Neo2151's page

Yes, I know there are a few exceptions of spells that cast with one action (Magic Missile, Cure Wounds, etc) but it seems like the vast majority of spells require two actions to cast, leaving you with one action a turn.
Mechanically, one action a turn is *very* similar to the old "Move Action" of edition(s) past; you can move, you can stow/retrieve an item, etc.

It reminds me of the Age of Conan MMO's release: There's this new and interesting chassis for non-magical characters in combat where you queue up your combo and then have to execute directional attacks to complete the combo - essentially very much more interactive than most MMOs where you just auto-attack and hit 1, 2, 3, repeat or whatever. Meanwhile, if you're a caster, you just press the button to cast your spells just like in every other game.
PF2 is looking like this to me. Non-magical characters have this new 3-action chassis to play with where maybe you want to attack more than once or twice, or maybe you want to move multiple times, and the mini-game of combat is just a lot more interesting and interactive than it was in 3.5 or PF1... but the casters are still just casting a spell and moving, etc.

Am I underestimating the number of single-action spell options?
If not, how do you make spellcaster tactics as new and enjoyable as non-caster tactics? Or is it just a matter of dealing with it being the same as before?

While there is a very real argument that such a change would make a lot of lower level damage spells feel rather useless, I'd argue that they already do.
Low level damage spells have always, and continue even now, to feel really bad. Magic Missile is technically impressive (always hits, does hard-to-resist damage, does full damage to enemies that are typically harder to damage such as incorporeal enemies, etc.) but in action, mathematically, when dice hit the table, it pretty much always feels bad.
And I'm pretty sure I've seen enough of the arguments/math around up-casting damage spells to say that it's pretty much always a bad choice - you should just cast the higher level base spell as it will either do more damage, cover a better area, or simply both.

It really seems like the vocal minority that insisted that Wizards could do literally everything was taken too seriously, and spellcasting suffered for it.
No, casters didn't have an answer to everything. If they did, they could solo adventures, and that's just not happening. (I'd challenge anyone to show me a PF1 wizard/cleric/druid who could!)
Yes, they could do a lot of things that non-magical classes couldn't, but they weren't the gods that 3.5 made them. (And there's always the argument that if magic isn't fantastical, then what's the point of it?)

I'm curious - why is the idea of resurrection magic any more or less fantastical than any other magic in the setting, in that it needs to be so much more rare or restricted?

Or is it actually just the unpleasant thought that you think players popping up again and again from death eliminates tension?
Can your players' party actually afford that? Why are you showering them in diamonds, etc?

Is this a legit problem at tables or is it armchair math gone crazy?

It's a ribbon ability that hardly gives any value but is thematically really fun to have.
There's really no good reason to have to wait until you're almost done as a Ranger to sleep in armor and not get fatigued.
It's not like you aren't forced to camp safely because of the rest of the party, so it's not like you're really getting anything out of this. :P

Second, many people view losing HP not as serious injuries, but scratches and flesh wounds, at least until you reach 0. A few rules reinforce this view: the fact that you still still have 100% functionality when down to 1 HP is an old example, and 2e introduces the 'wounded' condition when you stand back up after hitting 0.

This one right here is worth repeating, IMO.

Harry Potter also has a similar feel with the muggle/wizard separation and costs of schooling.

I'd argue that every "Wizard" in HP is actually a Sorcerer, since you're either born with it (Wizard) or you can't ever do it period (Muggle).

Just reading the Vorpal enchantment again and remembering why I hate it: I need the most expensive magical enchantment in order to... target someone's neck?
Seems dumb, feels bad, yet been around for literally decades over various editions.

But even so, Vorpal only applies to heads. What about legs, arms, hands, eyes, etc?

How do you handle actual wounds and not just HP damage in your games?

Neo2151 wrote:

This is actually starting to point out why class (im)balance made a ton of sense, and "fixing" it doesn't make much sense at all.

Anyone (literally anyone) can become a "Fighter." PC, NPC, doesn't matter. It's an open book for anyone who can pick up a weapon.
But look at how much defense is being given to Mages needing to be extra before they can even start?
Yet, in outcomes, they should be similar?

Not everyone can be a "fighter". A "fighter" is not just any old joe who picks up a sword. A "fighter" is a hero on the path to matching the likes of Achilles, Cu Chulainn, Jason, or Bellerophon. An NPC can train for combat, but that doesn't mean they're going to match a player character, no matter how hard they try.

Eeh, hard disagree.

This is actually starting to point out why class (im)balance made a ton of sense, and "fixing" it doesn't make much sense at all.

Anyone (literally anyone) can become a "Fighter." PC, NPC, doesn't matter. It's an open book for anyone who can pick up a weapon.
But look at how much defense is being given to Mages needing to be extra before they can even start?
Yet, in outcomes, they should be similar?

None of it adds up. The only reasonable stance I can see is if outcomes should be similar, then entry level requirements should also be similar.
If you can find a mentor to teach you magic and you aren't an idiot (ie: have the requisite Int score necessary to cast spells), then wizardry can easily be in your future; just as if you can find a trainer and have the strength or agility necessary (the requisite Str/Dex to wield gear and not suck at hitting things) then a career as a warrior can easily be in your future.

Does this mean anyone can or should be able to do magic? Of course not, there's plenty of idiots (low Int people) in the world. But should it be especially exclusive or hard? Not at all.

However, a TWF barbarian is possible with two feats: Ranger Dedication and Basic Hunter's Trick (Twin Takedown).

My contention to this argument is simply, it proves my initial point right.

Having had more time to consider it, I think my issue boils down to the idea that "combat style" shouldn't be tied so specifically to classes, but should be more general.
Class Feats should focus on what class-specific gameplay you'd like to do, but in reality much of that gets sacrificed because class feats are used up on how you do combat.

Getting back to Ranger - If you want to play a Ranger that really feels like a Ranger (ie: tracking, animal interaction, knowledge of terrain and enemies, stealth, etc) you can absolutely do it, but you won't have feats left over to be any good at any combat style. If you want to be any good at a combat style, you have to sacrifice what makes the Ranger the Ranger.

Do people really think the 1e Cleric was a one-man-wrecking-machine? Really?

I mean, didn't the Warpriest come along because the Cleric couldn't keep up? Sure they had all the tools to be OP, but they didn't have the action economy to get there fast enough.

A lot of class comparisons are ending up with, "you won't be as good as a Fighter, but that's their shtick so it's fine."

Is that a Fighter's shtick? To take a fighting style and just be better at it than anyone else with that fighting style?
That doesn't sound right to me.

A dedicated archer Ranger should be just as good as a Fighter at archery. Where the Fighter should stand out is they should shine regardless of what weapon (within some sort of limits, obv) you put in their hands.
Bow breaks it's string? That's fine, he's excellent with a sword and shield too. Shield is sundered? No worries, he makes great use of that newly free hand for maneuvers or 2-handing.

I haven't looked too closely at how the Fighter class feats break down, but I'm curious how many styles they will strongly support.

For 'competent at' I would say that they don't feel that the build that the player is going for doesn't work at all and they can't do the thing that they want to do - but it isn't going to outshine a different class that is designed specifically for that.

So no, a ranger isn't going to be as good of a fighter as the fighter is. So when sitting next to an Archery Fighter, a ranger may feel a bit lacking.

So if an Archer Fighter dedicates themselves with most/all of their feats going to archery, and an Archer Ranger dedicates themselves with most/all of their feats going to archery, and the Fighter comes out better...

What does a ranger specialize in? What thing or things does a ranger do better than other classes can even hope to attain to with massive investment?

From looking at the class, it feels to me like that one thing is damaging one enemy. Singling out one target and attacking it to the exclusion of any others. And taking down that one enemy quickly.

Other classes can do similar, but not as well as a ranger can. Other classes can do lots of damage and can focus all that damage on one enemy. But I don't see any other class with class features and feats specifically designed to give bonuses to attack and damage against a selected target.

Except you've already pointed out how the Fighter is superior in combat to the Ranger by design. One target or multiple, it doesn't matter, the Fighter is superior.

What is the Ranger supposed to bring to the table that it's the best at? If it's truly attacking a specific target, then it's already failing.

I could understand if the "combat styles" were what Class Feats were for, but they're also used for the flavorful RP stuff that used to come baked into the class chassis.
Whereas now the class chassis offers you (almost) nothing but proficiency upgrades and feats have to cover twice the ground they did before - except you still only get one every other level.

And again, maybe it's just because I've got Ranger goggles on (I just took a look at Alchemist and they have significantly less feat options per level to choose from, at least at a cursory glance) but when Exploration options have to compete with Combat options, that feels rough.

I realize this is probably different from class to class based on what's available, but I've got a Ranger bug lately, so I've been looking at what that class can do, and I can't help but feel like you only get enough Class Feats to support 1 avenue of play-style.
Wanna be an archer? Whether you go bow or crossbow, you're gonna use up most of your feats. Ditto TWF. Same for an Animal Companion.
It'd be really fun to pick up some of the more thematic feats like Terrain Master, Camouflage, Sense the Unseen, etc. but... just not enough room for them.

Yes, this is a bit of an optimization argument, but still...
It feels like if you want to be really good at one thing it'll eat up the vast majority of your feat slots leaving veeery little left for other things.

Crap, been too long to edit...

So I just want to clarify that, as far as "Agency" goes, I personally make a distinction between "player agency" and "character agency" where the former concerns things that take place outside of the game while the later concerns things that take place inside the game.

Sorry I wasn't more clear on that. :)

We're seeing a lot of topics pop up with concerns about proficiency scaling issues for anyone trying to step even a little bit outside of what the class provides (Bards and Medium Armor, Wizards and a Martial Weapon, even things built into the class, such as a Dragon Sorcerer's prof with their claw attacks).
I've also noticed that since every class is so heavily tied to it's class feat options, you really can't adopt a playstyle that wasn't built specifically for the class. If you want to TWF as a Barbarian, for instance, you just can't as the feats that make it happen aren't available to you (yes, you can "technically" TWF with regular MAP attacks and two different weapons, but we aaaall know that's not what anyone means by TWF ;P ).

There is certainly a lot of new and interesting things with the new edition that are improvements over the old, but I'm getting the feeling that Classes specifically are essentially so rigid that you either play the way the rulebook tells you or you struggle to keep up, by design.

That seems anathema to D&D-esque gameplay.

How do others feel?

It's worth pointing out that you *can* use metal weapons, so the substance isn't entirely anathema - only for armor and shields.

Which basically makes the whole issue even more muddied, imo.

I don't believe 1st edition ever gave any sort of justification as to why druids had to avoid metal - it was 100% a holdover from older editions.

Now, in 2nd edition, it remains a holdover, still with no explanation.

So my question: why is it okay to kill the tree to work it's wood into armor or shields, but not okay to mine the ore to work into armor or shields?

At least at low levels a crossbow ranger seems quite competitive to me.

1 shot a round for d10+d8+2 vs an archer doing 4 shots for d6+1 each. But with penalties of 0/-4/-8,-8. (assuming indoors so volley is an issue. Outdoors they're doing d8+1

And the xbow ranger gets to nearly dump STR if they wish

Am I safe in assuming the extra d8 above is coming from the Precision Hunter's Edge? If so, why isn't it granted to the archer as well?

Also aren't you basically saying, "the Ranger is specifically designed to make the crappy crossbow not as crappy if you pick the right choices,"?
That speaks more to the class than the weapon, doesn't it?

Also worth pointing out that d10 crossbow takes all 3 actions to load and fire - no movement for you until Ranger 4 at minimum.

Am I wrong? It really seems like we're still in a situation where a 1-die upstep in damage is nowhere near good enough to make up for the longer reload time, and that's before considering bows got sweet upgrades (deadly, propulsive?) while xbows got nothing at all.

What gives? Will fantasy rpgs ever deliver a crossbow that doesn't feel like a drag to choose?

Here's the thing about guessing - it usually doesn't work without metagaming.

Yes, the lumbering troll probably has a lower Reflex save and a better Fortitude save.
How about the Vampire? The Fiend? And, as already mentioned, creatures with more alien physiology? How do you guess the weak save here? You just don't honestly, with Undead being my favorite example as they tend to have solid Will saves for literally no obvious reason, just as a quirk of the way they're designed.

Pretty disappointing actually. :(

If you wanna TWF, you be a Ranger or a Fighter (or a sad Rogue who wishes they were better).
If you wanna TWF as a Barbarian, a Champion, or anything else really... well, too bad, no support.

Neo2151 wrote:

I very much hope you're wrong. If the shapeshifting druid is just "don't you wish you were as good as a Fighter" X/day, then... well, you should've just been a Fighter.

Umm, being almost as good as a fighter X/day and being able to cast a bunch of spells and do a bunch of other druidy things when you're not being almost as good as a fighter at doing the fighter's job seems like a pretty good deal. The whole point of having a fighter class is that they're the best at fighting in return for not getting to be good at a whole pile of other stuff.

Back when shifting was not tied to spellcasting, I wouldn't make the argument.

Maybe I'm worrying over nothing, and the actual playtest material will show it won't be so bad, but with the tiny bit of info the previews have given us to go on, it sounds like "either you shift into animal forms for your combats, or you have spells to do other stuff, but you probably won't have enough to do both."

Right, but Mark's examples are exactly what you would use Control Weather to do. Kinda makes the spell pointless, no? (Or if not pointless, terribly unexciting.) :P

I just wanted to say...
Casting Lightning Bolt outside of natural stormy conditions is both unnatural weather and potentially harmful to wildlife.

It also seems like a pretty staple action of a Storm Druid.

Also, basically any use at all of Control Weather. Making a thunderstorm worse than it already is isn't something you cast high level magic to do - making a tornado or four on a sunny day is *exactly* what you use high level magic to do!
...
And it's anethema...

So... Uh... Rewording plzkthx?

Also, I'm really not liking the sound of shape shifting being tied to Polymorph spells.
Prepared at the beginning of the day? Limited by number of times you can cast?
This makes the class fantasy of a shapeshifter basically impossible to fully realize... Unless I'm missing something.

Also, neo vancian carries a whole host of problems which are probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I think how bad the 5e sorcerer feels compared to the 5e wizard illustrates some of them.

A lil late coming back to the party, but this is nonsense.

So I'm confused...
Sorcerers don't get at-will heighten because that would lead to too much analysis paralysis...
But as they're designed now, they have "sometimes heighten" which will lead to the exact same kind of analysis paralysis. If anything, since you can't heighten very often, you won't have as much of an opportunity (through repeated effort) to learn which heightens are the right call and which ones aren't.

tl;dr - Analysis paralysis around heighten will be the same, if not worse, than if Sorcerer got to heighten at-will.
(As to the concern that if heighten was available at will it would lead to non-heighten spells falling by the wayside... That's a design concern; it shouldn't be a player concern. It feels like a sign that you just didn't design spells that don't heighten to be competitive.)

And for what it's worth, there are two kinds of players: Players who bother to do homework on what their class can do, and players who don't. The latter holds up game time regardless of class options, the former tends not to.
Stop trying to fix bad/lazy players with mechanics - that way madness lies. :P

JoelF847 wrote:

Lots of cool stuff here, but I don't know that I'd agree with "Without a doubt, the most popular element of barbarians in Pathfinder First Edition is the totem". I don't think I've seen anyone choose one of these, either at the table or in a printed stat block, or if so, quite rarely.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to include totems as a core part of the class, but it certainly wasn't the most popular element of barbarians.

You've played in a very different game than most I've played in or seen played either in real life or on the boards then. Totems (particularly Beast Totem) are nearly ubiquitous IME.

The only thing more ubiquitous was Superstition, which they are now making a Totem. Which is cool. :)

Eeeehhh... let's be intellectually honest here: "Pounce Barbarians" were incredibly popular, almost universally. The "I'm a totem warrior" part of it was very largely ignored. If the Beast line didn't give Pounce, we would have seen drastically different Barbarians.

Neo2151 wrote:

Why can't Magic Missile just become a cantrip? I think we all know in our heart-of-hearts that it's an incredibly under-performing spell and always has been. ;)

I have absolutely no idea how "always hits" and "under-performing" even go into each other's general vicinity.

Always hits with tiny damage that has never scaled well and can't crit.

Neo2151 wrote:

I imagine the answer to that question is, "never."

Given that Heightened Invisibility is the equivalent of greater invisibility and Summon Monster IX is now Heightened Summon Monster this is pretty obviously wrong.

They may well be less common than spells inherently of the level in question, but assuming they won't happen? That's pretty clearly incorrect.

Fair enough, I could have been more specific.

The issue quoted is dealing with Magic Missile, and the concern is the comparison between damage-dealing spells.

There is a world of difference between heightening an Invisibility into a new effect, and heightening a dps spell into the same effect with a different numerical value.
I thought it was clear we were discussing the latter.

There's still going to be a lot of times that you want to cast a heightened spell because it's just an excellent option period, or the main way to create a particular effect, like heightening a summon spell or heightening invisibility to have it stick even if you go on the offense (like greater invisibility in PF1).

Of course there will be situations where you will want to cast a Heightened spell instead of a higher level Prepared spell, based on the situations you find yourself in.

There are a near limitless number of examples of such.

However, the issue is not, "There are times you will want to cast..."
The issues is "How often will you want to prepare a Heightened spell in place of a higher level spell?"

I imagine the answer to that question is, "never."

(tl;dr - If Heighten could happen on-the-fly, this wouldn't be a concern at all. However, it seems we can't Heighten on the fly, which makes it a massive concern.)

Lion was the most honorable though :-)

Not if you ask a Crane, Phoenix... or Scorpion. ;)

Lots of discussions around Paladins lately (obv, lol), and I keep seeing the idea of the Paladin as "the Round Table knightly order style" of class.
I would agree that they're certainly knightly, but I've always kind of seen them as loners taking on the burden they do because "no one else can" rather than a collective working together towards some goal or another, and the "knightly order" classes are the Cavalier and Hellknight.
After all, I can name several Hellknight Orders or Cavalier Orders, but I can't think of any Paladin orders.

So... are there any?

Well...

You have to fish it out of your pack/pocket/wherever (action)
Uncork it (action)
Drink it (action)
Give it a moment to work (action)
Now you have two choices. You can...
Re-cork it (action) and put it back in your pack (action).
Or you can drop the cork (action) and the vial (action) and move on with combat.

;)

IMO its when you see thread like this, it emphasises the PF1 and PF2 flaw regarding the cleric in general.

Paladins, Warpriests, Inquisitors are all divinely appointed warriors, granted specific powers linked to their warrior role.

Having clerics as gish serves no purpose either thematically or mechanically. It not only makes the cleric less effective but it clouds the water for the actual divine warrior types..... hence why thread like this crop up!

The fact that you CAN design the cleric as gish is not proof that you SHOULD design it as such. It is a completely redundant concept. Its like having a company and making your accountants spend time improving their skills in buildings maintenance.... yes you can do it... but should you?? Nooooo....

The game has moved on massively since D&D 1st ed....

I disagree that it's a flaw.

On the other hand, the Paladin has always been Warrior/Fighter based. A hard-coded connection to a deity is new for them which is why I feel the question is more relevant than it may have been in the past.

I also firmly believe that the Inquisitor and Warpriest only exist to fix the system flaws the Cleric faces and are not necessary in a system without those flaws.
For example, a skill-based Divine character is basically impossible to do well in 3.X/PF because of how both Skills and the Cleric spell list work (we all know the Trickery domain has always been garbage, regardless of edition).
Inquisitor fixes this by adjusting the spell list and adding a bunch more skills per level.
In a system where skills work differently and more consideration is placed on Divine Spells, the necessity of the class vanishes and the Cleric, built properly, can fill the role.

Warpriest, on the other hand, is the solution to the Cleric's BAB/Action Economy problem. A standard Cleric has all the tools it needs to be a combat machine, just not enough time to employ them before the fight is nearly over. Also, it must utilize these buffs or it won't compete well, even though it has the initial combat proficiencies to suggest it should.
Warpriest fixes these issues by letting it "cheat" it's way into Combat Feats and "cheat" the action economy by activating spells faster than normal.
In a system where BAB doesn't exist and spells are designed in a way where they can be cast faster or slower based on need in the moment, the necessity of the class vanishes and the Cleric, built property, can fill the role.

I say all this to say that, as it stands with a strong connection to a deity, a Paladin becomes just a LG Warpriest following a particular code, but we're about to get a new system where the Warpriest may not even be necessary; the changes to attack bonuses and spellcasting may finally allow the Cleric to fill it's role as gish better than it ever has before.

The compromises listed would create a ton of work for Paizo, which makes them very unlikely to be implemented. Ideas need to account for that.

Building alternative alignments in the vein of the Tyrant archetype is reasonable. Building 3-8 alternatives that have distinct balanced mechanics is not reasonable.

Quoting for emphasis, not to reply to.

The reason that my position is to share the Paladin chassis with other alignments/codes is not because I want to take the fun parts of the Paladin and leave the parts I don't like, but because Paizo is absolutely not going to devote the development resources to build X different mechanically-similar-yet-thematically-distinct classes.

And we all know it.
Because this is "Pathfinder: The TTRPG." It's not "Paladins: The TTRPG."

tl;dr - A reasonable compromise among the fanbase that the developers definitely won't go for is not, in fact, a reasonable compromise.

Something I've always wondered: If HP damage is supposed to be an abstract of wounds, fatigue, strain, etc. and you aren't actually in mortal danger until you cross that 0hp threshold...

Then why can't a good backrub heal HP damage?

No really, why is serious amounts of rest or magic required to heal what you're totally allowed (encouraged, even) to call stiff muscles (or the like) after a long fight?
Sure, you'll need magical healing energies or appropriate downtime to heal actual wounds, but HP damage above zero is never flat-out called actual wounds. And yet, a Heal skill-check can't cure HP?

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues (though some mechanics will come up) - this is purely about thematics within Golarion with the information we know.

A Paladin has been described as:

divine champions of a deity

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

So the traditional response (I would guess) to this is that Clerics are the "spell-casters" to the Paladins "warrior."
The issue I see with this is that Clerics have always been warriors. There is no "wizard-like robed priest" class; there is only the "wears armor and wields their deity's favored weapon in battle" class (Archetypes aside).
(I'd even say that the only reason we ever saw the Warpriest come into existence is that the Cleric was simply bad at doing it's job, through no fault of it's own, because of combat mechanics; ie, the buffing took too long in actual combat because PF combat is extremely quick. Were it not for that particular unfortunate circumstance, the Cleric would fill it's role just fine and Warpriest would have been unnecessary.)

And now, with BAB being replaced with Proficiency, the gap closes even more!

I understand that mechanically they work differently and Paladins have an extra code they must follow, but thematically, in-world, they seem to serve the exact same purpose; champion the cause of their deity. And they do it in essentially the same way; a combination of spells and fighting.

I am saying a Paladin is a unique reaction from certain things. It has always been so. It is a divine champion, but it is not just a divine champion. I have explained this at length numerous times in this thread. Rather than restating it I will direct you to read one of the many previous explanations.

I've been following many Paladin threads for quite a long time (I enjoy them, what can I say?) and I will absolutely concede that you have, many many many times made the above claim.

In other words, you've said many times that "Paladin is a divine champion but it's not just a divine champion," but I promise I haven't ever seen you explain how or elaborate in any way.

So, if you would be so kind, would you do so here?

You forget:

Iomedae can be a Cleric/Warpriest/Paladin just fine.
Sarenrae can be a Cleric/Warpriest/Druid just fine.

Does that make Iomedae less magical than Sarenrae?

Iomedae can be a Fighter/Ranger/Monk
Sarenrae can be a Fighter/Barbarian/Barbarian?

Differences do not equal a power imbalance.

There's a few differences:

Arachnofiend just above also does a good job of pointing out how Paladin is a champion of Good, judged by their Goodness, but locked behind a requirement of Law.
If Paladins got as many Law-themed powers/abilities as they do Good-themed ones (or any at all, really), I'm sure we'd all be having a very different discussion/argument.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

you are still saying LG is besy good, you are now calling it a 'unique reaction' but its still 'best good'

I have not called it the best good. I have explicitly said the opposite. I simply stated the facts.

Baking Soda and Vinegar has a dramatic reaction when combined.

Baking Soda and Water does not have this dramatic reaction.

This does not make Vinegar better than water.

Weird analogy.

Also, if the goal is to get a reaction, then yes, vinegar IS better than water.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

...some of us would like a neat story and character that best Lawful Good just isn't providing with some meaningful mechanics and flavor.

without being attacked for wanting this sort of thing.

Can you explain to me this "Lawful Good = Best Good" argument and why you think it's so implicit?

As far as I can tell, nobody who is arguing that Paladins should be restricted to being LG believes that Lawful Good is better Good than Chaotic Good or Neutral Good (I don't really see a ranking as being meaningful, but Neutral Good seems obviously the "purest" Good, if not better).

In fact, it seems to me that, in a world where Paladins are always Lawful Good, the in-world explanation has to be that what makes Paladins possible is the lawfulness and not 'degree of goodness' (if it were degree of goodness that mattered then a paladin could be of any non-good alignment, surely?)

** spoiler omitted **

Sure!

Here's the deal - no one arguing for LG-only Paladins is outright stating that "LG is the best alignment." That just ends up being a consequence of the argument.

If "Alignment Champion" was the class, and Paladin was the LG version, this would not be an argument. However, there are people who are arguing that "alignment champion" should either not exist and it should *only* be LG Paladins, or at the very best a different alignment "Alignment Champion" should be fundamentally different/weaker than the Paladin so the Paladin stays special.

What this results in is a situation where LG is so pure and holy and special that it gets a special holy warrior champion (the Paladin) but other alignments are not pure and holy and special enough to get their own holy warrior champions.
ie: If CG was "as good" as LG, then where is the CG holy champion class? There isn't one. Ipso facto, CG is lesser than LG.

Or, to put it in Golarion-ish terms:
Iomedae can be a Priest/Warpriest/Paladin just fine.
Sarenrae can be a Priest/Warpriest but cannot be a Paladin.
Therefore, even though they are both champions and warriors of Good, Iomedae is more special/powerful/whatever than Sarenrae.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

A Valid LG Paladin Deity

At least, that would appear to be the case.

Tell me I'm wrong, please?

There is nothing within the code to prohibit the gathering of information.

True, but it seems you're ignoring the glaring issue:

Her followers use guile, subterfuge, and shadow magic to break into evil bastions and return with valuable information

Guile and subterfuge are deceitful by their very nature; implicit lying.

I've been trying to formulate and parse one of the 'disconnects' with Best Lawful Good having Paladins and Neutral Good not, and I think I've come up with why it bothers me.

This does touch slightly on RL perceptions and analogues, so please accept my apologies in advance if it goes squirrely.

A. Iomedae, the Inheritor, is effectively a Taldan deity (the Byzantine 'analogue' on Golarion). Sure, she has other places she's got worshippers, but overall, that seems to be one of her big places?

B. Saranrae, the Dawnflower, is effectively a Qadiran deity (the Ottoman Empire/Persia 'analogue' on Golarion). Sure, she has other places she's got worshippers, but overall, that seems to be one of her big places?

Okay, now here's the rabbit-hole my brain keeps bumping up against:

The Lawful Good Deity could be a paladin.

The Neutral Good Deity could not (as currently being offered in Playtest).

Yet they are both allies against the forces of Evil.

So why on Golarion is Iomedae NOT sharing her tactics/techniques capabilities with Saranrae?

Does she not trust the Dawnflower?

Does it feel to her as if the exclusive franchise of her particular flavor of Heavenly Goodness is inherently superior to the Dawnflower's?

Why can't the Dawnflower, the one who (with the help of other deities) *imprisoned Rovagug* the biggest and worst thing in Golarion, grant this power to Her faithful?

What strange cosmic rule allows this to happen?

I know, it's 'that's how the rules are' from an out of the box perspective, but if I were the Dawnflower I'd want my people of Goodness to focus on Being Good first? And I'd want them to be empowered as my divine champions -- after all, my ally Iomedae can make it happen for Her faithful, why can't I do it for mine?

What is the flavor to bridge this disconnect?

EDIT: Further rambling -- Evil is selfish and greedy and doesn't want to share, or if it does, it wants huge payoff for doing so.

Good works together and shares equally and fairly.

So why is one Good more important than All Good?

Seconded!

And finally, Paladins have always prioritized Good over Law. They have Smite Evil and Detect Evil, not smite Chaos and Detect Chaos, y'know?

This is kinda the crux of my point, actually.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Mark, what is the official stance on how "respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be" interacts with being in a land with cruel, but lawfully enacted practices and mores?

Say, your paladin finds himself in ancient japan circa any year before the abolishment of slavery in 1590. You are in a land where people are not only routinely oppressed, but as you are traveling and observing this, you see a samurai murder a hapless serf in front of you for merely having irritated him - something fully in his legal authority to do.

What, OFFICIALLY, is the Paladin supposed to do in this case, according to Paizo?

In PF1? It's very tricky. In PF2's code as shown in the blog, you explicitly can ignore that lawful authority to protect the innocent serf because protecting the innocent is a higher tenet.

Question: Are the alignment descriptions changing from PF1 to PF2?

So how is this action (ignoring a tenet of the code for the greater good) not a perfect example of Neutral Goodness in action?

So here Is why I think the paladin is generally lawful. It is because of the code. Its been very traditional that anyone with a code in D&D and PF is lawful. Monks for example usually (and more so in the past) had a code or some rules they would follow so they would be lawful. Now i"m not opposed to CG paladins however chaotic would imply your getting rid of the code so it would be a substantial change to the fluff and even the mechanics since the code is built in to the mechanics.

So to the idea that Chaotic or Neutral alignments can't follow a code...

If your code is to have no code,

you still follow a code!

Ponder to the tune of Freewill. ;)

Open question:
As I said back on page 9, the "Paladin Code" as presented is absolutely follow-able by a NG character.

Please tell me why I shouldn't be able to make a NG Paladin when I can follow their code as laid out?
Or does the code just not matter, and all that matters is the Alignment written on the character sheet?