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.
