SilverliteSword's page

Given the new focus on critical hits, I think that at least one totem needs a tanking focus. Since Animal Totem focuses on unarmed attacks (which will never be as good as weapons), I think that the Animal totem should focus more on taking hits. Since you're giving up damage, perhaps Animal Totem should gain AC, and instead of shapeshifting requiring that no armor be worn, making the shapeshifting barn completely helpless on the off-round, perhaps the barb gets some kind of "natural armor" that's always active even when in humanoid form. Like "the animal never really leaves you" sort of deal.

Since they're already unarmed, some grappling focus would be nice, too. Tanking and grappling, It would make for a fun Barbarian.

Beefriedrice 2 wrote:

Asuet wrote:

Technically you add only proficiency modifiers for armor. Not for unarmored. If unarmored defense was a thing to be taken into account for every class then they would have added that bracket on the character sheet.

The mage armor spell explicitly uses unarmored proficiency.

Basically Wizards and Sorcerers should just throw on some magical armor because its gonna be superior to not wearing any.

Bracers of armor are still a thing, starting at 35 gp for constant 2nd level mage armor and going up to 65,000 gp for 20th level. Not that Mark Seifter hasn't said he's looking forward to people trying out heavily armored battle mages (now that ASF is gone), but it's not a necessity.

Are they required to multiclass into monk then?

Well apparently it doesn't work like that on Golarion. I guess you are the one who misunderstands sign language in this context.

I think you're missing the point. Paizo didn't have to include sign language, the fact that they tried means that they're going for inclusivity. If they'd like to be inclusive, they should make an effort to actually include the people they're trying to include.

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

2/3-3/4 pass rate is indeed quite lovely for such effects; in fact, the fact that Trivial DCs provide those kinds of odds for a more middle ground character is another of their advantages and reasons to be included on the chart. Once it's 75% success for worst-character, though, that means nobody else is really engaging with it, which is possibly useful in some situations but sounds more to me like using a lower level challenge to spotlight the fact that worst-character might fail even though everyone else make it 95% of the time and can't critically fail. Hmm, it may be the case that a different column head than Trivial would help explain this concept better, particularly in absentia of the rules and just the chart excerpt.

Doesn't feel like it handles "all five rolls must succeed" situations well, like when all five in a party must climb the same rope for the entire party to make it up the wall, or a climb is long enough that you need to roll five times. Then a 75% success rate rapidly feels quite challenging...

As for one character being behind not meaning others are not engaged - my experience is that team members do engage in this, increasing their DC to lower the DC of the character in question through various more or less clever solutions. Especially if you don't want to leave someone behind when climbing that rope...

A climb is a little bit different of a check than it seems. You've actually found the final one of the main powerful uses of a trivial DC. Climbing just to get to the other side is a "Succeed before you critically fail" check, not a success/fail. That means the schlub character with a 50/50 success chance actually has a greater than 90% chance to succeed before critically failing (it's 10/11, succeed on an 11 or higher, crit fail on a 1, ignore 2 through 10 and roll again). If the DC goes up even a little beyond that, the chances of the schlub character to succeed before a critical fail drastically decrease.

Neat! However, that seems kind of long and drawn-out so I probably won't require a roll unless that particular climb is dramatically relevant (rising floodwaters, a pack of ravenous wolves hot on their tail, breaking into someplace where falling means making sound and being detected, etc.). It's really no fun when you are climbing a tree to pick some apples with no real pressure and the GM makes you roll anyways.

SilverliteSword wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

The playtest rules thoroughly define each category. Trivial basically means if this is the DC and the whole party can try it and only one person needs to succeed, it would be incredibly unlikely that no one succeeds. For instance, even an untrained 1st-level character with 10 in the stat, likely the worst you have, is 50/50 at the level 1 trivial (a trivial task of a level is actually roughly defined as "Something a totally uninvested character of that level would be at about a coin flip to do"). Even if an entire party of four was built that way with no one invested at all, it's still only a 1 in 16 chance they don't have someone make it. Trivial DCs are relevant enough to be on the chart because someone probably will fail it if everybody has to roll it and all who fail experience some interesting result of failure.

Why is the easiest possible level appropriate task a coin flip for average untrained creatures? This still results in a world where the most basic tasks in a category (climbing a braced rope, asking for directions, preparing a simple meal, noticing tracks in deep mud) are comically difficult for normal people.

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

It's because anything easier than what's listed should just be automatically given to the players as a success. If there's pretty much no chance of failure, you don't even bother rolling.

That said, I would prefer that the name "trivial" be reserved for things you would gloss over in such a way, and start the actual DCs with "moderate."

As you have cleverly guessed, there is a class of things you don't even bother rolling, and that actually can scale with the PCs' level. It's explained in the Playtest CRB.

Welp, Mark replied to my post and called me clever. I'd best quit while I'm ahead.

Mark Seifter wrote:

The playtest rules thoroughly define each category. Trivial basically means if this is the DC and the whole party can try it and only one person needs to succeed, it would be incredibly unlikely that no one succeeds. For instance, even an untrained 1st-level character with 10 in the stat, likely the worst you have, is 50/50 at the level 1 trivial (a trivial task of a level is actually roughly defined as "Something a totally uninvested character of that level would be at about a coin flip to do"). Even if an entire party of four was built that way with no one invested at all, it's still only a 1 in 16 chance they don't have someone make it. Trivial DCs are relevant enough to be on the chart because someone probably will fail it if everybody has to roll it and all who fail experience some interesting result of failure.

Why is the easiest possible level appropriate task a coin flip for average untrained creatures? This still results in a world where the most basic tasks in a category (climbing a braced rope, asking for directions, preparing a simple meal, noticing tracks in deep mud) are comically difficult for normal people.

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

It's because anything easier than what's listed should just be automatically given to the players as a success. If there's pretty much no chance of failure, you don't even bother rolling.

That said, I would prefer that the name "trivial" be reserved for things you would gloss over in such a way, and start the actual DCs with "moderate."

Aratrok wrote:

For example: I can't tell what Paizo thinks a task being "trivial" means, and it doesn't jive at all with my own personal definition. A 1st level trivial task in this setup is failed by a trained specialist of the same level (+4) 25% of the time, and an average attempt from an untrained character (-2) fails 55% of the time. This is almost certainly going to translate to comedy of errors gameplay at the table, with party members regularly failing the easiest possible tasks the system defines.

If I'm reading things correctly, this also means that Trained Assurance only applies to 3 possible tasks; level 0 trivial and low, and level 1 trivial.

Hm. Based on this progression (if it stays the same all throughout), you'll hit DC 30 (Legendary assurance) at lvl 14 extreme, and at lvl 20 the only thing you'd be 'assured' at are trivial things. I like assurance as a concept, but I'm not sure how I feel about these DCs.

The Raven Black wrote:

Are Exotic weapons even needed now ?

They're defining 'Exotic' weapons as those that are statistically superior to martial ones. Since some people want 'better' weapons, that seems a valid niche.

I'm not entirely sure about calling them 'Exotic' at that point, though. 'Superior' feels wrong, however, and I'm legitimately unsure what other term to use.

Simple, martial, elite?

For spontaneous casters it's even easier then wizards to reward rare or unique spells.

"You fought a mighty dragon, have a dragon spell."

Ah, yes, the Skyrim method.

I honestly really like the 4e alignment system where you basically had "principled good" and "generic good" (also "principled neutrality" and "DGAF neutrality" as well as "evil you could maybe reason with" and "evil you absolutely cannot reason with.").

Paladins should honestly only belong to principled versions of alignments.

You can be principled without being reasonable, and vice versa.

Ooh, snares and better iterative attacks! I'm really looking forward to playing this class!

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the one thing I really hope is not gone from Pathfinder 2nd Edition is Archetypes which interact with, replace, or change class features which are not feats.

A lot of the time I might want to pick an archetype because I Wanted to get rid of some class feature which did not fit my concept for my character. For example, a gentleman rogue who would not stoop to stabbing someone in the back (phantom thief), or a lady with an blade of pure energy who does not just blast people at range (kinetic knight.) Sometimes just changing the key stat of a character is really helpful for a concept- like if I imagine my Magus is charming but impulsive not very thoughtful the Eldritch Scion archetype does nicely.

So I hope upon hope, though they may not be in core, that we get some archetypes which fundamentally change a specific class and not just occupy feat slots; though I admit printing a universal "pirate" archetype or "gun" archetype is vastly superior to a dozen different "Uses boats/guns" archetypes.

Considering that most class features are now class feats, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want.

Yeah, but can you get rid of sneak attack or flurry?

tivadar27 wrote:

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Good to see I'm thinking what you're thinking. Plenty of people are like "Oh no, monks are MAD!" I'm thinking, "Well, yeah. Isn't the goal here?"

Isn't the goal to make all classes MAD, or at least to make each classes' SAD and MAD builds equally viable? Even if it's not baked into the class, useful skills will necessitate some attention be paid to the ability scores those skills require. Right? Dump stats are much less attractive?

(If that really is the goal, why would a wizard need STR?)

How does a quivering palm end when you cast another one?

If you use it again does the last enemy you killed with it suddenly come back to life?

Also, I thought we were trying to get rid of rocket tag? But here we have an ability that a Monk can easily use in the first round of combat to instant kill an enemy.

Only if he critfails the save. This means that it's likely to be really effective in a normal fight but not so much vs. a boss.

It kind of looks more like fighter will in general be pretty bad at unarmed compared to monk, and you can use a base monk and build an unarmed non-magic fighter rather than using base fighter and trying to make him unarmed and monk like. So basically monk absorbed brawler, fighter didn't.

Well, I'd imagine that "unarmed fighter" is a thing. I'd be disappointed if it wasn't, although you may need to dip into monk a little for it (however that works).

From the Fighter Blog:
"[A]t 3rd level, you gain weapon mastery, which increases your proficiency rank with one group of weapons to master. Your proficiency rank increases to legendary at 13th level, making you truly the best with the weapons of your choice. At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

So long as "unarmed strikes" are a valid group of weapons, the fighter would still rank up in them. They's be at 1d4 instead of 1d6 like the Monk has, but the proficiency bonus would still apply. Assuming that going weaponless is good for defense and grapples, a heavily armored unarmed fighter could be effective without feeling too similar to the monk.

Of course, if a Monk were to sacrifice a few class features in order to wear armor, he'd still have the mobility options of a Monk, making him feel different from an unarmed fighter.

That's what I think will happen.

It was always more efficient to play a character with a strong contribution in combat and roleplay through non-combat encounters despite the PC having little social skills rather than try the opposite

I hope PF2 will be more balanced here

That's a GM problem, not a system problem. Would you let someone build an entirely social character and then let them roleplay through a combat using their OOC knowledge of martial arts? No? Then make people roll for results.

What you choose to be good at is a strategic choice that should carry consequences, so unless you plan to remove the mechanical benefit of social interaction, you shouldn't let people succeed at it for free.

I plan to GM, but if I were a player, I would do a Varisian Street Performer Monk. Monk class because I want to stress-test the system and effective monks are hard to create. Varisian ancestry because it is a well-developed ethnic group in Golarion and I want to see how well the ancestry fits the ethnic. Street Performer background because it complements both monk and Varisian.

Well, the playtest adventure is split up I to modules. As best as I can tell, it's totally possible to rotate GMs between the segments. If you'd like to GM but you'd also like to be a player, then rotating isn't a bad idea.

Combat Monster wrote:

I don't think any of us believe that magic users are going to be gimped to close the gap with martials, so we need to boost the martial to be able to compete with high level magic users.

I do, for what has been revealed so far I think casters are being nerfed, the actual playtest documents will reveal how much

I'd probably prefer to call it a rebalance or a retooling than strictly a nerf. If Mark's opinions are to be trusted, then the new cantrips are actually *useful*. While that's not an upgrade in peak power, it's definitely a buff to consistency, something casters have always lacked.

On top of that, casters still get the really awesome spells, only less often per adventuring day. As a player, I kind of don't want to breeze through everything, and having to *seriously* ration spell slots will be good for the game. However, casters won't feel useless on the "off turns " because cantrips actually do something.

I believe the way Mark put it was: "Casters can feasibly cast a spell every turn (thos includes cantrips) if that's how they want to play the game." I really like the new paradigm.

I'm beginning to notice a running theme in the disagreements that crop up here on the forums, and I'd like to take some time to discuss these disagreements. I personally believe that understanding is the first step towards a solution, and perhaps codifying these two "camps" I'm seeing will help. Please bear in mind that I'm oversimplifying, and as such I won't catch all the nuances of everyone's position. In addition, I may accidentally straw man someone's position. When I do, please try to bring me to understand your position rather than simply castigating me (or others). Discussion cannot occur when insults are flying.

The sides:
RAP means "Rules According to Paizo." Alignment: Lawful.
The RAP camp tends to believe that, at least for core, that the rules are pretty much inviolable. Whether that belief stems from an aversion to homebrew, from the belief that core ought to be sacrosanct, or from being used to rules lawyering, people in the RAP camp tend to think of Pathfinder as a game that ought to be played by the book. After all, mechanics define setting: if something can be done mechanically then by extension it is being done somewhere in Golarion by some adventurer.
Telling the RAP camp to ignore options they don't like is like telling them to ignore gravity: even if they could ignore it as a player (some will say you can't for setting reasons), as a GM your players are going to point to the CRB and say "But my character is fine RAW. Why can't I do this?"
This philosophy harmonizes well with PFS, as organized play is 100% standardized.

RAG means “Rules According to Gamemaster.” Alignment: Chaotic.
The RAG camp tends to espouse the view that the table comes first. If your table doesn’t like a rule, throw it out. If your table wants to play in Golarion, but wants to add several deities, then that’s ok. Golarion, as well as all other settings, don’t really exist outside the GM’s mind anyways. The RAG camp tends to believe in GM fiat. Rules lawyering is only effective insomuch as it reminds the GM of rules he may have forgotten, but nothing stops a GM from overruling a troublesome bit on a character’s sheet. The game is just a tool after all, says the RAG camp, and it is meant to be played however you like.
Telling the RAG camp that they can’t do something is like begging for them to homebrew it anyways. However, while the RAG group definitely embraces the homebrew, they know more than anyone that homebrews are tricky, time consuming, and often unbalanced. Therefore, they would appreciate having as much customization as possible baked into the base game so that tweaking Pathfinder is less perilous.
While this philosophy doesn’t work well for organized play, it goes very well with home games with friends.
The Problem:
In many cases, having a defined setting is diametrically opposed to having options. In Golarion, people can either drop from orbit or they can’t. Paladins can be non-LG or they can’t. Goblins can sell fruit at a stand in the middle of Sandpoint or they can’t. Monks can be chaotic or they can’t.
For people who intend to play in Golarion, more options pose a real problem. All of a sudden, things that weren’t possible in Golarion now are, which doesn’t jive well with the setting as established. Some stuff can be explained, sure, but some can’t. For some of those (possible) changes, they could be explained away, but to do so would be to make Golarion a distinctly different place.
However, having more options is a very distinct quality – of – life improvement for anyone who either doesn’t intend to play in Golarion or who wouldn’t mind the retconning. Removing options for the health of the setting may very well be detrimental to the health of the game.
These problems could be alleviated if Pathfinder was setting-agnostic. However, to do that would rob pathfinder of something that is just as valuable as any game balance or mechanics: its unique flavor. To divorce Pathfinder from Golarion would probably be the death of the game, as surely as if its heart were ripped out.
My recommended solution:
Divorce rules from setting, but only a little. I’ll explain using Paladins as an example.
In my suggested entry for Paladins in the CRB, Paizo would present all the stuff for making the iconic, LG Paladins. Then, there would be an additional section titled “Paladins of other alignments.” The section would open up with the following: “In Golarion, Paladins are always as presented above. The following optional rules may be useful to game masters creating their own settings where Paladins may be of different alignments or may follow a different code.”
In this way, I believe both camps are satisfied. The RAP camp can point to the statement concerning Golarion and say that according to RAW, non-LG Paladins aren’t allowed. This also does not require changing the setting to allow for these strange new adventurers. It also keeps PFS to the more stringent standard.
However, anyone ok with home brewing will be ok with saying “well, in my Golarion, you can use these alternate rules.” This alleviates worries about balance and takes a load off of the GM who would be trying to come up with all this stuff himself.
This approach also leaves Paizo room to publish material about Antipaladins, because they do exist in-setting. Assuming that Antipaladins are significantly distinct from paladins, the “unofficial alternate rules” could even be added to allow good Antipaladins (just not in Golarion). Imagine that!
This treatment could be expanded to all such areas within PF2, so that Paizo is basically providing support for alternate rules or other settings.

SilverliteSword wrote:

As for all the people who are saying things like "I guess I give up on PF2 here" or other such "this is the rock I die on" sort of things, may I implore you to at least run the playtest adventure? Reasons:

1: It's available online for free. Free games are always worth at least one solid go.

2: Chances are that you will like 90% of the game. Why don't you comment on the other 10% and help Paizo make the game closer to something you'd like to play?

3: If for some reason you really do hate the new system enough to swear off of running it, you'll likely have an entire group of people that you ran the playtest with who probably also hate it. (The truth of it is that, psychologically, you will view the experience as significantly more pleasant if you are all having fun or significantly less pleasant if none of you are. Groupthink is kind of baked in to being human.)

4: Even if you run the playtest adventure, hate it, and everyone else loves it, you will still not be left wondering what could have been and you will have gained valuable life experience.

Honestly, I'm not sure I share that desire. These folks have diametrically opposed desires for this game to my own, in a way that doesn't seem to have a healthy middle ground. I don't know how much I want those opinions weighing in on the playtest-- I really don't want to lose stuff like this.

I see what you're saying. Whether it is unfortunate for me or not remains to be seen, but one of my core beliefs is that I can totally be wrong about stuff. Since I am not great at being the ultimate arbiter of everything (patent pending), I would welcome different views to take the floor and have their say. I trust Paizo, and I think that more input isn't going to make things worse for this game, only better.

If I didn't trust Paizo, I might be more skeptical about allowing my 'competitors' room to talk Paizo out of a good thing. I am, however, choosing to believe that if Paizo could be talked out of it, then at some level it wasn't as good a thing as I had thought (even if it might have been good for me, it might be bad for Pathfinder).

As for all the people who are saying things like "I guess I give up on PF2 here" or other such "this is the rock I die on" sort of things, may I implore you to at least run the playtest adventure? Reasons:

1: It's available online for free. Free games are always worth at least one solid go.

2: Chances are that you will like 90% of the game. Why don't you comment on the other 10% and help Paizo make the game closer to something you'd like to play?

3: If for some reason you really do hate the new system enough to swear off of running it, you'll likely have an entire group of people that you ran the playtest with who probably also hate it. (The truth of it is that, psychologically, you will view the experience as significantly more pleasant if you are all having fun or significantly less pleasant if none of you are. Groupthink is kind of baked in to being human.)

4: Even if you run the playtest adventure, hate it, and everyone else loves it, you will still not be left wondering what could have been and you will have gained valuable life experience.

MusicAddict wrote:

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

Again, how are you sliding someone's jacket/button shirt off them without them noticing. Unless you have them with their arms dangling next to them while your friend distracts them. Dude has arms crossed? Impossible. Dude is sitting? Impossible. Dude has hands in pockets? Impossible. Dude is Italian or Latin American, and therefore speaks as much with their arms and hands as with their mouth? To quote the preacher from Blazing Saddles: "Son, you're on your own."

And pants. Really, what kind of people are you with that they don't notice it got noticeably breezier down under? Not to mention, if they're standing, you have to a)get them to raise their foot; b)somehow get the pants off them without trouble (seriously, just try taking your own pants off, now, with whatever shoes you're...

See, this is actually where I'd like to see things go the other way. If the legendary thief could disarm/dearmor enemies during combat, I'd be very happy.

Seems about as legendary as surviving in an airless, barren, featureless void.

He's surviving on the dew of a single Ginkgo leaf and the energy of the universe.

Damnit. Don't know how I misread that. This blog post went from "mixed" to "bad". The only thing I really like at this point are the skill powers.

-2 is still a pretty harsh penalty. The goal here is to make the math tighter so that you don't have one character in the party rolling at +50 more than the other one. If your level 20 Barbarian wants to try to Sneak, he can definitely try it, even untrained. This creates a "dramatic scenario" where he is just as likely to critically fail as to succeed, but he isn't so far behind as to never even try it.

Given that buffs are a thing, this could conceivably result in the scenario where the entire party decides to buff the Paladin's untrained Deceive in order to get her disguised into the BBEG's dinner party with all his henchmen. This results in everyone in the party on the edge of their seats rather than no one caring because the Disguise-master 1000 rogue is obviously going to get in without a problem.

The primary goal is to keep the game fun. It doesn't matter how 'realistic' the game is if it isn't fun. Telling players that they can't even try to do anything at all related to Sneaking or Deceiving or Surviving just because they chose the wrong skills isn't fun. Instead, the specialist gets some neat rules exceptions but everyone can try their luck at the skill - which I think is a good design goal.

edduardco wrote:

Meirril wrote:

At a certain, fundamental level from a game designers point of view, spells that grow more powerful with the leveling of the caster (to the point that they are equal with higher level spells) is wrong. That is just bad design. A 5th level spell should be far more powerful than a 3rd level spell, but a 9th level wizard casting fireball does as much damage as a cone of cold, and if that fireball was made into a 5th level slot it could be more powerful than a 5th level spell! This is bad! This is horrible design! This...has finally been addressed.

Then what is the point of Heightening?

A level 9 wizard in PF1 (and maybe PF2) only gets two free 5th level spells. Heightening gives you the option to rely on Fireball in a 5th level slot as your blasting option and pickup Dominate Person and Teleport as your new spells known, rather than have to blow 50% of your new spells known on a tiny damage upgrade through Cone of Cold.

Once wealth and scroll availability catch up, it's less of an issue, certainly.

I think the main thing to take away from this mechanic is the idea of flexibility, which is what people love about Wizards in the first place. If you're primarily a blaster, you're going to pick up the new and improved blasting spell every time (or perhaps every other time). However, you already picked up sleep earlier, so rather than learning another SoS/debuff, you decide to learn a buff spell instead. If you need to cast a SoS, you will just heighten Sleep.

The heightening mechanic is much more valuable for the niche spell types that you're not specializing in than it is for the one thing you always want to have maxed out. In other words, a heightened fireball spell is much better for the summoner than for the blaster, because the summoner doesn't want to spend the space in the spellbook to learn a better blasting spell.

Not gonna lie, unless Remove Blindness/Deafness and Cure Disease have been turned into much higher level spells I'm not super impressed by that legendary Heal feat.

Given that they are nerfing the intensity of low-level debuffs (like colorspray), I wouldn't be surprised if no one encountered a spell that gave permanent blindness until at least 5th level spells (9th level characters), even on a critical failure. If that's the case, then I would expect that Remove Blindness is probably using a 5th level spell slot, even if it is a heightened version of another spell. In that case, you're taking a feat that allows you to avoid expending any spell slots in order to achieve these things. Even for someone who has 7th level spells, 5th level slots aren't useless. I could see this being of use even for a dedicated healing caster, assuming these conditions come up often. ( I should add that 5th level is an absolute lowball here, and that Remove Blindness may end up as a 6th or 7th level spell.)

Add to that the fact that there is no restriction on how often this can be used, and you could go around healing the huddled masses with this feat. Or charging the wealthiest nobles a pretty price for the curing of congenital blindness and other ailments within their houses. If your GM is going to go the route of urban adventures that rub elbows with rich emperors, then having the ability to perform miraculous healings with no daily power limits could definitely net you a position as court physician even in a world where casters exist after all, what is the caster to do when too many people show up needing medical care? Limited use healing powers don't make for reliable physicians.

I'd agree that its usefulness definitely depends on the type of campaign you're running, but it definitely *feels* legendary, at least rp-wise. I know that makes a difference at my tables.

May make it so there's a divine/primal equivalent of the looted spellbook.

You slay dragons and steal their power.

.

Otherwise you run into the 'Four Wizards with Magic Missile auto-kill anything' problem which Mark alluded to earlier.

Heck, with 210 HP average on four 9th level Magic Missiles, it's already closer to that than might be ideal. Any higher and we're starting to get into real problem territory (as that's already more damage than a Con 12 Fighter has HP at 17th level), but it's at least not the same for most 20th level threats (and most Fighters and combat focused creatures won't have quite that low HP).

That seems about right to me. Four wizards with magic missile can kill (nearly) anything. Once.

Four level 17 wizards against 1 level 17 fighter is a cakewalk. As it should be. Four wizards against four such fighters though? Sure, they fry one fighter before he gets to act (in the worst case scenario). That still leaves those three fighters closing in on melee range of the wizards. I don't know that I'd want to be the wizard in front.

Hence, why people want non-LG Paladins, because the "code" is basically meaningless since it's taboo to test Paladins and people who want to play Paladins have no intention of breaking their code anyway.

I'm not sure I agree. I want more flexible holy warriors because I want to code to be *more* meaningful. I want to test my characters' morals to the breaking point (not with false dilemmas, but with pulling on their heartstrings) and be able to look them in the eyes and tell them "You chose this." I want my GMs to force me to choose between my morals and a treasured NPC, and then to ask me if my god is still worth serving.

BUT, none of those things matter if I'm following a code someone else decided for me. My code only matters if I own it for myself, and maybe that's not a code I want to own.

(I actually don't mind it, It's just not right for all characters.)

Arachnofiend wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

well the good news is...I think with goblins and paladins out of the way, and at least the major mechanical changes somewhat introduced (Resonance, proficiency skill system, actions), most or all of the major grenades have been lobbed?

Although I could just be super naive here...

Monks could potentially flare up the alignment discussion a second time if they end up being Lawful only again.

From what I have seen of most class blogs, other than exceptions like the paladin, they start with both positive and negative feedback from people who are avid followers of the PF2 blogs with various opinions and go along well with some good discourse for a time, but then eventually the people who don't like the blog content are the only ones still posting while most others have moved on. I don't see that really changing for the other classes, so I think every class is eventually going to get some grar.

Yeah. It happens.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that my bark is worse than my bite. I may have a lot to say on the forums, and not all of it praise, but it is precisely *because* I am so stoked for PF2! If I wasn't excited I wouldn't be here at all, but I'm excited to check the blog posts every week.

Keep up the good work guys. I can't promise not to keep barking at you (in fact other things will probably rile me up again), but rest assured that I am excited for August!

Unfortunate that this ship has sailed, because along this line of thought you could do something really cool with a Paragon class that exemplifies and draws power from the aligned planes.

I might have to keep this idea in my back pocket for an eventual homebrew project...

That's actually kind of the idea here, to have a "semi-official homebrew." I prefer for players to have as much room for creating characters as they want. That's kind of why I don't like the "four corners" approach. Rather than taking away the main problem (assigning a play style to a set of mechanics) you just compound the problem by making more classes like that.

I mean, I'll just houserule it. But that takes balancing... so here I am, trying to get more eyes on it as early as possible.

HWalsh wrote:

The scenario is simple:

If you do not kill the youth, he will expel the gas cloud and almost everyone in the city will die. You and the boy will be fine.

If you do kill the youth, only he will die.

And even THIS is horribly contrived to be honest.

The scenario is simple, but so is the decision:

With no other options (teleport to a distant location, plane shift, etc.), the paladin will ask the boy's forgiveness and kill him, even though he falls.

As the only way to save thousands of lives in a time-critical situation, killing one person and losing their paladin status would be the most palatable choice for a Lawful Good individual. Atonement afterword to regain Lawful Good alignment, even if they can never be a paladin again, and accepting any legal consequences for their act, but keeping their paladin status is not worth more than thousands of lives*.

*- this is one of the critical things to keep in mind, as the mindset of a paladin's status being worth more than even one innocent life is selfishness

This... is how a NG or CG Paladin would handle it. If you are Lawful, you believe that murder is wrong. Period. Every time. It is wrong to commit an evil act, it is not wrong that even a million people die provided that it was not your fault. The evil wizard murdered those thousands of people, not you. You are not morally responsible for their deaths, but only to bring justice to the killer.

Killing even one innocent to stop death is murder, and an attempt to play god. Fate has killed these people, who are you to stop it?

On a Cosmological scale, you could say the Law is fate or destiny.. while Chaos is random chance or free will.

On a more personal scale, I subscribe to the idea that the Law/Chaos axis is one of consistency.

Whatever your Lawful person thinks is "right", i.e. Don't steal, torture gets the job done, pineapple is delicious on pizza.. they continue to think that no matter how the circumstances change. (At least they try).

A Chaotic person is a little more flexible. Circumstances and situations can change what is the 'right' thing to do.

Maybe.
What do I know?

You're talking about deontological (10 commandments) vs. Utilitarian (the greater good) thought. That's usually how I see the L/N/C axis. LG, NG, and CG are equally selfless in motive, but differ in what they see as permissible actions.

LG is concerned about not breaking the laws or the Divine Comandments.

NG is concerned about not tainting the inner compass of virtue.

CG is concerned with not sacrificing effectiveness for the greater good on the altar of some hide bound set of arbitrary rules.

In the end, they all want what is best for everyone, but they tend to differ on what they believe best is. LG thinks that everyone will be happy when order is maintained and justice is done. NG thinks that everyone will be happier when they become virtuous on the inside. CG believes that everyone will be happy when they have their freedoms in hand and a decent quality of life. It's a matter of priorities.

SilverliteSword wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:

But paladins are no longer Round Table knights

Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?

Yup, as long as they have some uniqueness and maintain maximum flavor, that'd be great. The hard part is uniqueness. It'd be a little annoying to have 9 subclasses. But I would listen if Paizo showed an idea for it.

I was thinking Paladin would be the only core subclass, with later books (Paizo or third party) being able to add in others using the more flexible base chassis. That way everything is very modular.

Also the base chassis should be usable as-is.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:

But paladins are no longer Round Table knights

Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Antipaladins are Chaotic Evil, and follow a Code. If they break it, they fall.

For example, Callistria ask them:

All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.
I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands

A Paladin of Callistria that do not repay an slight, will fall. That includes whe the slight is done by someone 10 levels above you, who will crush you for your attempt of revenge.

Same if someone steals from you, and you let the guards punish the guy.

My first question is "When?"

Those read more like an ideology than a code. A set of principles to live by, sure, but not rules to follow. For instance, there is no requirement for immediacy (and long-term plotting revenge seems very in-character).

I do find the CE anti-paladin code a bit ridiculous. As long as you maintain evil intentions, you can under deep cover as a Good guy for as long as you like.

Well, for one, the point of this thread is to make the codes and ideologies better. Of course the code sounds like an ideology: that's what it is. If you act contrary to your ideals, you fall.

However, the anti paladin code is pretty bad and needs some work. It should feel like an actual code.

This is why I advocate for the GM and the Player to sit down at character creation and write a code specific to that character and his specific deity. If you do that, you can have cool codes tailored to specific champions, like this code for a (probably CE) champion of Pazuzu:

1: Because Pazuzu is the rightful overlord of the material plane, you must live to further his reach or dominion any way you can.

2: Lamashtu and all her followers must be expunged with no quarter. Pazuzu's wrath must fall on her and all that belong to her.

3: In accordance with Pazuzu's war on Lamashtu and his rightful claim to dominion over the material plane, all beasts are to be subjugated to Pazuzu's rule or destroyed.

Melkiador wrote:

Crayon wrote:

My own take is a little different.

Characters of a Lawful alignment have deducible codes of behaviour that they consider inviolate. If their code appears contradictory, they will try to use logic to resolve it.

But that doesn't actually effect what they do, just that they need to justify it.

Quote:

Characters of a Chaotic alignment are more arbitrary doing whatever seems right at the time. If this appears to result in a coherent pattern, they consider it coincidence.

That would imply that chaotic characters can't plan, which can't be true.

Law: Assuming we're dealing with free-willed beings and not some kind of Outsider, nothing outside of mind-control affects what the character CAN do. Having such a Code does, however, influence the decisions the character makes which, to me, is the important bit.

Chaos: Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but again I was speaking purely in terms of moral choice so 'right' in this context refers to only to moral decisions. It affects, for example, whether a CG Rogue would choose to perform a burglary not how she'd go about it.

Law is Deontological. Actions are "correct" or incorrect because those actions are always correct or incorrect (like torture or raising undead being evil) regardless of the situation.

Neutral (on the L-C axis) believes more in character traits such as honor or virtue. Actions are not evil in and of themselves, but rather one ought to act in keeping with a life of virtue (whatever that particular system calls virtue). The actions themselves are a little more grey, but one could still say that torture was always opposed to the virtue of mercy (for example).

Chaotic is Utilitarian. Actions are good if they lead to good results and bad if they lead to bad results. So CG would definitely torture if it became necessary or raise u dead if they thought they were serving the greater good.

Why don't we test this framework by applying it to characters from fiction? I'll do Luke Skywalker:

His mentor is Ben Kenobi, His philosophy is the Jedi Way, and his community is the rebels.
He obeys his aunt and uncle even though he would rather do otherwise.
He chooses to turn off his targeting computer and trust Ben over the Rebels.
He's perfectly OK abandoning his Jedi training to save his friends, even though the consequences would be dire: but not because he knows he would save them, but rather because he cannot be the sort of person who would leave them.
He's willing to use the force in slightly aggressive or reckless ways.

He seems to give a lot of thought to his own identity rather than either rules or consequences, so I'd say that's authority-neutral.
He gives much more thought to his own community than the outside world, but he does think some about the well-being of others. That seems between G and N, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say G.

I'd say that Luke qualifies as a NG who often strays into TN or CG territory.

Based on these benchmarks, then, Ayn Rand would be "CE" because she:
(C) Permits actions based on the outcome of those actions (net utility) and
(E) Chooses actions based on the effect they will have on herself and those she personally cares about.

With that out of the way I see what your saying silver. I still feel we could do something more satisfying for a chaotic champion then just an oath.

If we go by this source:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8386-A ll-About-Alignment

then the chaotic alignments should be more results-oriented than rules-oriented. This means that the "oath" or "tenets" of a Chaotic person deal much more with what results are to be pursued or not pursued than restrictions on the means needed to get there.

SilverliteSword wrote:

Given the problems with the terms "lawful" and "chaotic" i tend to pull the "Freedom vs. Authoritarian" axis from political theory as the starting point for the Lawful/Chaotic axis for things like this. People who are freedom/chaotic hate unnecessary rules, not all rules ever. Even anarchists believe in a personal code that they internally hold themselves to. Chaotic is less about rules/no rules than where those rules are stemming from. Lawful types defer to the majority or authority while chaotic types follow their own conscience/ moral compass even if the authority or majority says they are wrong.

More or less where I fall as well. I came across a post forever ago that posited that the entire G vs E and L vs C alignment structure makes sense...if you're describing alignment from a LG perspective.

Quote:

Chaotic Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Unreasonable/Reasonable axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Dogmatic/Pragmatic axis.

Lawful Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Slavish/Masterful axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Honorable/Dishonorable axis. An Honorable Masterful noble would have little time for a Dishonorably Slavish rabble rouser and his priggish peasant uprising.
True Neutral societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Rigid Morals/Proper Morals/Loose Morals axis. They'd consider themselves Virtuous and Proper, Lawful Good paladins to be Rigid and Vainglorious, and Chaotic Evil blackguards to be Loose and Vicious.

From Escapist magazine The entire article is pretty interesting.

I like this. I think we will need to use this in order to really represent each Champion the way he thinks of himself.

Lawful (Deontological): judges the correctness of an action based on whether the action itself adhered to a set of principles developed in advance.

Neutral (Aretological): judges the correctness of an action by the character of the person making the decision: i.e. by wisdom and intent.

Chaotic (Consequentialist): judges the correctness of an action based on the consequences of the action.

Good (Altruistic): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it benefits others

Neutral (Humanistic): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it harms another or benefits the most people with no particular compunction to give sacrificially

Evil (Self-interested): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it helps oneself and those one cares deeply about.

So, to clarify for each combination:

LG: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my god, nation or philosophy in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken to achieve justice for as many others as possible.

LN: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my nation, god, or philosophy in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken to help my government/community so long as I do not dishonor myself in the process.

LE: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my nation, philosophy, or god in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken exclusively to help myself and my goals or the goals of those I care deeply about such as my allies, family, friends, or romantic partners.

NG: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my god, philosophy, or nation values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken to help improve the character or quality of life of as many others as possible.

TN: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my nation, god, or philosophy values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken to help make my community more virtuous so long as I do not harm myself in the process.

NE: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my philosophy, nation, or god values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken exclusively to help improve myself or those I care deeply about such as my family, friends, or romantic partners.

CG: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my god, philosophy, or nation approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for a greater number of people should be taken.

CN: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my philosophy, god, or nation approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for my community should be taken so long as I do not bring harm to myself.

CE: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my philosophy, nation, or god approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions should be taken that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for myself or those I care deeply about such as my friends or romantic partners.

The end result of all of this is that no one really sees himself as taking "incorrect" actions. The real difference lies in what seems right to each person.

Contracts are still lawful no that just doesn't work. You wanna know who would be a good chaotic paladin? a barbarian he does what he wants and answers to know one. base it from their. Heck maybe the chaoticaladin only gets to use his powers when he is being highly chaotic. or heck maybe roll a dice in combat to see if he gains his powers this combat. But breaking a contract should be expected of a chaotic character thats the point now maybe if the deity just set the rules with the express hope that the character would break them. Heres the rules! Breaks the rules *deity internally YES!*

Given the problems with the terms "lawful" and "chaotic" i tend to pull the "Freedom vs. Authoritarian" axis from political theory as the starting point for the Lawful/Chaotic axis for things like this. People who are freedom/chaotic hate unnecessary rules, not all rules ever. Even anarchists believe in a personal code that they internally hold themselves to. Chaotic is less about rules/no rules than where those rules are stemming from. Lawful types defer to the majority or authority while chaotic types follow their own conscience/ moral compass even if the authority or majority says they are wrong.

But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior.

In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.

Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature."

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me!

If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.

Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset.

But why would a chaotic deity or chaos itself want to represent obedience to it by using lawful means?

Your obedience to the deity is represented by anathema. Your obedience to your own conscience (a very C concept, BTW) is represented by the code. You can fall from grace with your deity but keep your conviction, you can lose your conviction but not your diety. One is alignment, the other is deity, and they aren't linked.

*Them not being linked is something I'd like to explore, and by no means a requirement.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think I would call doing what suits me best a code. I mean you could kind of force the square peg into the round hole but I think that defeats the purpose of calling it chaotic in the first place. Its just a different way of looking at lawful. hmm I might not be explaining this perfectly.

You've heard of Ayn Rand, right? I would call her philosophy CE. She teaches that if everyone acted in his own self-interest then we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not someone else was "taken care of," because everyone would buck up and take care of himself. Rand advocated against murder and theft, but purely because in an organized society things like murder and theft decrease your chances of survival. In other words, "We are only free when we are acting in our own best interests, so selfishness is actually a good thing. Only follow laws when you decide to. If you can get away with breaking them, go ahead, but don't be stupid about it."

To add onto this, my "3 laws of CE" would be:

1: Always do that which would ensure the greatest long-term benefit to yourself.

2: Never allow yourself to hamper the freedoms of others by letting them use you as a crutch. Everyone must stand or fall on his own decisions: charity weakens people and insults the free choices they made to reach where they are today.

3: Because it benefits you to live in a society that respects your beliefs, always stand up for the ability of others to act in their own best interests and advocate for the removal of crutches and systems that are preventing others from actualizing their own freedom.

Note that this could be described as "doing whatever suits you," there is definitely still an attitude towards certain actions as being right or wrong. In this belief system, charity is wrong because it cheapens the free choices that people make. In addition, standing up for the ability of others to also be free is right, while restricting those freedoms is wrong.

Ok, so there seem to be 2 main camps for the Paladin: those that want LG-only Paladins and those that want Paladins of all alignments. In terms of the Playtest, I am going to do my best to make RAW Paladin the best it can be. However, I am also going to play around with an any-alignment class houserule that could conceivably replace the Paladin (with Paladins being a Champion subclass). Just as my feedback on the RAW Paladin is going to be as constructive as possible, I expect anyone who favors RAW-only Paladins to give this alternate a fair shot at constructive interaction should they choose to comment here.

The idea for this thread is to create a "Champion" that would fill the role that the "any-alignment Paladins" wanted filled. I intend to test this homebrew class within the Playtest rules and alongside the Paladin-as-Written. My sincere hope is that any player, gm, or designer who reads this thread sees it as a genuine attempt to make PF2 the best it can be by utilizing a more "scientific comparison" between the two possible paths for Paladins/Holy Warriors.

I know this is risky, but here is a Google Docs link that anyone can edit. Please don't abuse this trust I am giving you, PF community!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iDErpeicb375oBzIhG82sQZLZvt0373kYV7XVU_ fBIE/edit?usp=sharing

I've removed several posts. Friends, please don't turn this thread into a debate on the alignment of real-world religions. I was going to point to the previous moderator post after this same tangent was removed on page 12 or so, but I realized it was a little more general and didn't specifically ask to avoid this topic, so I'm specifically asking now to avoid those references.

Yeah... things get really messy when religion is involved. Not that religion is bad, just that it deals with issues so close to the self that one can hardly help but take religious disagreements personally.

Which... is likely the reason that Pallys are such an issue.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

I actually don't want the "paladins" of different alignments to feel the same either. If we only get one sacred champion in core and anything else we get much later is going to be treated as an unsupported bastard runty stepchild, then yeah, I want that one class to be open to all, albeit with different codes and mechanical differences like choosing between Soldier paths in Starfinder. But I'd actually rather have a few different separate but equal classes riffing off some of the same core mechanics and conceits, sharing the spotlight in core.

That's why I've been pushing the four axis. I actually would be entirely happy with a nine-class spread for the nine alignments, but I know that's not going to happen ever. There isn't the page count for it, the developers would run into "design fatigue", they'd blur out to readers, and none of them would get much support in the future. But I feel that four is manageable. And that there's enough space there for the Good paladin to represent LG, NG, and CG; for the Lawful alternative to represent LG, LN, and LE; and so on.

It may be a fool's dream but I think something like this would really satisfy

...

So maybe a full write up like how PF1 did with the AP so basically alternate classes of the core paladin? I would be down with that.
I feel like that would be a book until itself almost.

In my head the "Champion" (my headcanon name for the any-aligned holy warrior) should follow a code, but I'd be down for allowing other playstyles. Could we by chance start a thread specifically devoted to a houseruleset of this guy? We can go with flavor now and then work on mechanics once more is revealed.