Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[Psyren]

Whereas for me this is one of the things I'm willing to give 5e designers credit for as something uncharacteristically forward-looking.

And that's fine for you to feel that way, but aping every aspect of 5e is not a winning formula for P2 as a system.

In any case, if 5e's lackadaisical "your paladin's oath can just be something they aspire to and doesn't have to even match their alignment" paradigm is something you like, porting that into P2 or even P1 is easy.

Besides, the new PF2e blog also defines paladins as champions of a deity. As long as that deity allows for LG clerics. So basically the 3e Forgotten Realms approach.

Again, you're taking what they've chosen to go with for the core game and assuming the entire system will be that. Even after they've flat-out told you it won't.

Wanting the simplest iteration of a concept to be the core one shouldn't be controversial - like alchemists that throw bombs.

[upho]

As tends to be the case IME, it appears to me this little discussion about paladins confuses different definitions and questions with one another, such as:

1. the game term "Paladin", ie the word used in the rules to refer to a certain class
2. whatever characters very similar to those of that class are usually called in-game (or in famous fantasy fiction, in RL etc)
3. whether a class similar to P1's paladin provides mechanics other classes can or should not
4. whether such mechanics should be primarily based on alignment, deity, a mix or something else
5. whether access to such mechanics should be limited to only certain alignments, deities, a mix or something else

As a result, to me many statements and arguments seem fuzzy or even to make no sense, followed by unintentionally straw-manning "counter-arguments". So please help me out here:

Honestly, this is one area I disagree with 5e on - ditching mechanical alignment should be a variant rule, not the baseline.

What are you actually saying here? That you think it was bad 5e ditched alignment-based mechanics for the class called "Paladin", that 5e in general ditched alignment related mechanics altogether by default, or something else entirely?

I like the idea that "evil paladins" have to go by some other name entirely.

Does that mean you think there should be a different game term for "evil paladins"? Does it matter whether they share most of their class mechanics with "paladins" of other alignments or not? And if so, does that apply to all classes who share the LG pally's mechanics but not it's alignment, or only to evil ones? Or that they shouldn't be called paladins in-game?

I think the Paladin without the Alignment aspect may as well be something else.

You mean a class which doesn't have as strongly alignment-based mechanics as the P1 pally/antipally shouldn't have the game term Paladin? Or does that only apply specifically to LG "alignment aspects", while similar strongly alignment-based mechanics of other alignments would be OK?

They didn't, though. Paladins in those games aren't "righteous knights of good and pure", but "champions of their deity". You know, exactly like clerics are, but with slightly different mechanics. I don't see that as an improvement.

Could you please tell me what's so special about the LG alignment that makes it more suitable than other alignments to have both clerics and "champions of their deity". Or do you mean the mechanical differences between 5e paladins and clerics aren't distinctive enough, regardless of their alignment/deity, so for example "paladins/mechanically similar holy champions" of a mostly CN deity would otherwise have been OK? Or is it that you think the game term "paladin" is appropriate for classes with mechanics similar to P1's paladin only if they're LG?

Besides, the new PF2e blog also defines paladins as champions of a deity. As long as that deity allows for LG clerics. So basically the 3e Forgotten Realms approach.

Heh, I think this mostly indicates the PDT has similar issues with paladin definitions and the separation of related questions, or at least with communicating them clearly...

Whereas for me this is one of the things I'm willing to give 5e designers credit for as something uncharacteristically forward-looking.

That 5e doesn't have alignment based mechanics at all by default, specifically that it doesn't have such mechanics for the 5e paladin class, or both/none?

[Scowling Dragon]

You mean a class which doesn't have as strongly alignment-based mechanics as the P1 pally/antipally shouldn't have the game term Paladin? Or does that only apply specifically to LG "alignment aspects", while similar strongly alignment-based mechanics of other alignments would be OK?

No I mean if they don't like Paladins being LG then drop em. Im fine with Demon Crusaders or something for CE or NE stand ins, but Paladins just too much iconography in association.

No joke, I play in a game where there are no alignment methods and I let players decide what they want their paladin code to mean to them and they play a strait up Paladin anyways.

[upho]

To answer both of those points, what I think should happen is for the barbarian class to embrace its role as an aggressive, mobile striker and disruptor class, but change its name and make berserker rage only one of the available options. Then you can let the fighter class focus on being a reliable defender and controller. I don't think either of those classes should be simpler than the other, though, but rather that both should have archetypes that focus and narrow the options to reduce round-by-round choices.

That would certainly be fine for me personally, but I suspect the PDT as well as many P1 fans will have issues with for example a) both classes' vanilla versions being too complex, b) the fighter "stealing" P1 barb trademark mechanics, and c) the barb being too mechanically pidgeon-holed in comparison to the fighter.

[Psyren]

What are you actually saying here? That you think it was bad 5e ditched alignment-based mechanics for the class called "Paladin", that 5e in general ditched alignment related mechanics altogether by default, or something else entirely?

Both really. In 5e, Detect Evil (And Good) is basically only used to detect undead, aberrations, outsiders and other such inherently aligned beings. It does not help you, say, tell that the village magistrate might be up to something nefarious, nor does it help you realize that slavering alpha wolf preying on the countryside might actually be a lycanthrope. You can't even scan items with it anymore. Similarly, a Paladin's smite in 3.5 and P1 will fizzle if they mistakenly use it on a non-evil target. That same paladin in 5e just spends a spell slot, and they can instagib innocent people just fine. That just feels off to me.

Does that mean you think there should be a different game term for "evil paladins"? Does it matter whether they share most of their class mechanics with "paladins" of other alignments or not? And if so, does that apply to all classes who share the LG pally's mechanics but not it's alignment, or only to evil ones? Or that they shouldn't be called paladins in-game?

I'm fine with the term "paladin." I'm also fine with CG paladins. (Not so sure about NG.) I just want the evil ones to be called something else, because i associate "paladin" with "good." I personally prefer "blackguard" to "antipaladin" but I'm not married to either one.

[Morty]

And that's fine for you to feel that way, but aping every aspect of 5e is not a winning formula for P2 as a system.

In any case, if 5e's lackadaisical "your paladin's oath can just be something they aspire to and doesn't have to even match their alignment" paradigm is something you like, porting that into P2 or even P1 is easy.

And I've never suggested "aping" anything of 5e's, much less every aspect of it. I'm suggesting doing an eminently reasonable and obvious thing that 5e also did. Which shows an uncommon willingness to depart from tradition, by that system's standards.

That 5e doesn't have alignment based mechanics at all by default, specifically that it doesn't have such mechanics for the 5e paladin class, or both/none?

Both. 5e wisely drops alignment having an impact on rules and creates a version of paladin that doesn't rely on alignment while allowing for the archetypal D&D paladin to be played just fine and dandy. You don't need to have Lawful Good on your sheet to act like it. "Acts with honor, mercy and compassion" also tells me a lot more about a character than Lawful Good does.

That would certainly be fine for me personally, but I suspect the PDT as well as many P1 fans will have issues with for example a) both classes' vanilla versions being too complex, b) the fighter "stealing" P1 barb trademark mechanics, and c) the barb being too mechanically pidgeon-holed in comparison to the fighter.

It's kind of hard to talk about being mechanically pigeon-holed without any real context, but the concern of having this class just deal damage in different ways is certainly valid.

[Psyren]

And I've never suggested "aping" anything of 5e's, much less every aspect of it. I'm suggesting doing an eminently reasonable and obvious thing that 5e also did. Which shows an uncommon willingness to depart from tradition, by that system's standards.

You're right, you didn't - I apologize for misrepresenting you.

Having said that, this is one tradition I happen to like. And if the Paladin blog is any indication, mechanical alignment will still be a thing in P2, maybe with a variant rule to strip it out.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Remuko]

I like the idea of their being a "Paladin" of every Alignment combo tbh. 9 variants, yes even a True Neutral Paladin. I think Paladins should just be zealous warriors dedicated to their alignment of choice. Codes reflecting that would be fine. If people, like Psyren are really too bothered by "Paladin cant be bad" then just have a bit of text that says "Evil Paladins are often referred to as Blackguards or Anti-Paladins by many". I see no reason the class should be beholden to one alignment combination or any select few. But I do like the religious warrior-priest of [belief system] that metes out their own brand of justice and "rightness" based on their alignment/moral code.

[upho]

No I mean if they don't like Paladins being LG then drop em. Im fine with Demon Crusaders or something for CE or NE stand ins, but Paladins just too much iconography in association.

OK. I think I get what you're saying; basically that "paladin" is a poor game term for a class which doesn't come with strongly LG-based mechanics, right?

I personally don't really care whether the game term for a class with strongly alignment based mechanics is "Paladin", "Divine Champion", "Holy Warrior" or even something completely inane. (I do however recognize that this matters to other people, including some of my players, so I guess one could say it matters to me indirectly.) What I do care about is that class frameworks that share a basic concept and defining mechanical features should not be separate classes with different game terms, nor should such a framework be limited to certain alignments or deities.

So how would you feel about a pally-ish class called something like "Divine Champion" or other similar name less tied to a specific alignment, if that class had archetypes for each alignment (the LG one called "Paladin", naturally)?

No joke, I play in a game where there are no alignment methods and I let players decide what they want their paladin code to mean to them and they play a strait up Paladin anyways.

That's odd. Why do you think they're so locked into the classic LG pally? Is it the name, tradition or them simply lacking creativity?

(Personally, I had great fun playing my 4e Unaligned "Champion of Death, Storm and War"-pally (dragonborn Paladin(Barbarian)/Son of Mercy/Avatar of Storm) who became a "pet project" of Kord and the Raven Queen. And despite him having a different outlook, standards and code than a LG 3.5/PF pally, I think he nevertheless was very much a paladin, and I seriously doubt even someone only familiar with the classic LG pally would've mistaken him for a cleric or other divine class.)

[Psyren]

I like the idea of their being a "Paladin" of every Alignment combo tbh. 9 variants, yes even a True Neutral Paladin. I think Paladins should just be zealous warriors dedicated to their alignment of choice. Codes reflecting that would be fine. If people, like Psyren are really too bothered by "Paladin cant be bad" then just have a bit of text that says "Evil Paladins are often referred to as Blackguards or Anti-Paladins by many". I see no reason the class should be beholden to one alignment combination or any select few. But I do like the religious warrior-priest of [belief system] that metes out their own brand of justice and "rightness" based on their alignment/moral code.

I suppose an addendum like that wouldn't be too annoying. Personally I would still prefer paladins of the corner alignments though.

So how would you feel about a pally-ish class called something like "Divine Champion" or other similar name less tied to a specific alignment, if that class had archetypes for each alignment (the LG one called "Paladin", naturally)?

The issue with this approach is now you have to come up with 9 ways to say "Paladin" and some of them will sound trite while others sound redundant. You've got Crusader, Zealot, Justicar, Templar, and damn I'm already having trouble figuring out what unique alignments they'd all have. 3.5 at least got around this with "Paladin of X."

That's odd. Why do you think they're so locked into the classic LG pally? Is it the name, tradition or them simply lacking creativity?

It's simple to me - people want to feel heroic, and that means being a good person when being a good person isn't easy. I'm not trying to say that Lawful Good is Best Good by any means, but it is certainly more difficult to both follow the rules and your moral compass than it is to toss the former for the latter. An Azata or Guardinal would argue that just makes them less effective at doing good, but an Archon would consider the struggle worthwhile. For many, the term "paladin" implies that struggle, and even if you don't use that term, there are folks who want to be that archetype.

[Kurald Galain]

That's odd. Why do you think they're so locked into the classic LG pally? Is it the name, tradition or them simply lacking creativity?

Because the LG Paladin is a traditional literary archetype, and the other eight are just a set of mechanics with no coherent flavor. Outside of forums like this one, players care far more about flavor than about mechanics.

[Scowling Dragon]

That's odd. Why do you think they're so locked into the classic LG pally? Is it the name, tradition or them simply lacking creativity?

Pride and ingenuity. Id say that play just takes pride in having to contend with a difficult set of morals. Not being able to lie, and having to contend with being honorable in a more social intruige game with government intruige and corruption and having to deal with unsavory folk.

And I have rewarded him some with the results. If a Paladin is somebody who doesn't lie and you recognize that person as a paladin it also means that that somebody is a person you can trust.

He has diplomanced so many combat situations into peaceful resolutions simply by staying calm and being a reasonable and honourable person.

[Knaight]

Because the LG Paladin is a traditional literary archetype, and the other eight are just a set of mechanics with no coherent flavor. Outside of forums like this one, players care far more about flavor than about mechanics.

This seems questionable - the traditional literary archetype of a paladin is a heroic, larger than life knight as portrayed by chivalric or romantic fiction. The D&D paladin archetype is far younger than that and tends to show up specifically in D&D and post-D&D fantasy. Divine power, overt magic, healing, even smiting evil as a distinct ability (as opposed to a lifestyle, as backed up by just being a badass), all of that is pretty much from D&D and only takes root in fantasy afterwards.

As someone who cares far more about flavor than about mechanics, I have trouble getting attached to an archetype a whole 40 years old made from D&D. It hasn't really settled yet, and could use some shakeups and new takes, the better for something a bit more cohesive to come up a century or so down the line.

[137beth]

New preview: Everyone Has a Past

They present three sample "backgrounds." Not enough context to know whether the snippets they gave us are the entirety of those three backgrounds, or whether a background actually takes up more space. The first two backgrounds are "Blacksmith" and "Street Urchin." They have vague, nonspecific descriptions and some barebones simple mechanics.

The third one, though, makes specific references to Pathfinder Society in both its name and description. The actual crunch, though, is just as banal as the first two backgrounds. It sounds like this background will be tied in with the playtest adventure:

Incidentally, this is not a background you will find in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook. While that weighty tome provides 19 backgrounds, you'll find six more backgrounds in the Pathfinder Playtest Adventure: Doomsday Dawn. Those six are tailor-made for the adventure, granting the opportunity for small, sometimes incidental perks during play for those who take them and allowing you to tailor your character to the story.

So, does that mean the plot of the playtest adventure will be tied to PFS somehow? I don't know if they have said anything about the story of the playtest adventure before.


IMO, the biggest upshot to how Backgrounds have been presented so far is that, assuming they actually showed us three complete backgrounds, it seems really easy to make new ones. A "background" seems to consist of just a skill feat, a skill, and two ability scores. On the flip side, that simplicity will allow Paizo to fill up lots of space in supplements with "new" backgrounds just by randomly selecting existing content that they already produced.

[Kurald Galain]

A background system like this is good for new players to get them into the game, and since it doesn't have background-specific mechanics it is easy to make new combinations for experienced players. That said, it would help if they were more coherent: using a blacksmith background to boost (e.g.) intelligence and charisma doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

According to the discussion thread, the complete list includes: acolyte, warrior, blacksmith, hunter, noble, scholar, entertainer, scout, acrobat, street urchin, criminal, laborer, merchant, nomad, animal whisperer, barkeep, farmhand. And three more to add up to 20.

[Baroncognito]

That said, it would help if they were more coherent: using a blacksmith background to boost (e.g.) intelligence and charisma doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. There are a lot of different types of blacksmiths and they're good at different things. There are blacksmiths who make little puzzles out of iron and there are blacksmiths who make nothing but barrel hoops. Maybe you worked as a blacksmith and you dealt with customers while your brother just stayed in the back pounding steel. Maybe you worked the bellows for him when you weren't dealing with customers. There are enough aspects to backgrounds that you can make the argument for any floating bonus you want on a character.

I was a little bothered that all three of the backgrounds gave intelligence bonus options. I mean, it's possible that they chose at random and got three backgrounds that had intelligence options. Six choose two is fifteen, but if they're pairing up (physical or mental) plus floating bonus then there are really only nine options. I don't know where I was going with this paragraph anymore.

[Kurald Galain]

There are a lot of different types of blacksmiths and they're good at different things.

The point is that if backgrounds are as broad as you describe, then that makes them essentially meaningless. At that point, you might as well omit backgrounds entirely and tell people to pick a feat instead.

[Florian]

The point is that if backgrounds are as broad as you describe, then that makes them essentially meaningless. At that point, you might as well omit backgrounds entirely and tell people to pick a feat instead.

Hm, ja, agreed. The list looks a bit... bland... to be honest. I'm speculating a bit that the next ISWG will have more culture or organization specific ones.

[skaddix]

The point is that if backgrounds are as broad as you describe, then that makes them essentially meaningless. At that point, you might as well omit backgrounds entirely and tell people to pick a feat instead.

Yeah be nice to tighten the focus otherwise you basically point buying...
Granted I think you could make the case for any physical stat for the Blacksmith.

[Morty]

Not much to say about the backgrounds, really. They look fine. A way to get some skills outside of what your class gets you. I'm not sure about the attribute bonuses. It feels like unless it's capped on character generation somehow, you can pump your stats something crazy, like by picking an elf wizard who also has a +Int background (and really, why would you pick any stat other than intelligence when making a wizard?). They want to make backgrounds applicable to any class, which is great. But giving them attribute bonuses ties them to classes anyway.

[Scowling Dragon]

Not much to say about the backgrounds, really. They look fine. A way to get some skills outside of what your class gets you. I'm not sure about the attribute bonuses. It feels like unless it's capped on character generation somehow, you can pump your stats something crazy, like by picking an elf wizard who also has a +Int background (and really, why would you pick any stat other than intelligence when making a wizard?). They want to make backgrounds applicable to any class, which is great. But giving them attribute bonuses ties them to classes anyway.

Pretty much what you said 100%.

[Psyren]

A background system like this is good for new players to get them into the game, and since it doesn't have background-specific mechanics it is easy to make new combinations for experienced players. That said, it would help if they were more coherent: using a blacksmith background to boost (e.g.) intelligence and charisma doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yeah, I like the general idea a lot (in fact, they could probably tweak Starfinder's version to match) but they could have probably gone with a different name for Blacksmith. Something broader like Crafter, Builder or Tinker(er).

[Baroncognito]

Not much to say about the backgrounds, really. They look fine. A way to get some skills outside of what your class gets you. I'm not sure about the attribute bonuses. It feels like unless it's capped on character generation somehow, you can pump your stats something crazy, like by picking an elf wizard who also has a +Int background (and really, why would you pick any stat other than intelligence when making a wizard?). They want to make backgrounds applicable to any class, which is great. But giving them attribute bonuses ties them to classes anyway.

From what we've got so far, it sounds like you get:

Racial: Three ability boosts one flaw (I guess that humans and the like would just get two ability boosts) The floating bonus cannot be applied to anything that already has a bonus
Background: Two ability boosts, one set, one floating. It does not specify that these two cannot boost the same ability.
and
Class: So far, this information is only available for Clerics, who get +2 wisdom. We'll assume that every class gets a plus two bonus to one ability score.

And with starting stats of 10 across the board, it seems, so far as though you'll have

One 16
One 14
One 12
Two 10
One 8

Or

One 16
One 14
Four 10

If the background ability bonuses can be stacked (I have my doubts)

One 18
Two 12
Two 10
One 8

or

One 18
One 12
Four 10

[Slithery D]

I don’t think bonuses can stack, but I think you also get your +2 to four attributes boost at 1/5/10/15/20. That lets you start with an 18.

[137beth]

Do we know if odd ability scores are going to matter for anything other than ability damage/drain and feat prerequisites in this game?

[Slithery D]

Unless you pick an alternate ability score generation method it doesn't look like you can even start with odd ability scores.

[upho]

The issue with this approach is now you have to come up with 9 ways to say "Paladin" and some of them will sound trite while others sound redundant. You've got Crusader, Zealot, Justicar, Templar, and damn I'm already having trouble figuring out what unique alignments they'd all have. 3.5 at least got around this with "Paladin of X."

Regarding the names, from my perspective, whatever floats your boat is fine. But seeing as there are quite a few people who feel the name "paladin" is tied to the LG alignment exclusively, something has to be given a lower priority. And really, I don't think coming up with enough suitable names for "Divine Champions" of the eight other alignments should prove too difficult at all. Especially since they really don't have to be '9 ways to say "Paladin"', but actually 9 ways to say "Divine Champion" (or similar), even though they all share a base class framework with the paladin archetype and are conceptually based upon earlier iterations of the paladin class. These names should of course preferably reflect the heavily armored divinely empowered knight-ish mechanics of the class as well as the alignment of the archetype in question. Just off the top of my head:

• LG Paladin, Knight Archon
• NG Lightbringer, Shining Knight
• CG Freedomguard, Wilderknight
• LN Justicar, Lawbringer, Enforcer
• N Solstice Knight, Centric Sentinel, Equalizer
• CN Chaos Templar, Knight-errant
• LE Tyrant, Domina/Dominus, Punisher
• NE Darkshield, Selfservant, Painbringer
• CE Antipaladin, Blackguard, Violator

I'm certain people reading this post can quickly come up with several better alternatives. Moreover, even if finding suitable names for these would actually prove to be hard, that sounds IMO like an unusually poor excuse for scrapping the entire concept of a having 9 aligned archetypes rather than one LG paladin class.

It's simple to me - people want to feel heroic, and that means being a good person when being a good person isn't easy. I'm not trying to say that Lawful Good is Best Good by any means, but it is certainly more difficult to both follow the rules and your moral compass than it is to toss the former for the latter. An Azata or Guardinal would argue that just makes them less effective at doing good, but an Archon would consider the struggle worthwhile. For many, the term "paladin" implies that struggle, and even if you don't use that term, there are folks who want to be that archetype.

Pride and ingenuity. Id say that play just takes pride in having to contend with a difficult set of morals. Not being able to lie, and having to contend with being honorable in a more social intruige game with government intruige and corruption and having to deal with unsavory folk.

But is LG actually more difficult? And most importantly, isn't that difficulty largely decided by the GM and the specific commandments/code of the deity served rather than alignment per se?

IME, being a LG pally surely isn't any harder than being a CE blackguard/antipally, or a "paladin" of any other alignment for that matter, despite the initial impressions one might get from the related alignment descriptions and the classes' Code of Conduct. And I believe there are four main reasons for this. First, the broad definitions of the opposed alignments means either axis by itself allows for an infinite number of potential perspectives and dimensions, along with nearly as many potential contradictions. So in practice, it's not harder for a GM to create complex moral conundrums and difficult choices for certain alignments than for others, nor are the consequences of the choices made necessarily any less dire for certain alignments than for others. For example, it's just as easy to make life difficult for a NG pally as it is to make life difficult for a LG one, as the "Good/Evil" axis by itself allows for "The Greater" G/E opposing intrinsically G/E actions, for long-term G/E opposing short-term G/E, for collective G/E opposing individual G/E, for minimized suffering opposing maximized happiness, etc, etc.

Second, acting in accordance with a Neutral alignment on either axis is in practice not inherently any less challenging than acting in accordance with the "corner" alignments, and the mechanical impact of losing such a Neutral alignment is just as devastating for any flavor of N pally as it is for any other pally. Consequently, the very same conundrums a LG pally wrestles with will often be just as challenging for a NG or LN one, though the specific details primarily responsible for causing the conundrum's difficulty may of course differ somewhat depending on the alignment of the pally.

Third, the perhaps seemingly less restrictive Chaotic and Evil alignments are typically paid for with a far greater risk of social stigma, if nothing else because civilization tends to require a more Lawful than Chaotic population, and collectives in general tend to benefit from, and therefore promote, behaviors/actions defined as Good (such as altruism) rather than ones defined as Evil. Depending on the severity, this stigma can have all kinds of detrimental effects on PCs unable to mask their true nature and blend in, ranging from people in general finding them less trustworthy to a career cut short, often literally, by for example an angry mob, law enforcers, other paladins of nearly any alignment, or similar-minded NPC "allies" eager to prove themselves the bigger backstabbing a-holes. I think a telling example of this is to simply compare the generic LG pally's Code of Conduct with that of the generic CE antipally, and then to ask oneself which of the two provides a PC with the best chances of surviving 1st level in a typical fantasy setting such as Golarion...

Fourth, IME the alignment system and the directly related pally class mechanics rarely present as much a challenge for a pally PC as the specifics in the Code of Conduct. Using my previously mentioned old 4e pally of Kord and the Raven Queen as an example, with 4e having very few inherently aligned PC abilities, his Unaligned "alignment" didn't put any really noteworthy limits on his actions, of course. But being a pally of Kord and the Raven Queen certainly did. The "larger-than-life" courage, flawlessly honorable behavior and knightly ideals he was sworn to exemplify in combat, not to mention the demand he must constantly seek to openly challenge and directly confront enemies in tests of strength, made many situations quite a bit more challenging than they would've been had he followed the P1 LG pally's Code of Conduct instead.

Because the LG Paladin is a traditional literary archetype, and the other eight are just a set of mechanics with no coherent flavor.

Well, I wouldn't say the D&D/PF pally actually have that much in common with the "government knights" called paladins in classic literature, such as the "Knights of the round table" in the legend of King Arthur or their earlier versions in the Song of Roland. And even less with the roman high-ranking bureaucrats bearing the title from which the word "paladin" originates IIRC. So basically

This seems questionable - the traditional literary archetype of a paladin is a heroic, larger than life knight as portrayed by chivalric or romantic fiction. The D&D paladin archetype is far younger than that and tends to show up specifically in D&D and post-D&D fantasy. Divine power, overt magic, healing, even smiting evil as a distinct ability (as opposed to a lifestyle, as backed up by just being a badass), all of that is pretty much from D&D and only takes root in fantasy afterwards.

This.

Outside of forums like this one, players care far more about flavor than about mechanics.

But that doesn't necessarily say anything about whether the preferred flavor of pally is that of the exclusively LG one mostly defined in D&D 2e, 3e and P1, those of the D&D 4e or 5e pallys which have any or no alignment and may serve any deity, that of the romanticized ruling knights first described in the Song of Roland, or the flavor of some other version of pally. And not to put words in people's mouths, but I'd guess also frequent posters in this particular forum actually care far more about flavor than one might assume from the very high percentage of strictly mechanics related posts. At least I know I do, and I believe this very thread shows I'm far from being alone.

As someone who cares far more about flavor than about mechanics, I have trouble getting attached to an archetype a whole 40 years old made from D&D. It hasn't really settled yet, and could use some shakeups and new takes, the better for something a bit more cohesive to come up a century or so down the line.

Absolutely agree.

And I have rewarded him some with the results. If a Paladin is somebody who doesn't lie and you recognize that person as a paladin it also means that that somebody is a person you can trust.

He has diplomanced so many combat situations into peaceful resolutions simply by staying calm and being a reasonable and honourable person.

This sounds like great GM-ing to me. But personally, I don't think I would've been able to keep myself from trying to challenge their views had I been their GM, probably by having their party meet an intentionally colorful non-LG pally NPC with an at least equally demanding Code of Conduct, of course largely created for that specific purpose...

[Kurald Galain]

Divine power, overt magic, healing, even smiting evil as a distinct ability (as opposed to a lifestyle, as backed up by just being a badass), all of that is pretty much from D&D and only takes root in fantasy afterwards.

And all of those are mechanics, rather than flavor. The central trope here is this one, not anything related to clerical spellcasting. And defining a paladins as 'champion of a deity' tends to make their flavor indistinguishable from clerics.

And really, I don't think coming up with enough suitable names for "Divine Champions" of the eight other alignments should prove too difficult at all. Especially since they really don't have to be '9 ways to say "Paladin"', but actually 9 ways to say "Divine Champion" (or similar)

Yeah, the question is not so much what you can find in a thesaurus, but how exactly this is different from a melee-based cleric again.

[Florian]

This seems questionable - the traditional literary archetype of a paladin is a heroic, larger than life knight as portrayed by chivalric or romantic fiction. The D&D paladin archetype is far younger than that and tends to show up specifically in D&D and post-D&D fantasy. Divine power, overt magic, healing, even smiting evil as a distinct ability (as opposed to a lifestyle, as backed up by just being a badass), all of that is pretty much from D&D and only takes root in fantasy afterwards.

As someone who cares far more about flavor than about mechanics, I have trouble getting attached to an archetype a whole 40 years old made from D&D. It hasn't really settled yet, and could use some shakeups and new takes, the better for something a bit more cohesive to come up a century or so down the line.

I´ve got to disagree with you there.

First, keep in mind that the Paladin started out as a sub-class of the Fighter. Right Makes Might, so the class actually modeled the traditional archetype quite well, by granting powers well above what a regular Fighter would get and going the extra mile to point out that the code/sticking to LG is the source of that extra might, which is, in turn, very much in keeping with the fiction.

The problem is more what 3E did with the Paladin, but that's an entirely different matter.

[upho]

A background system like this is good for new players to get them into the game, and since it doesn't have background-specific mechanics it is easy to make new combinations for experienced players.

Agreed. And I like the neat simplicity of it. So far, I think the overall stat generation system feels user-friendly and intuitive, and it doesn't seem to have any inherent flaws.

However, I'm a bit worried about some of the details in the implementation, especially the many seemingly vague or arbitrary connections between flavor and crunch, the reduced ability score range and resolution, and the likely limited amount of player creativity and character variations possible in a RAW game which allow for only the published building blocks (such as PFS).

Regarding the vague connections between flavor and crunch, it feels a bit as if one dev jotted down each possible pair of ability scores and then copy-pasted a few random ones to make for a numbered list of 20 such pairs, while another dev wrote 20 short pieces of suitably generic background fluff descriptions. Then the two devs met in the Paizo office cafeteria and took turns rolling a d20 to see which ability score pair to stick to each piece of background fluff, and then added the obvious Lore skill and a suitable Skill feat to each set. Including a few swaps to avoid the most blatantly far-fetched combos, the backgrounds would thus have been finalized in a matter of minutes. After which the devs would've finished their coffee, sadly agreeing a lack of realism is about to ruin the important ongoing office-wide debate to finally settle whether Sauron, Karzoug or an opium-smoking goblin water-balloon fighter would win a "magie-à-trois" showdown...

So

That said, it would help if they were more coherent: using a blacksmith background to boost (e.g.) intelligence and charisma doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There are a lot of different types of blacksmiths and they're good at different things.

The point is that if backgrounds are as broad as you describe, then that makes them essentially meaningless. At that point, you might as well omit backgrounds entirely and tell people to pick a feat instead.

This.

The standard point-buy in P1 allows for a maximum 1st level ability score difference a whopping 50% greater than that of the revealed P2 stat generation system, as P1's range of 5 - 20 is reduced to 8 - 18 in P2. And this is on top of the numeric resolution in P2 being cut in half in comparison to P1, as ability score boosts and penalties apparently only come in chunks of +/-2 in P2. While I appreciate the increased simplicity and streamlined boost/penalty sizes, and understand some people applaud the decreased ability score min-max potential these changes result in, I haven't seen anyone actually comparing the value of these benefits with those of the lost mechanical character differentiation possibilities, much less anyone making a sound convincing argument showing how this trade could actually be good for the game.

That said, there's of course still a possibility that a more flexible version or a point-buy system similar to P1's will be included as an optional ability score generation method. Naturally, I'd really appreciate if such an alternative method is specifically designed for creating PCs able to share games with PCs created by the new P2 method without issues, allowing for the player to choose which method to use by default, without the need of prior GM approval. The same goes for an optional "custom" background generation system, making it easier for players (like myself) who prefer to create their own independent PC backgrounds to assign appropriate bonuses afterwards.