prefer not to resort to "humans by default," and pretending nonhuman planetouched only exist in homebrew.

It seems likely we'll get them eventually.

They may well be Heritages (in the vein of Half Elf and Half Orc) rather than Ancestries per se, though. My personal theory is that they'll be 'modular' Heritages you can apply to any Ancestry the GM allows. Which would be pretty cool, IMO, and make a lot of sense.

I'm personally in support of the modular heritages as well. It fits really well, and we might be able to use it for templates that previously had a level adjustment as well (separating stronger abilities into ancestry feats).

There was treat wounds again but I don't think it was any different from before DC 15 heals 2d8 takes 10 min.

The Fatigue condition that Jason mentioned was a little less bad than in the playtest. Only -1 to AC and saves no mention of Hampered 5 or of the penalties increasing with every action you take.... but they didn't get into combat so maybe those are still there and just didn't come up.

They also didn't benefit from exploration tactics, if I recall (due to fatigue).

Eh, I feel like I might go the easiest route myself; dump the PF1e adventure loot and use the recommended loot progression for PF2e, using the original loot as a guideline.

Consider me part of the kobold plushie cult fan club!

Beyond what this means for half-elves and half-orcs, using an ancestry feat to unlock a more diverse heritage gives us a lot of options for the future. For instance, aasimars, tieflings, and other planar scions come from a wide variety of ancestries in Golarion, instead of just defaulting to human. In Pathfinder First Edition, there's a sidebar to that effect, but it provides no mechanical adjustments for non-human planar scions beyond their size category. The playtest treatment would allow you to build a character whose ancestry really reflects their combined heritage. And if your setting has half-elves and half-orcs where the other parent isn't human, say half-orc/half-dwarf characters, you can just allow the half-orc feat for dwarf characters and the rest of the work is already taken care of. This also opens up a lot of design space (in the form of feats) to explore what otherworldly parentage might mean, giving you different options based on what type of outsider has influenced your heritage, similar to the popular subcategories of aasimar and tieflings (pitborn, musetouched, and so on). Having a solar in the family might grant access to entirely different feats than if your ancestors were blessed by a hound archon.

I'm personally really excited about the potential for planetouched and template race heritages. Not just tieflings, but stuff like balanced half-dragons and the like. I do wish (if and when it's released) that it remains an Ancestry-neutral heritage, instead of having to adapt it. You could even have ancestry feats to become increasingly demonic as you gain in power. A Half-Dragon Heritage where you can gain natural armor, breath weapons, resistance. A powerful Aasimar that's practically a living angel, without being an 18th level paladin (as cool as that feat is).

Blog Source: Born of Two Worlds.

Bleachlings are an option! 10/10 fantastic update!
Humans can multiclass into anything! 10/10 will maybe break the game but hilariously fantastic!
Goblins get annoying songs! 10/10!

Blog said wrote:

Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

In the "Positives and Negatives" blog, they've expressed that they're already looking into alternatives for resonance due to its lack of popularity, as well as highlighting some of the issues they've run into with it.

I'm surprised that the unconscious rules weren't changed to specify crit failing reflex saves (considering that applies for the sleeping condition). My group didn't have a particularly difficult time running out of resources, but it was a large group- and they returned to town a couple times to rest. They had the most trouble with the second goblin encounter. The trap, along with the increased number of goblins, butchered them with a plethora of crits and maneuvering. The alchemist in the group was afraid to do much, thanks to both his splash damage and limited supply. His meager bulk meant he resorted to using light bulk weapons to fight, thanks to his armor, bombs, kit, and other great taking up a large chunk. I found that the hero points made a lethal encounter far less so, especially if you run shorter sessions with free encounters.

Sorcerers and bards, the two spontaneous casters we will see in this playtest. Bard was previously a "half-caster," with reduced access to spellcasting in return for a plethora of abilities. In PF2e, this is reflected by lower overall spellcasting capability compared to its dedicated caster relative (sorcerer, gaining an additional spell per level), and having several powerful cantrips that interact with its other abilities.

Now, with sorcerer established as the "spellcasting class," it seems odd that bard would be the class to have the 8th level "additional heightening" feat, directly related to having more powerful spellcasting capability as opposed to the typical bard abilities (dealing with powers augmenting their cantrips and so on). I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or simply a quirk written in for an unknown reason.

That leads to a final point, the case for Universal Class feats. I've seen many complaints about certain feats or techniques being gated behind certain classes. Now, take the "Additional Heightening" feat described above. Imagine this was made into a "Universal" class feat, available to any who meet the prerequisites "Spontaneous Heightening class feature." Or Power Attack/Double Slice, "Trained in a martial weapon." Widen Spell, "You are a spellcaster."

You could add a variety of depth to character creation without taking too much away. Fighter could still have access to many open/press feats not available to other classes, with some unique abilities besides. As an added bonus, you might save page space avoiding the extra entries on the classes that would normally gain them. The problem comes in when you look at terms of balance. Martial classes will likely have more to benefit from in variety, since many spellcasters will already have access to a feat that would otherwise be made Universal. Would Double Strike be too powerful in the hands of a Barbarian or Rogue, and how does a Monk's ability to take Power Attack change things? Of course, these are all questions that would have to be asked to address multiclassing balance anyways. A potential solution would be to increase the level requirement, with a special note at the end stating "Fighter and ranger treat -X- as a level 1 feat," as an example. Thoughts on how a universal class feat system might affect balance? Would adding another group of feats make character creation needlessly complicated?

TL;DR for Developers:
1. Sorcerers don't have access to additional heightening. Oversight?
2. A universal class feat system including feats such as additional heightening, power attack, Double Slice, some metamagic, etc.?
3. Would said universal class feat system adversely affect game balance?
4. If yes to 3, does multiclassing adversely affect game balance?
5. Would the cost in game balance be significant compared with the improvement in enjoyment to the players?
6. Would it make the game significantly more complicated?

Answering the question created additional questions. The shove mechanic (in athletics) explains that it can be used with enemies up to two size categories larger. Does this increase that limit to three, or does it actively make it worse? In addition, the shove mechanic states you can move in the same direction as the opponent. Does that also apply to non-shove abilities that utilize shove?

Exotic Weapon Training has it gain proficiency and crit effects as if it were a martial weapon, so you improve your progression with that weapon.

Press effects can be used while you have a multiple attack penalty, but the penalty must be at least -4 to get an effect on a failed attack roll.

Adding questions:

Improved Brutish Shove: Specifies that it can be used on a creature one size larger. Is that a reference to the Shove mechanic, or an oversight due to Brutish Shove not containing size-specific limitations?

I could not find rules related to creating custom NPCs to use as antagonists, so I'm going to do a bit of guesswork based on the NPCs provided in the bestiary.

Cleric of Rovagug (CR3) vs level 3 cleric:
-Both have spellcasting ability of a level 3 cleric
-NPC has 41 HP vs a PCs 38, or a PCs 42 (W/ Toughness)
-NPC has one higher ability boost, but also an ability flaw
-NPC has no obvious class feats
-Reflex and Fortitude are higher than you'd expect vs PC

Demonologist (CR5) vs level 5 sorcerer:
-Spontaneous Heightening Summon Monster & Darkness
-Identical spells known/per day as PC sorcerer
-Identical ability boosts vs PC
-NPC has 58 hit points vs a PCs 53, or a PCs 58 (W/ Toughness)
-Class Feats Reach Spell, Steady Spellcasting, missing one vs PC
-Saves are each 2 higher than you would expect vs PC
-NPC Potentially has Great Fortitude and/or Lightning Reflexes

Mercenary Scout (CR3) vs level 3 ranger:
-NPC has 45 HP vs a PCs 41, or a PCs 45 (W/ Toughness)
-Perfect Aim doesn't require being hunted, but doesn't grant a bonus to hit as per ranger's Favored Aim
-Identical ability boosts vs PC
-Saves are each 1 higher than you would expect vs PC

In conclusion, although I did not do an in-depth analysis of their proficiencies and various other scores, it seems that NPC classes can now be considered an equivalent challenge for their level. Feat decisions seem to favor simple choices such as toughness, and many class/ancestry feats seem to be canned in favor of simpler presentation and artificially boosted defenses. Does anyone have anything to add?

Not sure if this is an error... Bard pg 64, spell repertoire states that they begin with one first level spell and gain spells as they gain spell slots. However, this leaves them with less first level spells known than any other level, 2 (gained from 2nd) compared with 3 spells known (starting at 2 and gaining another the following level) for every other level.

In descending order:

1. Undead Master (Wizard) (This was pretty much the perfect necromancer archetype for me, but I'd love some pale master/true necromancer archetypes from libris mortis)

2. Synthesist Summoner (Summoner) (I love how it played, it felt like you were playing a genetic monstrosity that constantly evolved)

3. Empyreal Knight (Paladin) (Giving up Divine Grace hurt, but ascending to become an angel? How much cooler can you get?)

4. Zen Archer (Monk) (I loved the idea of an archer monk, a monastic dedication to the art of the bow)

5. Forgemaster (Cleric) (A master craftsman with rune magic? Casting bonuses versus armor and weapons? Sign me up!)

I have room for one additional player in my upcoming playtest campaign. The campaign will be an adapted version of the Tomb of Annihilation campaign.

Disclaimer: In the spirit of having a diverse party to playtest, each player will be playing a different race and class (with human as a possible exception). Each player will have a random number to prevent disputes.

Platform: Fantasy Grounds (You only need the demo)

Time: Every other Saturday night at 6pm eastern.
Meet up on August 4th for character creation and rules discussion, first session on the 25th and playing every two weeks from then on out.

It will be primarily text, with voice used for roleplaying through Discord's chat

Characters: Non-evil preferred, no homebrewed content. This is a playtest, so feel free to make as powerful a character as the rules allow. We will start at level 1.

Would fungi and molds be considered plants for the leaf druid anathema, or might there be a fungus-based druid introduced later? Because a druid focused on mold and decay sounds pretty sweet.

Edit: Nevermind, saw that they were considered different! Decay Druid, here I come!

Camellen wrote:

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

"Some things make you flat-footed to everyone, but usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you or that otherwise has the drop on you."

I should have re-read that bit. Oh well, we can always hope! I'm always excited for options that might make combat a little more exciting. Maybe a feat (like the teamwork feats) that treats an enemy as flat-footed to you if allies are flanking you? We could get some pretty exciting builds out of this!

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

The largest problem, while many of the commenters claim that morality is an objective truth in Golarion, the fact is that morality is subjective for the real-world GMs and players that deal with a morality-based system.

A player decides to kill a cursed innocent to prevent the curse from spreading to the rest of the town. The player argues that it is a good act, he's doing it to save the town. The GM argues that murder is always an evil act. What about when attacking monsters? Or evil creatures? If you attack a drow first without proof that they have done wrong, is it an evil act? Is laying ambushes for monsters evil? Eating meat as an omnivore? What about the town over, that considers it evil to burn their dead due to spiritual beliefs? Would it be evil for the paladin to cremate their dead? For the sorcerer to use burning hands on the town's zombies? Or is it only evil if you belong to the town?

I'm not saying you can't have a system of objective morality. But, because morality is not inherently objective in the real world, the constraints of this morality need to be clearly written and defined. Not a paragraph detailing what evil is, but a defined list of what constitutes an evil/good act, what would cause a shift in alignment, and how a clearly-stated intention can affect it. This way, if there is a rules concern about an alignment-based mechanic, the player (or GM) can bring out the book and read, "According to X, this is an evil action." If such rules are not clearly defined, it will continue to be based on the subjective beliefs of the people playing the game- which is only fine so long as the players have the same moralistic views.

If the game cannot have a defined list of good or evil acts (It does not need to be pages long, but it needs to be clear and precise), then it is clear that morality cannot be used as a game mechanic due to its subjective nature.