ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -I didn't go into it here because I'm so prone to tangents and overly-long videos, but: Paizo also removed alignment to get away from the IP of Wizards of the Coast (due to WOTC's current shenanigans). Alignment is more on the lore side of the lore vs. rules spectrum. -I didn't mention Edicts + Anathema which Paizo has said "replace" alignment, but only in form. The mechanical function of alignment is what I cover in . As for function, Edicts + Anathema they have no mechanical weight in the Remaster... beyond what already have in PF2: some classes and deities make you lose abilities if don't abide by them, and there's a way to possibly get them back. Some ancestries suggest Edicts + Anathema but they're voluntary and the consequences are purely between you and your GM. -12:45 I point to "the Universe" but it's actually the Multiverse that includes other planes. The Universe refers to what used to be called The Material Plane. The overlapping planes overlap with the Universe (the small circle within the bigger one). -I see some argument over alignment in the comments so I"m throwing down the gauntlet = Law vs. Chaos is dumb in a game that already has good vs. evil (or holy vs. unholy). It's an abstraction that is a fun exercise for philosophers and the overly cerebral, but leads to rancor and confusion. Having taught D&D and Pathfinder to hundreds of players, explaining alignment has always been the most confusing and unnecessary part of making a character. Context matters. Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation created freedom for the slaves. "Chaotic" for defending individual freedom, right? Not to the southern slaveowners, who saw Lincoln as the utmost Tyrant violating THEIR freedoms. But they also called him an ANARCHIST for defying what they said was the Constitution. Good and evil in real life say they have the law on their side, when it suits their own ends. Giving cosmic weight to good and evil OR law and chaos in a fantasy world is fine, but if you try to put in BOTH in you're lost in hopeless contradictions. There's a reason why there's the joke that paladins are Lawful Stupid. EDIT: Despite my strong words, I don't really care how people run their campaigns. But i think removing it as the DEFAULT mechanic makes sense!
In probably the coldest alignment take possible, I quite like it in terms of *broad* cosmic forces, but applying it to real people and to nations/government just gets messy so damn fast, and things devolve into ridiculous debates where it's more about your own definitions of alignment than about the actual characters you're supposedly talking about. Unless you're talking about Gilmore Girls, then alignment debates are valid.
the difference is that in pathfinder and d&d there were specific entities who themselves defined law chaos good and evil. it wasn't an abstract in the same way it is in real life, and Lincoln would have absolutely been regarded as Chaotic Good by those standards, but since alignments can change he might have floated between neutral good to chaotic good, you don't have to be lawful to be a politician. our own world proves that.
I call it the Robin Hood paradox. Is Robin Hood lawful, because he adheres strictly to a code, or chaotic, because he flagrantly ignores the laws of Nottinghamshire?
@@MagmaRiver I would disagree. The problem in alignment is that people love to deal in absolutes and lowest common denominators. Things easy to understand. They don't like it when someone who is good, acts in a way they think is evil. They think morality will always guide your decisions, but they don't realize and accept the circumstances the situation can change the moral fabric rather drastically. If a person shoots and kills someone, we say that is murder. But when that person was threatening their life, we call it self-defense. The circumstance of the situation changes the moral fabric. What I most often see in games is that DM's and players alike allow their alignment to FORCE their actions because they are on the outside looking in, instead of allowing the situation to unfold and then using their alignment to guide them. If your PCs aren't being challenged on a moral level, then you are doing them a disservice as a DM. Finally, I understand your dilemma with nations and governments. Here the problem comes from taking a system designed for the individual and applying it to the whole. A government isn't an individual entity. The people who run the government ARE the government, and they are the ones with the skin in the game of alignment. It's also true that people can and will follow the alignment of their leaders. You need look no further than Germany in the 1920's for evidence of this. People lack the capacity to honestly deal with morality and alignment. They want everything in a nice neat tidy package that they can open and expect to understand, and the truth is, that life isn't like that at all. So we call in to question good and evil.. and right and wrong, when instead you should be asking.. "is what THEY did in the situation, wrong? That's how morality actually works. For the most part... killing someone is wrong. But there are situations where it can be right.
Always gotta remember that, even as rules-heavy as Pathfinder 2e is, it's still a storytelling game. Not all of the mechanics needs to be strictly enforced, because some rules can be bent to tell a more consistent story. For example, Pharasma does not allow sanctification, which by another rule means that casting Holy or Unholy spells is anathema to her. However, some Holy spells deal additional damage to undead, and Pharasma hates undead more than anyone. So, it would seem clear to me, that casting Holy spells specifically to destroy undead, would not be anathema to her.
I always liked the chaos vs law axis tbh... but I did always think that one of the biggest mistakes ever made with alignment was calling one of them "Law" when what they really meant was "Order" - too many people thought it literally meant legal issues and would argue about the laws governing a place etc etc
Personally, I think it's important to remember WHY Paizo felt they needed to do this: Because the Executives at Hasbro can't be trusted to remember what happens when they try to mess with the OGL. I'd rather Paizo make these changes even if it means the Planar Cosmology needs to be retconned, than have the risk that Hasbro might one day either sue Paizo out of existence or litigate Pathfinder out form under Paizo's control. Also, as an anime fan in addition to a Pathfinder/Starfinder fan, I'm looking forward to being able to shout "SPIRIT GUN!" any time I use a spell that deals spirit damage.
Getting rid of alignment also just makes sense; alignment adds a bunch of problems that can wreck certain kinds of adventures/adventure ideas because of the mechanical relationship between alignment and game mechanics. By getting rid of it, they avoid that issue. It also allows you to make evil races without actually calling them evil races :V
In DnD the original implementation of alignment was just law vs chaos. And being in an alignment also meant that you knew their unique language. The words law and chaos themselves were taken from Michael Moorcock's books, but Garry Gygax's interpretation was that the alignment worked sort of like religion did in the middle ages. Various factions that felt some manner of cohesion without each individual knowing each other, with a sacred language associated with the group. So being lawful or chaotic was meant to reflect that you were like a catholic that knew latin, or a jew that knew hebrew, or a muslim that knew arabic. I find that kind of interpretation a lot more interesting that this sort of convoluted and hamfisted cosmology that it developed into.
I wonder what's going to happen with the Axiomites, or the tower of Law that sits in the middle of the Maelstrom and shoots the siphoned Quintessence back to Creation's Forge to renew the grand cycle. 'they just really, really, don't like it in their yard' doesn't go as hard as 'the beings of pure Chaos take the deepest affront to the bastion of Law mocking them in the center of their own plane.'
gate keep gate keep gatekeep stop thinking its a fucking bad thing...your IP IS BEING RUINED FIGHT BACK...its not "overreacting" its not "over the top" now is the time to punch back and express your distaste for this bullshit.
I haven’t looked too far into the official changes but the way I see it there’s still beings of pure law and chaos (it always made more sense than good/evil to me) but instead of relying on damage that only works on the opposite type they can directly affect the spirit (homogenising into nothing or warping until it breaks), which feels good flavour wise. The weakness to law/chaos can be covered with unique weaknesses like what demons already have against the opposite of their assigned sin (stuff like succubi taking damage when they’re rejected), which I find to be some of the most fun monsters in the game
For me, the best pictures used in this video were at the 9:00 minute mark. All of them were from the BECMI D&D books. Upper left representing "Holy" was Aleena the Cleric from the Red Basic set, upper right representing "Unholy" is an illustration for a spell in the Blue Expert set, and the bottom center is from the Druid class introduced in the Green Companion set. It's been over 30 years since I played BECMI D&D and I still remember those books and images in them.
RE Soulbound Doll: As a GM, I'd rule that such a creature would qualify as a viable target for Spirit damage. It'd be one of the very rare exceptions that reinforces the rule, especially since that would otherwise make PC Automatons, Poppets, etc otherwise completely immune just for being Constructs (Androids, interestingly, lack the Construct trait)
I agree, and I think it's a mix-up caused by the confusing difference between having the construct trait, and BEING a construct. Player characters always fall into the category "humanoid", but giving them the construct trait is an easy way to apply the appropriate rules to an automaton or poppet. But on the other hand, you couldn't define the soulbound doll as humanoid... It has to remain a construct by definition. Perhaps it would have saved us from this confusion to have introduced ANOTHER trait, called Soulless or Spiritless, but I think that still complicates the situation somewhat. What we have will do just fine with some GM discretion.
@@Sanctor95 And further frustrated by the fact that they clearly want it to work on mindless undead and even oozes, so they can't use that as the qualifier for what's immune to Spirit damage either. I feel like most tables will have a good-sense and good-faith view of this, where if it's obviously infused with a soul or spirit energy, it likely is subject to such effects. That said, perhaps an inverse of your proposed trait might be easier to cover the niche exceptions, whereas the other side of the coin can be for creatures that normally would be defined as having a spirit or soul but lacks it
@@GrimmDichotomy Haha, I love the semantics of it all, but I honestly couldn't tell you which would be better between a) having a Soul trait, b) having a Soulless trait, and c) having both traits 😂 but some form of this would have been more clarifying than what we were given 😁 You're definitely right though, it is a situation where tables and GMs will more than likely make the right choices and "house-rule" it with good sense.
I like this new system way more than I ever expected. I was against removal of alignment, I am one of those people who didn't want to lose LG paladin from 1e, but being able to opt in or out of the upper planes war is cool, and it's nice that it's no longer easy to tell if someone is good or evil, you have to watch how people act instead, and there is more chance for NPC betrayal. Fun. I just wish they were more consistent with necromancy - is raising undead unholy or not? Waiting with baited breath to see the anethema for the champion class next year.
I'm disappointing with the removal of order/chaos conflict. Although, I did find that it was usually forgot or put in the back burner. Some example I can remember is the player handbooks from PF1 that when it was alignments, it was always Good/Neutral/Evil and never Lawful/Neutral/Chaos.(Although I can somewhat understand since people will be more likely to play a good character than a lawful or chaotic one) The other example is how aasimars and tieflings, scions of good and evil, were described for their alignment as "any good/evil" but aphorite and ganzi how "Ideas of morality, however, are less clear cut to aphorites.[...] Consequently, most aphorites are lawful neutral." and "Often chaotic-aligned, with no particular tendency towards good or evil"(PF1). If I had a say in their origin, I would have said that the originals was a project to bring more order in the material plane through more orderly mortals made from Heaven, Axis and Hell(so a typical any-lawful alignment), but after the project was finished, they made their own version(so a lawbringer-like good aphorite and so on). Ganzis, I admit is harder to justify. Those gave me impression that the forces of good and evil could be both lawful and chaotic, but forgot that the war of law and chaos could be also good and evil.
just ignore the rule dude...I know I am its fucking stupid, its more of the woke garbage trope hating losers infecting the Fantasy IP settings all over because people didnt gatekeep enough.
Yeah, not adding Anarchic/Axiomatic traits was a giant mistake Oh, well. Gonna glo play my holy priest of Lantern King. Because he of all Eldest is known for his taste in jokes and love for innocent fun
@yaldabaoth2 and that's exactly what I'm going to do as a GM, lol It's just so weird how Paizo are willing to throw an entire half of their worldbuilding under the bus to simplify the game
@@nolanstrife7350 For the same definition of "innocent" as children who rip the wings of a bird are innocent. It's all fun and games until someone cries.
Thank you Paizo! I'd been using the Extreme Alignment variant rule which was basically this for a while. Definitely felt like the way things should be. Glad to have it official so there's no need to be adjusting any content to fit the variant rule now.
I wonder if some bloodlines of Sorcerer might play with sanctification. Like I can imagine Angel bloodline sorcerers being, or having the option to be, Holy. And the same with fiendish bloodlines and unholy. But I could also see that not being the case and Paizo keeping it more of a specifically Cleric and Champion thing.
that's a great consideration. Paizo could give the players a choice during character creation, where you decide that your body is really aligned with your ancestry, a parallel to sanctification. you get the bonuses of being sanctified, but if you do things that are the unholy as a holy ancestry (or viceversa), you pay a consequence (such as rolling a fortitude save to prevent taking spirit damage).
I really like Aligment... maybe because I see is with a more "descriptive" aproach instead of the popular "restrictive" aproach.... It help to show to your DM the general stand for your character (but no charactarer is 100% their alignment) and also help to see some other character develoment of your character (like when you start as a NE character and slowly but surely become a NG character).... but for the system it self i see no good point to mainteing more with the increase in discusion about "race/ancestry" aligment....
Adding Holy or Unholy is easy. PC clerics do it all the time. Removing it? That would be a bigger challenge. How much of a Solars power comes _from_ them being a Holy Soldier?
@@christopherg2347 - It's not just their power, it's the fundamental nature of their being. Taking the holy out of an angel is like taking the carbon out of a human.
I kinda like the idea of sanctifying making you weak to the other one. Really fits the flavor of becoming so in tune with Holy that Unholy damage is an affront to how you choose to live and gain power. Plus, it's only fair if monsters get it.
Yeah, the alignments getting popularly misunderstood isnt necessarily a reason to dispose of them. Law Vs Chaos is a popular theme that exists even outside of ttrpgs and its much more well defined than people think, they usually just want to twist it to their advantage to do things of an alignment without being labelled as such (usually people claiming evil acts are just chaotic) My table will be keeping it, as nothing is gained by dropping it, but things are lost with its absence.
You can still have stories of law and chaos and good vs evil in your game. It's just no longer a codified thing with weird damage types associated with them.
@@aidankircher8865 You can still have stories of combat without attack or damage mechanics either but the more "game" you strip away the more it just becomes "book" Many of us LIKE the game mechanics, just because something can be removed doesn't mean you're better off without it.
exactly I enforce alignments heavily and will continue to do so...I have punished people for opposing their alignments too as meta gaming and shit RPing which it is...stick to your alingment or be punished. Pathfinder continues to be watered down by the woke mob (sorry to say) I hate using that term but that is exactly who the new devs are...I talked with some...and they didnt even know basic lore questions let alone who "Dretha" was and why Orcs cant just magically be "good"...its pathetic. OH dont complain on Paizo's forums though! your post will get removed no matter how civil you are! they are becoming JUST as bad as WoTc.
@@gackybass Beyond earliest d&d editions you weren't "pigeon-holed" to those either, those are literally the "stupid" alignments, named so because alignment is not supposed to be used as a strict law for how your character behaves. They were meant to be a guide to roleplay and behavior and as a mechanical way for the world to react in specific ways to that behavior and the penalties they handed out were meant to be used only in massive and repeated breaking of character for meta reasons without any actual character development. Examplesof edicts/anethema I've seen so far are either so narrowly specific as to be inconsequential to a character who can easily play like 50 different people live in his head all at different times, or an even tighter pigeonhole than alignment (assuming there's penalty for breaking it) Granted what I've seen is very little, but that lack of consistency seems weird to me and more likely to go awry.
The only actual change from Alignment is Alignment Damage. Now creatures aren't randomly immune. People are still using Holy and Unholy in the same way Alignment is used.
Holy and Unholy reduces the 2 axes down to 1 axis. So the holy paladin can stop an unholy tyrant of a slave nation. Where a lawful good paladin can’t? I dunno, it would be good to overthrow them, but against the law.
Except for most characters you won't have to define which side you're on. Which gets rid of the whole "acting against your alignment" discussion, which is very nice tbh.
I've always lowkey hated the alignment system. It oversimplifies people and forces them into slots that people will then argue about to no end when it comes to roleplay decisions. That hatred only solidified when I moved onto PF2e and alignment damage graced my brain with its presence
I hope that Divine Castigation is clarified. While it says that the spell will deal damage to opposing creatures, it doesn't say that the normal effect is replaced by this spirit damage. A 3-action holy Heal spell would normally heal a fiend (living creature) or unholy cleric/champion in the area. If the feat doesn't replace the normal effect, then you are healing them with vitality, while also hurting them with spirit damage.
Sanctification strikes me as closer to the original idea of alignment in early dnd, being reflective of a characters stance in a divine conflict, rather than a prepresentation of intrinsic morality.
One big question: what is the Champion supposed to do for the next year until player Core 2 comes out? They have a lot of abilities that specify the Alignment of who they work on (both alies and enemies). For some of them you might be able to apply a fix fairly easily on there own, but others, less so. Is the Champion jus "closed for renovations" until its book comes out, unlike most other classes that still fully function under the remaster with maybe one or two questions? I really feel they should have put the Cleric and the Champion together when making these changes.
Paizo has stated the Core Remaster rules are still very compatible and in fact interchangeable with the prior rules. It's a bit lore confusing but you can still run with the Alignment system for the party but make an exception for the Cleric if they want to play NuCleric, or the inverse where the Edicts and Anathema is the predominant PC ruleset but an exception is made for the Champion. Much in the same way Pathfinder 1e has Unchained classes where players and DMs have the choice of choosing between the Chained or Unchained variant of the classes as they were still fully compatible with the system at large, and you could even have a Chained and Unchained Barbarian in the same party.
This opens up a lot of hillarious and very good opportunities. It's actually pretty good becaus it has a "shades of grey" approach to a lot of wagons that got stuck in the rut of alignment. If there are more of those, for example class edicts, that add to certain edicts of the deitys someone follows, aside of that there might be an ancestral edict and the same goes for anathemas. All ancestries that possible could be used as character basis could get this treatment, and therefore removing a lot of the bias of (Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Nerdy) Alignments. Even the Base concept in D & D OSR was kind of strange. Mostly because it oversimplified matters and limited Monsters to pure cannon-fodder. Other system didn't have similiar systems, Traveller for example never created an alignment system, Rifts (and other Paladium games) early on worked on a system that has more of an edicts and anathema vibe in it, and even some other games from TSR tried to avoid the spin of the wheel of alignment. So getting rid of alignment (and even holy and unholy is kind of a restriction in this) is a good thing indeed.
I will keep on using alignment, but mostly for players RP and no mechanical stuff. Just have everyone use their own definition and put a label on a character to which they tend the most. Even if everyone has their own definition I feel like it helps to RP better the character. I also do that for my NPCs to just have put a bit more thought into them as to who they are. I also have a random NPC table which basically just rolls their sex and alignment.
There are people grumbling, and I get it. However, don't forget that the main reason alignment is gone is the OGL. Second, how many tables argued about what character was what alignment? If we already need to abandon Law/Chaos Good/Evil terminology, what do we do? The old terms do the best they can while being simple. I hope the bestiary give solid guidance on each creature's motivation, and dnd alignment was a good start, but goals and anathema could do similar.
I don't think WOTC can sue someone for using the concept of Evil or Law - no matter how hard they try to embody it. That said, I also disagree that the terms did the best they can because they are confusing. Take "Good" - "good" is a term in ethics that describes an action one ought to do or a moral judgement on the moral quality of a person. Because ethics is not a solved, exact science, we will have disagreements on what is good or evil. But in Pathfinder and the editions of D&D I know, alignment points towards a metaphysical aspect of the setting. No remotely person would side with ethical "evil" because thinking that it had a valid point would be self-contradictory. However, it is likely that totally sane people in Golarion actually agree with Asmodeus because strict punishment of the guilty and a ruthless meritocracy appeal to them. To them, the evil alignment isn't evil. Chaos and Law aren't much better because what most people think about when they hear "lawful", is "according to the legal rules set by the government" - which is not at all what the alignment is about. For example, the Red mantis are a very lawful organization that specializes in a service that is very illegal pretty much everywhere: asassinations.
@@AlexBermann Why tempt the devils with the chance to bleed Paizo? As much as we think they'd be RIGHT, Hasbro has more money to burn on these cases. Getting away from the OGL is a matter of avoiding problems more than the moral high ground. Also, we've all heard the Chaotic Stupid or Lawful Asshole Stories. Fuck the alignments. You don't need them to have the Red Mantis assassins be interesting. You don't need Chaotic Good to have the Liberators of Elysium to be so much fun to watch. Using the alignments isn't going to stop. It's pop culture at this point. Taking them out of the rules means they can't be weaponized against Paizo or the players, and we don't need 'em.
@@AlexBermann There is an issue with your statement. By definition good and evil can only exist within an objective morality system, while you are in essence describing a subjective one. The reason being: if everyone can disagree on what "good"/"evil" means, then there is no good nor evil and thus no good and evil. If there is a good, then there is by definition evil (defined as lack of good) and thus you have an objective morality system.
@@lamename2010 The problem is easily solved. Let me propose a cosmology. In the setting, there exist two cosmic powers that are usually called "good" and "evil". I call them light and dark for simplicity. An overabundance of light is incompatible with life - because you need to hurt or kill something to survive, the overabundance of light would judge and destroy you - if you didn't starve by your own free will. Since light and dark are roughly in balance, light is life affirming and usually morally good. This is the objective moral level that people do not know. On his level, it may be possible that aiding the dark is morally good because it aids the integrity of the multiverse or just the material plane. Since people do not know the objective level, they form subjective moralities - and because they notice that light is not always the right option, you may get the situation where the evil action is the right one - it would be self contradictory if the terms were on the same level. It can be true if evil is on the cosmic level and when the right thing is just the right thing for this situation.
@@AlexBermann You are just substituting light and dark for good and evil. This is very obvious. Better yet, since when does "light" disallow the killing of animals for the sake of satiating your hunger? Or why would it not just cause people to not need to eat (you know, like plants can "eat" sunlight?) Once again, the imposition of what you expect light to be vs what others consider to be light is once again showcasing a subjective view on the matter and ignoring the objective view that a good (light) vs evil (dark) universe has inherit in the very meaning of those words. I know, it is "in" right now to try to take eastern philosophy and combine that with western philosophy, but that doesn't work. In eastern philosophy this "everything good has a spot of evil" thing is based on very different worldview: Namely that what is evil is disruption of society (basically chaos) and what is good is letting society keep going. Ergo the provincial governor can be as corrupt as he wants to be, but because he is maintaining the order of things, a rebellion against him because of said corruption is "evil". And the governor stands on the side of "good". Basically Chaos vs Order. And evil is accepted to such a degree that a corrupted Order (corrupt governor etc) is preferable to Chaos. Whereas in the west order and chaos, good and evil are absolutes and have been for millennia.
Alignment is morality. That's why the alignment grid was basic, it's a guide. No alignment, no clerics or paladins. The scene from wrath of the dragon god, dorian counciling berek, no longer a thing. That scene now can be considered chaotic evil, while making blood sacrifices to khorne is lawful good because morality not a thing.
For the Soulbound Doll perhaps hitting the doll with spirit damage affects the soul crystal (who's hitpoints are represented by the doll's hitpoint value in the stat block, and the physical doll hitpoints aren't represented?).
I think the thing with constructs and spirits. You have to take that statement as a generalization. Most constructs don't have a soul but their are exception such as puppets and certain automatons who get the life spark.
6:40 I do not see the issue here. Most constructs do not have souls and thus get a _explicitly_ immunity to Spirit damage. The Bronze Bastion mention vitality, void and spirit immunity explicitly. Something like the Soulbound Doll would not get such a immunity. And thus be affected. Or alternatively, even if the _body_ has immunity to spirit damage. The soul _posessing_ it does not. And spirit damage can attack a posessing soul directly, ignoring the body. Like, maybe change it to "like *most* constructs"? One word addition.
My concern is that we have over a decade of lore that is entirely contingent on the arrangement of the Outer Sphere with regards to the nine point system. There are valid reasons to not like that system but it’s pretty solidly baked into the game’s setting
Eh. Wouldn't be surprised if they're still there, likely with names being changed. Just because alignment no longer exists as a mechanic doesn't mean it can't exist in lore.
@@eliburry-schnepp6012 We can still see it as a major force fueling the spirit damage that creatures of Law can deal with their attacks. But I do agree that it IS a bummer that we won't be getting the same kind of "super effective against each other" dynamic between supernaturally lawful and supernaturally chaotic creatures. Maybe there will be a bit of a workaround with the specific Outsider traits (Aeon, Protean etc) and added features that specifically give them extra damage when fighting each other... but seemingly no way for PCs to "sanctify" in that regard. It is a very small part of the game though, as much as I find it endlessly fascinating
It specficially says that it damages creatures that have a spirit. In the case of a construct that has a spirit, it would hurt it. Generally speaking, a construct doesn't have a soul/spirit but it can be made to have one in which case it would be affected. Rules are clear enough to dictate the interaction and are moreso a guideline to indicate that constructs generally don't have souls/spirits. At the very least the rules are clear enough to dictate what to do in such a fringe case and at the very least offer the GM leeway in how to run an encounter that would have such an interaction. Perhaps the machinery of the construct shield the gem and it could gain resistance or have immunity to spirit until the construct is damaged enough to be 'broken' at half health at which point the soul hosting core is exposed vulnerable. Maybe lock the ability to bypass its immunity behind a recall knowledge or thievery check. Perhaps you could just let spirit damage affect the construct that is animated by a soul like any other qualifed creature.
While I entirely understand the discontent towards alignment for many, I would like to argue that at least it was simple. I can't image how difficult it will now be explaining this to new players that may only be just interested enough to play and want to play a holy/unholy character, then realizes we bit off more than they can chew.
I was fine with the old alignment system, except for (1) the existence of "law" damage and "chaos" damage and worldbuilding limitations that this placed on settings and (2) the entire concept of "Detect Alignment" as a spell. All that stuff seemed a relic of the bad old days of early D&D.
I would call "constructs have no soul" to be a *default*, the reality for simple programmed automata that have no Will. A Construct that is soul band, that has a mind and a will, that is something that will have spirit. But that would be an exception, not the default. Also, I recognize the two pictues at 7:30, I used the Red D&D beginners box back in the day :) Well, I am less certain about the one on the right, but she is from the same general time period at least.
If neutrality is gone, are Hellknights now forced to choose Holy or Unholy? I thought they were LN by default. Their whole brand is enforcing the Law. Did they address them or delete them?
I feel like Alignment can be a good tool, but it is easy enough to use as a bad tool, and there are enough people who insist that is how it should work (both supporters and opponents) that I understand the benefits of its removal. Also, some settings it was much more appropriate than others. I played a campaign where the gods were more distant and mysterious and basically didn't give them any alignments (essentially giving them Edicts and areas of interest instead). On the other hand, i have another setting built heavily around the opposition of the alignments and their dichotomy (which im trying to figure out how to handle with this).
While I really like in Planescape how mortals embodying concepts of the alignments literally create the outer planes which then embolden the most worthy mortals, this system is both mechanically and narratively really solid.
Hey Ron, I have a question about holy/unholy weakness and how that works in damage calculation. Let's say my champion character has a +1 holy on all melee strikes, how much damage would an unholy creature with a 10 weakness to holy take from that? Would it be just the 1 damage? Or would it be multiplied to 10 additional damage?
It makes the most sense for undead to still have souls. As far as the lore goes, its why the raising of the undead is such a heinous crime against humanity. Enslaving a soul to a decrepit rotting shell of their former selves, or shackling it to someone else's corpse.
I still think there should be law/chaos versions of holy/unholy or something to that effect, being a 'rules at any cost' or 'freedom at any cost' type is a bit harder without that direction
I agree, personally I would like to run a game focused more on the conflict between law and chaos rather than good and evil, and not having rules in place for that kind of game sounds like it'd be a pain to run properly.
@@CrownlessStudios the flavor of having abilities/spells that change interactions with law or chaos is gone then, unless you're doing the 5e thing of "just homebrew it :^)"
How about this: Abilities that do spirit damage according to edicts and anathema. Lawful abilities punish nonconformity and opposing ideologies. To use a lawful ability, the user declares an edict (or anathema) that they themselves follow. If the target does not follow the same or a similar edict, they take some spirit damage. If the target follows an edict which contradicts the attacker's edict, they take extra spirit damage. However, if the target DOES follow the same or a functionally similar edict as the attacker, they take no spirit damage. Chaotic abilities thrive on contradictions and hypocrisies. To use a chaotic ability, the user declares an edict (or anathema) that they themselves neither follow nor actively defy. If the target follows that edict or a contradicting edict, the target takes some spirit damage. If the target neither follows nor actively defies the declared edict, they take no spirit damage. But, if the target follows two edicts, one that follows the declared edict and one that contradicts the declared edict, they take extra spirit damage. As an example for how a Liberator Champion of Cayden Cailean might inflict extra damage on a Cleric of Asmodeus: The champion declares the following edict -- Break contracts that rob you of power over others. Because the cleric follows an edict to rule tyrannically, but also has an anathema against breaking contracts, the cleric takes extra spirit damage.
Soulbound doll is such a weird outlier to me. its not mindless.. but it is not affected by mental. It has a soul, but is still treated as having all of the usual construct immunities.
RE Mindless Undead: I don't agree with the interpretation of mindless undead having a soul for several reasons. The Book of the Dead says "a faint echo of forgotten LIFE" which is a different essence than spirit. Additionally you can find another reference on p. 32: "Curiously, the presence of a mind or soul in a vessel animated by negative energy cannot always be assumed as it can with one animated by positive energy. The teeming masses of zombies and skeletons occupying the lowest strata of undeath are little more than empty shells. More advanced varieties of undead do retain aspects of their former personas, suggesting the presence of their mind and soul, or fragments thereof." Since we are talking a lot about Lore in this case and not only rules, there are two more sources from 1st Edition, which have a more direct language. Pathfinder Player Companion - Undead Slayer's Handbook, p. 5: "Unlike other types of undead creatures, mindless undead consist of skeletons, zombies, and other drones whose souls have long passed on but whose broken remains have been reanimated via corruptive negative energy." Pathfinder Chronicles - The Great Beyond, p.3: "Do they possess souls? Is their existence evil or simply an abnormality? Generally speaking, non-intelligent undead such as zombies and skeletons possess no souls. Little more than puppets of flesh and bone, animated by negative energy in a warped attempt at life, these automatons have no attachment to the souls of their former owners, and are evil merely due to the corrupting influence of the Negative Energy Plane." All in all, I think Paizo will have to clarify this case for mindless undead. But based on the history of this group of undead, I would define them as soulless.
I am not surprised about the death of alignment because it has been the zeitgeist for a long time to call that aspect of the game antiquated. That said, I do strongly disagree with everything that Paizo changes here. The conflict between law and chaos and the conflict between good and evil have been the factors that drove the cosmic conflicts around Golarion and they have been one of the elements that made Golarion distinct from just "a generic fantasy setting". Now, let us look at the conflict between holy and unholy... that's the most basic conflict imaginable, it's so played out that it almost becomes refreshing if the trope is played straight instead of being subverted - and I would like to emphasize ALMOST. I do understand that the nine alignments are a terrible system to define ethics - but that isn't really what it was to begin with. It was a metaphysical system. The only thing I like is that the new system makes sanctification rare. I always ran first edition as most people being true neutral or close to it - not because they follow an esoteric idea of "balance", but rather because they are too occupied with their own worldly life to get invested in cosmic conflicts and thus get pushed to one side or another by circumstances or even just moods.
I like changing "good" and "evil from alignment to simply magical aspects. I only take issue with calling the opposite of "Holy", "Unholy". It's like calling darkness "antilight". Heck, I'd take the cliche "light" and "dark" over that. Hmm... perhaps the opposite of Holy could be either Demonic or Fiendish?
I always loved the alighnment system. I find it prety boring to just say that someone is good or evil, or something in the middle. I hoped that they would change the alighnments of D&D with their own more complex Pathfinder alighnments, like they did with the shield rules.
Minor mistake, you said that both Clerics and Druids can cast Heal and Harm, which isn't quite right. Both can can cast heal as it's both a divine and primal spell, but only Clerics can cast harm, as it's only on the divine spell list.
I feel like the Soulbound trait is a little bit of a "specific beats general" in the case of spirits and constructs. This works for Soulbound Doll, at least. Are there constructs that "should" have a soul/spirit that dont have the soulbound trait?
Not sure how it would play out but I see the Soulbound tag on your doll construct. Does that tag make the creature susceptible to spirit damage even though its a contruct? Might be worth considering a house rule if not.
I understand the need for these changes, but I'm really not a fan of how it simplifies everything to holy and unholy. Where is the room in this system for a devoted priest of Asmodeus who focuses his unholy efforts on rooting out demons and their cults?
In terms of mechanical damage is definitely simpler, but are you trying to imply that doubling down on Edicts and Anathema is somehow simpler? If anything my issue with Edicts and Anathema is how excessively granular and complicated it encourages people to be.
Alignment originated as a wargame ‘sides’ thing, really a placeholder for the specific faction alignments that would be relevant in a setup as nuanced as a historical one. (If you think the Thirty Years War is all about Catholics versus Protestants, then you’re a rope-a-dope for Cardinal Richelieu!) The later developments were part of D&D becoming increasingly its own self-referential ‘world’.
Do we know whats going to happen to spells like protection? Is it just going to to work against holy or unholy or something or are they planning on removing it entirely
We don't know yet. Champion is getting remastered in Player Core 2, which is a few months away. Until then I'd assume you just use the edicts/anathema of your cause, permitting any that don't contradict your deity.
I wonder if Spiritual damage affects creatures whose souls are elsewhere. For example, a lich, whose soul can be said to be in his filactery, or a character whose soul was trapped in a gem.
I mean it does explicitly let you hit someone through a projected image of them. So it seems reasonable to think it would still work in the situations you outlined.
My question is whether any creatures will be susceptible to mental damage but not spirit damage. Otherwise it seems like mental damage might take a back seat.
I'm curious. About the Spirit damage vs constructs. I suppose it is still remains to GM's interpritation. But the character I'm playing is an Automaton Summoner where their Eidolon is their soul. I know automatons do not quite count as constructs. But what would be a soul occupying the automaton count as? I guess technically, you can kill the soul of a creature with spirit damage).
It seems you’re not following Paizo’s definition of the Automaton. The very first line: “These intelligent constructs **house actual souls** and represent what remains of a dying empire's last attempt at greatness.” The Automatin ancestry SPECIFICALLY has a soul. It’s a not an ambiguity.
On the topic of Law vs. Chaos, the game The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante in Times of the Fall of the Blessed Arknian Empire arguably is a struggle between law and chaos, but not necessarily good and evil as the literal gods don't understand the concept.
Wait, in the example of holy light that you give, a non sanctified caster can cast it? If you are sanctified, you're punished if you cast the opposite but have no additional benefit? Doesn't make any sense.
To me I feel as if they may have overcorrected alignment by straight out removing ot. While it is kinda difficult to explain to new people what's the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral, I feel like you could have easily rewritten it as Order Vs Chaos and Benevolence vs Malevolence. Holy and unholy already existed since 1e so I get that but ehh I wish they try to do their own thing with it instead of gelding it.
While this is probably better for the whole of the game in the long run, I do think Alignment got a bad rep in early 2e with Champions. You had strict Edicts and Anathema's with your type Paladin, Liberator, and etc... but there were caveats to those edicts in specific circumstances. Champions/Paladins could lie if the they were lying to a tyrant in order to save a group a people that were being threatened by the tyrant. Though, I always viewed/played alignment as a personal thing that is tied to the character itself rather than being tied to the cosmos of morality. I could imagine an Character who is "Evil" by helping otherd which would be altruistic and selfless, exept he wants to help out of a selfish desire to be praised for their efforts. They'd still take good damge because it is how they genuinely believe themselves to be evil which makes them take the mental-like damage of being confronted about.
Just a point on language here 11:31. The word ‘trigger’ has a specific meaning in P2e(ORC) which is not appropriate here. You might want to use the word ‘engender’ instead.
I could be wrong as I'm not particularly interested in the lore side of the game but in regards to vitality vs void it's my understanding that they are not life/unlife but rather creation/destruction, which is why undead and their creation is evil/unholy because they pervert the cosmic force of destruction to create something.
Not really. Void is it's own kind of life force, just in opposite polarity to ours. Kind of like matter & anti-matter, if there wasn't the real life chiral bias that made them in unequal quantities. In Golarion, the whole cycle of mortal souls is already made from positive/vitality aligned quintessence, and the negative/positive split is even more fundamental before that. In theory, there could be a void word with just as much life as within golarion, but because positive/vitality is already everywhere, it would have to be completely isolated. The reason that undead are so messed up and "sickly" is because they are all originally made with and from vitality aligned stuff, but converted their spirit to work with void. Like trying to swap your blood with acid or something. There's perks, but it's physiologically reactive/harmful.
I am still confused on what explicity restricts a player from sanctifying unless they are a Cleric of the right deity. Is it a class feature or the Cleric? Is it baked in to Divine Font? Is it in the Sanctified trait? Or is it strictly because it is uncommon? Or is it something else entirely?
I think its that you need a sponsor to get into the Holy/Unholy conflict at a fundamental level. I bet we see champions, some archetypres, and certain sorcerers getting the trait as well
@@rileymcleran2895 that much I gather, but I was more asking where the genuine restriction comes from, if there truly is any laid out by the game rules. I keep hearing that it's only an option for clerics, but I've never gotten a clear answer why that is or where it says it. Like what if you play a Nephilim and want to be sanctified, but you're not playing a Cleric.
@@ErikkuBlade i dont think thats been explicitly defined thus far. Currently, only clerics that follow deities/pantheons/philosophies that allow or require sanctification can be sanctified because they have the feature that says they can and no one else does. I would presume this will expand as new remaster books come out. For now, my in-universe explanation is that to be truly cosmologically aligned in the conflict, a person must choose to worship and study, and be recognized by their deity, but that’s definitely just me extrapolating a story element from the blank space. Edit: missed some words
Gameplay-wise, I don't mind the removal but regarding the flavor it is a bit sad. Most players I played with, rarely ever stuck to their alignment. Maybe in the first 2-3 sessions at bets. Even beginner players. And most of the players tend to play some sort of meta version of themselves with a bit of alignment based flavor. And you can do this even without specific alignment rules and restrictions. As for the latter, alignment was often just seen as a restriction/requirement for specific builds (at least in 3.5), and which was often entirely disconnected from the actual gameplay or the character's behavior. I can't really evaluate if the new system is a bit to simplistic in general, having only holy and unholy. But not having to look out for 4 different damage variants that may or may not have any effect on a different alignment is definitely welcome.
A video explaining Stealth and Perception qre good but they never talk about Exploration activities Searching and Hidden in context that Searching Objects and Creqtures are two differend actions and based on old posti it is bot clear if you can seek hidden enemies as Exploratuon activity and how it would work. For examples Jack is searching he is he going to find hidden enemies? Based on rules, no? What if Tim is searching for Hidde Enemies? That wiuld require enemies to be hidden? Thus can Tim search for hidden creatures while Jacknis searching Objects like Hazards and Traps as Exploration activities and if Goblins are laying in ambush would the encounter start before they walk in to ambush?
This is probably my favourite change, the alignment was always wonky, at least since 3.5 wich is the one I started with, im really glad that we get another way to define a character morality now!
So does this mean that the USA is HOLY, and Russia is Un-Holy? (That's a joke son from back in 1st ed when we joked how the USA say themselves and Good and Lawful, while we say Russia as Evil and Chaotic. I'd rather see a sliding scale of alignment, a more of a 1st ed add (In one of the add on books) on rule I used of Fame, Heroism, Reputation. Do something good and Heroic, your reputation rose and you were treated better. Do something bad, it would fall and people did not like you
Can anyone answer me this: is there anything stopping you from taking an Edict that reads “behave in a good and lawful way” and an anathema that reads “behave in a chaotic or evil way.” If you have issues with that, let me tell you something, you have issues with alignment as it was. You still loose chaotic/lawful damage, which is fair enough, but you could easily house-rule those back in.
@@eamk887 but does the GM even really have to allow it? It is non-mechanical. A lot of people keep winging about the non-mechanical things that are lost from loosing alignment, but what were those things besides what amount to a couple of overly broad edicts and anathema? What is stopping anyone from adding them back?
@@Vendavaleznothing, people are just scared of change and see alignment as something so foundational to ttrpgs that it shouldnt be touched. Despite the fact that it was a poor system from the start and has only become more and more vestigial over time
holy and unholy sounds close to the usual interpretations of good and evil, but I wonder if there's a way to play someone who is holy but would have had an evil alignment or who is unholy but would have had a good alignment........ hmmm..
Now that the nine-tile twister mat is out the room, much more interesting stories can be told. I wonder if gods could forge temporary alliances or swear enmity against certain other gods that lead to conflicts that can be resolved in a campaign with campaign-specific effects that come from aligning yourself with one side. E.G. The greek gods had beef with each other all the time and let mortals duke it out for them. Same could work for the Golarionian gods.
Most players are either too stupid or immature for the alignment system to work as intended. A system of honor and karma that the GM applies to the players based on their actions and decisions works better and helps get new players used to role-playing.
I'm pretty sure there is not any holy or unholy damage, ONLY Spirit damage. Something like Holy Light is just saying you do extra SPIRIT damage against unholy trait creatures. But its still just Spirit damage. This makes me wonder if Monster Core will even have "weakness to holy" or if it will just leave the extra Spirit damage up to the spell or feature to state whether and how much extra damage it will do. Personally I like this idea, it sounds better and makes more sense. I don't like the idea that a demon is weak to holiness, or an angel is weak to unholiness. Narratively, I feel like an angel should be able to resist unholiness better! But there's a game consideration here where I think you want to be able to use these traits for more damage, not less. So I like the idea better that an angel isn't "weak" to unholiness, but instead the unholy sanctified creature is able to use the unholiness to sort of pierce the barrier of their Spirit harder. It's a very fine distinction and some may not see the distinction at all, but as a game consideration I like it better than demons being weak to good, which made no sense at all to me, ever.
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-I didn't go into it here because I'm so prone to tangents and overly-long videos, but: Paizo also removed alignment to get away from the IP of Wizards of the Coast (due to WOTC's current shenanigans). Alignment is more on the lore side of the lore vs. rules spectrum.
-I didn't mention Edicts + Anathema which Paizo has said "replace" alignment, but only in form. The mechanical function of alignment is what I cover in . As for function, Edicts + Anathema they have no mechanical weight in the Remaster... beyond what already have in PF2: some classes and deities make you lose abilities if don't abide by them, and there's a way to possibly get them back. Some ancestries suggest Edicts + Anathema but they're voluntary and the consequences are purely between you and your GM.
-12:45 I point to "the Universe" but it's actually the Multiverse that includes other planes. The Universe refers to what used to be called The Material Plane. The overlapping planes overlap with the Universe (the small circle within the bigger one).
-I see some argument over alignment in the comments so I"m throwing down the gauntlet = Law vs. Chaos is dumb in a game that already has good vs. evil (or holy vs. unholy). It's an abstraction that is a fun exercise for philosophers and the overly cerebral, but leads to rancor and confusion. Having taught D&D and Pathfinder to hundreds of players, explaining alignment has always been the most confusing and unnecessary part of making a character.
Context matters. Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation created freedom for the slaves. "Chaotic" for defending individual freedom, right? Not to the southern slaveowners, who saw Lincoln as the utmost Tyrant violating THEIR freedoms. But they also called him an ANARCHIST for defying what they said was the Constitution. Good and evil in real life say they have the law on their side, when it suits their own ends. Giving cosmic weight to good and evil OR law and chaos in a fantasy world is fine, but if you try to put in BOTH in you're lost in hopeless contradictions.
There's a reason why there's the joke that paladins are Lawful Stupid.
EDIT: Despite my strong words, I don't really care how people run their campaigns. But i think removing it as the DEFAULT mechanic makes sense!
In probably the coldest alignment take possible, I quite like it in terms of *broad* cosmic forces, but applying it to real people and to nations/government just gets messy so damn fast, and things devolve into ridiculous debates where it's more about your own definitions of alignment than about the actual characters you're supposedly talking about.
Unless you're talking about Gilmore Girls, then alignment debates are valid.
the difference is that in pathfinder and d&d there were specific entities who themselves defined law chaos good and evil. it wasn't an abstract in the same way it is in real life, and Lincoln would have absolutely been regarded as Chaotic Good by those standards, but since alignments can change he might have floated between neutral good to chaotic good, you don't have to be lawful to be a politician. our own world proves that.
I love how you used the term Grok. I gotcha man.. I follow ;)
I call it the Robin Hood paradox. Is Robin Hood lawful, because he adheres strictly to a code, or chaotic, because he flagrantly ignores the laws of Nottinghamshire?
@@MagmaRiver I would disagree. The problem in alignment is that people love to deal in absolutes and lowest common denominators. Things easy to understand. They don't like it when someone who is good, acts in a way they think is evil. They think morality will always guide your decisions, but they don't realize and accept the circumstances the situation can change the moral fabric rather drastically. If a person shoots and kills someone, we say that is murder. But when that person was threatening their life, we call it self-defense. The circumstance of the situation changes the moral fabric. What I most often see in games is that DM's and players alike allow their alignment to FORCE their actions because they are on the outside looking in, instead of allowing the situation to unfold and then using their alignment to guide them. If your PCs aren't being challenged on a moral level, then you are doing them a disservice as a DM.
Finally, I understand your dilemma with nations and governments. Here the problem comes from taking a system designed for the individual and applying it to the whole. A government isn't an individual entity. The people who run the government ARE the government, and they are the ones with the skin in the game of alignment. It's also true that people can and will follow the alignment of their leaders. You need look no further than Germany in the 1920's for evidence of this. People lack the capacity to honestly deal with morality and alignment. They want everything in a nice neat tidy package that they can open and expect to understand, and the truth is, that life isn't like that at all. So we call in to question good and evil.. and right and wrong, when instead you should be asking.. "is what THEY did in the situation, wrong? That's how morality actually works. For the most part... killing someone is wrong. But there are situations where it can be right.
Always gotta remember that, even as rules-heavy as Pathfinder 2e is, it's still a storytelling game. Not all of the mechanics needs to be strictly enforced, because some rules can be bent to tell a more consistent story. For example, Pharasma does not allow sanctification, which by another rule means that casting Holy or Unholy spells is anathema to her. However, some Holy spells deal additional damage to undead, and Pharasma hates undead more than anyone. So, it would seem clear to me, that casting Holy spells specifically to destroy undead, would not be anathema to her.
Rule 0, baby!
The text says "almost always" anathema to a deity like Pharasma, so what you said is technically RAW!
I always liked the chaos vs law axis tbh... but I did always think that one of the biggest mistakes ever made with alignment was calling one of them "Law" when what they really meant was "Order" - too many people thought it literally meant legal issues and would argue about the laws governing a place etc etc
Personally, I think it's important to remember WHY Paizo felt they needed to do this: Because the Executives at Hasbro can't be trusted to remember what happens when they try to mess with the OGL. I'd rather Paizo make these changes even if it means the Planar Cosmology needs to be retconned, than have the risk that Hasbro might one day either sue Paizo out of existence or litigate Pathfinder out form under Paizo's control.
Also, as an anime fan in addition to a Pathfinder/Starfinder fan, I'm looking forward to being able to shout "SPIRIT GUN!" any time I use a spell that deals spirit damage.
Getting rid of alignment also just makes sense; alignment adds a bunch of problems that can wreck certain kinds of adventures/adventure ideas because of the mechanical relationship between alignment and game mechanics. By getting rid of it, they avoid that issue.
It also allows you to make evil races without actually calling them evil races :V
In DnD the original implementation of alignment was just law vs chaos. And being in an alignment also meant that you knew their unique language. The words law and chaos themselves were taken from Michael Moorcock's books, but Garry Gygax's interpretation was that the alignment worked sort of like religion did in the middle ages. Various factions that felt some manner of cohesion without each individual knowing each other, with a sacred language associated with the group. So being lawful or chaotic was meant to reflect that you were like a catholic that knew latin, or a jew that knew hebrew, or a muslim that knew arabic. I find that kind of interpretation a lot more interesting that this sort of convoluted and hamfisted cosmology that it developed into.
except that you'd forget your alignment language utterly and instantly if you ever "converted"
I wonder what's going to happen with the Axiomites, or the tower of Law that sits in the middle of the Maelstrom and shoots the siphoned Quintessence back to Creation's Forge to renew the grand cycle.
'they just really, really, don't like it in their yard' doesn't go as hard as 'the beings of pure Chaos take the deepest affront to the bastion of Law mocking them in the center of their own plane.'
gate keep gate keep gatekeep stop thinking its a fucking bad thing...your IP IS BEING RUINED FIGHT BACK...its not "overreacting" its not "over the top" now is the time to punch back and express your distaste for this bullshit.
I haven’t looked too far into the official changes but the way I see it there’s still beings of pure law and chaos (it always made more sense than good/evil to me) but instead of relying on damage that only works on the opposite type they can directly affect the spirit (homogenising into nothing or warping until it breaks), which feels good flavour wise.
The weakness to law/chaos can be covered with unique weaknesses like what demons already have against the opposite of their assigned sin (stuff like succubi taking damage when they’re rejected), which I find to be some of the most fun monsters in the game
Big fan of the image you used when talking about the example of a creature unaffected by a player's allignment damage.
It's a capybara!
"...Much like the honey badger, the capybara does not care about the overwrought moralities common amongst demi-human populations."
For me, the best pictures used in this video were at the 9:00 minute mark. All of them were from the BECMI D&D books. Upper left representing "Holy" was Aleena the Cleric from the Red Basic set, upper right representing "Unholy" is an illustration for a spell in the Blue Expert set, and the bottom center is from the Druid class introduced in the Green Companion set. It's been over 30 years since I played BECMI D&D and I still remember those books and images in them.
RE Soulbound Doll: As a GM, I'd rule that such a creature would qualify as a viable target for Spirit damage. It'd be one of the very rare exceptions that reinforces the rule, especially since that would otherwise make PC Automatons, Poppets, etc otherwise completely immune just for being Constructs (Androids, interestingly, lack the Construct trait)
I agree, and I think it's a mix-up caused by the confusing difference between having the construct trait, and BEING a construct. Player characters always fall into the category "humanoid", but giving them the construct trait is an easy way to apply the appropriate rules to an automaton or poppet. But on the other hand, you couldn't define the soulbound doll as humanoid... It has to remain a construct by definition.
Perhaps it would have saved us from this confusion to have introduced ANOTHER trait, called Soulless or Spiritless, but I think that still complicates the situation somewhat. What we have will do just fine with some GM discretion.
@@Sanctor95 And further frustrated by the fact that they clearly want it to work on mindless undead and even oozes, so they can't use that as the qualifier for what's immune to Spirit damage either.
I feel like most tables will have a good-sense and good-faith view of this, where if it's obviously infused with a soul or spirit energy, it likely is subject to such effects.
That said, perhaps an inverse of your proposed trait might be easier to cover the niche exceptions, whereas the other side of the coin can be for creatures that normally would be defined as having a spirit or soul but lacks it
@@GrimmDichotomy Haha, I love the semantics of it all, but I honestly couldn't tell you which would be better between a) having a Soul trait, b) having a Soulless trait, and c) having both traits 😂 but some form of this would have been more clarifying than what we were given 😁
You're definitely right though, it is a situation where tables and GMs will more than likely make the right choices and "house-rule" it with good sense.
this was very helpful because moving over is alot of confusion. as a gm i really need the monster core!
I like this new system way more than I ever expected. I was against removal of alignment, I am one of those people who didn't want to lose LG paladin from 1e, but being able to opt in or out of the upper planes war is cool, and it's nice that it's no longer easy to tell if someone is good or evil, you have to watch how people act instead, and there is more chance for NPC betrayal. Fun. I just wish they were more consistent with necromancy - is raising undead unholy or not? Waiting with baited breath to see the anethema for the champion class next year.
GrammarNazi moment, but FYI 😁 bated breath is what you're after - baited breath sounds like you've been poisoned! 🥺
I'm disappointing with the removal of order/chaos conflict. Although, I did find that it was usually forgot or put in the back burner. Some example I can remember is the player handbooks from PF1 that when it was alignments, it was always Good/Neutral/Evil and never Lawful/Neutral/Chaos.(Although I can somewhat understand since people will be more likely to play a good character than a lawful or chaotic one) The other example is how aasimars and tieflings, scions of good and evil, were described for their alignment as "any good/evil" but aphorite and ganzi how "Ideas of morality, however, are less clear cut to aphorites.[...] Consequently, most aphorites are lawful neutral." and "Often chaotic-aligned, with no particular tendency towards good or evil"(PF1). If I had a say in their origin, I would have said that the originals was a project to bring more order in the material plane through more orderly mortals made from Heaven, Axis and Hell(so a typical any-lawful alignment), but after the project was finished, they made their own version(so a lawbringer-like good aphorite and so on). Ganzis, I admit is harder to justify.
Those gave me impression that the forces of good and evil could be both lawful and chaotic, but forgot that the war of law and chaos could be also good and evil.
just ignore the rule dude...I know I am its fucking stupid, its more of the woke garbage trope hating losers infecting the Fantasy IP settings all over because people didnt gatekeep enough.
Yeah, not adding Anarchic/Axiomatic traits was a giant mistake
Oh, well. Gonna glo play my holy priest of Lantern King. Because he of all Eldest is known for his taste in jokes and love for innocent fun
@@nolanstrife7350 I mean it's pretty easy to add now. Just use the holy/unholy rules and apply them to appropriate creatures/npcs/pcs/gods.
@yaldabaoth2 and that's exactly what I'm going to do as a GM, lol
It's just so weird how Paizo are willing to throw an entire half of their worldbuilding under the bus to simplify the game
@@nolanstrife7350 For the same definition of "innocent" as children who rip the wings of a bird are innocent. It's all fun and games until someone cries.
Thank you Paizo! I'd been using the Extreme Alignment variant rule which was basically this for a while. Definitely felt like the way things should be. Glad to have it official so there's no need to be adjusting any content to fit the variant rule now.
I wonder if some bloodlines of Sorcerer might play with sanctification. Like I can imagine Angel bloodline sorcerers being, or having the option to be, Holy. And the same with fiendish bloodlines and unholy. But I could also see that not being the case and Paizo keeping it more of a specifically Cleric and Champion thing.
that's a great consideration. Paizo could give the players a choice during character creation, where you decide that your body is really aligned with your ancestry, a parallel to sanctification. you get the bonuses of being sanctified, but if you do things that are the unholy as a holy ancestry (or viceversa), you pay a consequence (such as rolling a fortitude save to prevent taking spirit damage).
Using 83' red box art for cleric in the holy/unholy section is... chef's kiss. Just fantastic.
I really like Aligment... maybe because I see is with a more "descriptive" aproach instead of the popular "restrictive" aproach.... It help to show to your DM the general stand for your character (but no charactarer is 100% their alignment) and also help to see some other character develoment of your character (like when you start as a NE character and slowly but surely become a NG character).... but for the system it self i see no good point to mainteing more with the increase in discusion about "race/ancestry" aligment....
13:00 Really technical nomenclature note: The universe is what was previously called the material plane. All the planes together make the multiverse.
Thanks, adding to my pinned comment
I wouldn't be surprised if the Remastered Bestiary would suggest adding holy/unholy traits rather than enforcing it.
Adding Holy or Unholy is easy. PC clerics do it all the time.
Removing it? That would be a bigger challenge. How much of a Solars power comes _from_ them being a Holy Soldier?
@@christopherg2347 - It's not just their power, it's the fundamental nature of their being. Taking the holy out of an angel is like taking the carbon out of a human.
@@Keovar I agree, but for more efficiency just remove all the water!
@@torstenheinrich7055 "Yes sir, the autoclave is this way"
The “Four Essences” are explained best at the beginning of secrets of magic, if you have that book.
I kinda like the idea of sanctifying making you weak to the other one. Really fits the flavor of becoming so in tune with Holy that Unholy damage is an affront to how you choose to live and gain power. Plus, it's only fair if monsters get it.
Yeah, the alignments getting popularly misunderstood isnt necessarily a reason to dispose of them. Law Vs Chaos is a popular theme that exists even outside of ttrpgs and its much more well defined than people think, they usually just want to twist it to their advantage to do things of an alignment without being labelled as such (usually people claiming evil acts are just chaotic)
My table will be keeping it, as nothing is gained by dropping it, but things are lost with its absence.
You can still have stories of law and chaos and good vs evil in your game. It's just no longer a codified thing with weird damage types associated with them.
@@aidankircher8865 You can still have stories of combat without attack or damage mechanics either but the more "game" you strip away the more it just becomes "book"
Many of us LIKE the game mechanics, just because something can be removed doesn't mean you're better off without it.
exactly I enforce alignments heavily and will continue to do so...I have punished people for opposing their alignments too as meta gaming and shit RPing which it is...stick to your alingment or be punished. Pathfinder continues to be watered down by the woke mob (sorry to say) I hate using that term but that is exactly who the new devs are...I talked with some...and they didnt even know basic lore questions let alone who "Dretha" was and why Orcs cant just magically be "good"...its pathetic. OH dont complain on Paizo's forums though! your post will get removed no matter how civil you are! they are becoming JUST as bad as WoTc.
@@CeriuAlignments still exist as Edicts/Anathema. You just aren't pigeonholed into one of 9 preset alignments anymore.
@@gackybass Beyond earliest d&d editions you weren't "pigeon-holed" to those either, those are literally the "stupid" alignments, named so because alignment is not supposed to be used as a strict law for how your character behaves.
They were meant to be a guide to roleplay and behavior and as a mechanical way for the world to react in specific ways to that behavior and the penalties they handed out were meant to be used only in massive and repeated breaking of character for meta reasons without any actual character development.
Examplesof edicts/anethema I've seen so far are either so narrowly specific as to be inconsequential to a character who can easily play like 50 different people live in his head all at different times, or an even tighter pigeonhole than alignment (assuming there's penalty for breaking it)
Granted what I've seen is very little, but that lack of consistency seems weird to me and more likely to go awry.
"We are building a revision,
an incremental edition,
we are now accepting callers for these variant covers!"
I think I will still use alignment as a flavor item, without it having any mechanical relevance ingame.
The only actual change from Alignment is Alignment Damage. Now creatures aren't randomly immune.
People are still using Holy and Unholy in the same way Alignment is used.
Holy and Unholy reduces the 2 axes down to 1 axis. So the holy paladin can stop an unholy tyrant of a slave nation. Where a lawful good paladin can’t? I dunno, it would be good to overthrow them, but against the law.
Except for most characters you won't have to define which side you're on. Which gets rid of the whole "acting against your alignment" discussion, which is very nice tbh.
This was remarkably clear and timely, Ron. ❤ Thank you.
I've always lowkey hated the alignment system. It oversimplifies people and forces them into slots that people will then argue about to no end when it comes to roleplay decisions.
That hatred only solidified when I moved onto PF2e and alignment damage graced my brain with its presence
It's really cool when it represents some kind of cosmic ideological conflict, It's really lame when it makes people quibble over character choices.
Throwing nukes at demons while listening to Sabaton
I hope that Divine Castigation is clarified. While it says that the spell will deal damage to opposing creatures, it doesn't say that the normal effect is replaced by this spirit damage. A 3-action holy Heal spell would normally heal a fiend (living creature) or unholy cleric/champion in the area. If the feat doesn't replace the normal effect, then you are healing them with vitality, while also hurting them with spirit damage.
Sanctification strikes me as closer to the original idea of alignment in early dnd, being reflective of a characters stance in a divine conflict, rather than a prepresentation of intrinsic morality.
One big question: what is the Champion supposed to do for the next year until player Core 2 comes out? They have a lot of abilities that specify the Alignment of who they work on (both alies and enemies). For some of them you might be able to apply a fix fairly easily on there own, but others, less so. Is the Champion jus "closed for renovations" until its book comes out, unlike most other classes that still fully function under the remaster with maybe one or two questions? I really feel they should have put the Cleric and the Champion together when making these changes.
Paizo has stated the Core Remaster rules are still very compatible and in fact interchangeable with the prior rules. It's a bit lore confusing but you can still run with the Alignment system for the party but make an exception for the Cleric if they want to play NuCleric, or the inverse where the Edicts and Anathema is the predominant PC ruleset but an exception is made for the Champion. Much in the same way Pathfinder 1e has Unchained classes where players and DMs have the choice of choosing between the Chained or Unchained variant of the classes as they were still fully compatible with the system at large, and you could even have a Chained and Unchained Barbarian in the same party.
This opens up a lot of hillarious and very good opportunities. It's actually pretty good becaus it has a "shades of grey" approach to a lot of wagons that got stuck in the rut of alignment. If there are more of those, for example class edicts, that add to certain edicts of the deitys someone follows, aside of that there might be an ancestral edict and the same goes for anathemas. All ancestries that possible could be used as character basis could get this treatment, and therefore removing a lot of the bias of (Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Nerdy) Alignments. Even the Base concept in D & D OSR was kind of strange. Mostly because it oversimplified matters and limited Monsters to pure cannon-fodder.
Other system didn't have similiar systems, Traveller for example never created an alignment system, Rifts (and other Paladium games) early on worked on a system that has more of an edicts and anathema vibe in it, and even some other games from TSR tried to avoid the spin of the wheel of alignment.
So getting rid of alignment (and even holy and unholy is kind of a restriction in this) is a good thing indeed.
All stabbing damage should be hole-y. Thank you, I will let myself out.
I will keep on using alignment, but mostly for players RP and no mechanical stuff. Just have everyone use their own definition and put a label on a character to which they tend the most. Even if everyone has their own definition I feel like it helps to RP better the character. I also do that for my NPCs to just have put a bit more thought into them as to who they are. I also have a random NPC table which basically just rolls their sex and alignment.
There are people grumbling, and I get it. However, don't forget that the main reason alignment is gone is the OGL. Second, how many tables argued about what character was what alignment? If we already need to abandon Law/Chaos Good/Evil terminology, what do we do? The old terms do the best they can while being simple.
I hope the bestiary give solid guidance on each creature's motivation, and dnd alignment was a good start, but goals and anathema could do similar.
I don't think WOTC can sue someone for using the concept of Evil or Law - no matter how hard they try to embody it.
That said, I also disagree that the terms did the best they can because they are confusing. Take "Good" - "good" is a term in ethics that describes an action one ought to do or a moral judgement on the moral quality of a person. Because ethics is not a solved, exact science, we will have disagreements on what is good or evil. But in Pathfinder and the editions of D&D I know, alignment points towards a metaphysical aspect of the setting. No remotely person would side with ethical "evil" because thinking that it had a valid point would be self-contradictory. However, it is likely that totally sane people in Golarion actually agree with Asmodeus because strict punishment of the guilty and a ruthless meritocracy appeal to them. To them, the evil alignment isn't evil.
Chaos and Law aren't much better because what most people think about when they hear "lawful", is "according to the legal rules set by the government" - which is not at all what the alignment is about. For example, the Red mantis are a very lawful organization that specializes in a service that is very illegal pretty much everywhere: asassinations.
@@AlexBermann Why tempt the devils with the chance to bleed Paizo? As much as we think they'd be RIGHT, Hasbro has more money to burn on these cases. Getting away from the OGL is a matter of avoiding problems more than the moral high ground.
Also, we've all heard the Chaotic Stupid or Lawful Asshole Stories. Fuck the alignments. You don't need them to have the Red Mantis assassins be interesting. You don't need Chaotic Good to have the Liberators of Elysium to be so much fun to watch.
Using the alignments isn't going to stop. It's pop culture at this point. Taking them out of the rules means they can't be weaponized against Paizo or the players, and we don't need 'em.
@@AlexBermann There is an issue with your statement. By definition good and evil can only exist within an objective morality system, while you are in essence describing a subjective one. The reason being: if everyone can disagree on what "good"/"evil" means, then there is no good nor evil and thus no good and evil. If there is a good, then there is by definition evil (defined as lack of good) and thus you have an objective morality system.
@@lamename2010
The problem is easily solved. Let me propose a cosmology.
In the setting, there exist two cosmic powers that are usually called "good" and "evil". I call them light and dark for simplicity. An overabundance of light is incompatible with life - because you need to hurt or kill something to survive, the overabundance of light would judge and destroy you - if you didn't starve by your own free will.
Since light and dark are roughly in balance, light is life affirming and usually morally good. This is the objective moral level that people do not know. On his level, it may be possible that aiding the dark is morally good because it aids the integrity of the multiverse or just the material plane. Since people do not know the objective level, they form subjective moralities - and because they notice that light is not always the right option, you may get the situation where the evil action is the right one - it would be self contradictory if the terms were on the same level. It can be true if evil is on the cosmic level and when the right thing is just the right thing for this situation.
@@AlexBermann You are just substituting light and dark for good and evil. This is very obvious.
Better yet, since when does "light" disallow the killing of animals for the sake of satiating your hunger? Or why would it not just cause people to not need to eat (you know, like plants can "eat" sunlight?)
Once again, the imposition of what you expect light to be vs what others consider to be light is once again showcasing a subjective view on the matter and ignoring the objective view that a good (light) vs evil (dark) universe has inherit in the very meaning of those words.
I know, it is "in" right now to try to take eastern philosophy and combine that with western philosophy, but that doesn't work. In eastern philosophy this "everything good has a spot of evil" thing is based on very different worldview: Namely that what is evil is disruption of society (basically chaos) and what is good is letting society keep going. Ergo the provincial governor can be as corrupt as he wants to be, but because he is maintaining the order of things, a rebellion against him because of said corruption is "evil". And the governor stands on the side of "good". Basically Chaos vs Order. And evil is accepted to such a degree that a corrupted Order (corrupt governor etc) is preferable to Chaos. Whereas in the west order and chaos, good and evil are absolutes and have been for millennia.
Alignment is morality. That's why the alignment grid was basic, it's a guide. No alignment, no clerics or paladins. The scene from wrath of the dragon god, dorian counciling berek, no longer a thing. That scene now can be considered chaotic evil, while making blood sacrifices to khorne is lawful good because morality not a thing.
For the Soulbound Doll perhaps hitting the doll with spirit damage affects the soul crystal (who's hitpoints are represented by the doll's hitpoint value in the stat block, and the physical doll hitpoints aren't represented?).
I think the thing with constructs and spirits. You have to take that statement as a generalization. Most constructs don't have a soul but their are exception such as puppets and certain automatons who get the life spark.
6:40 I do not see the issue here.
Most constructs do not have souls and thus get a _explicitly_ immunity to Spirit damage. The Bronze Bastion mention vitality, void and spirit immunity explicitly.
Something like the Soulbound Doll would not get such a immunity. And thus be affected.
Or alternatively, even if the _body_ has immunity to spirit damage. The soul _posessing_ it does not. And spirit damage can attack a posessing soul directly, ignoring the body.
Like, maybe change it to "like *most* constructs"? One word addition.
My concern is that we have over a decade of lore that is entirely contingent on the arrangement of the Outer Sphere with regards to the nine point system. There are valid reasons to not like that system but it’s pretty solidly baked into the game’s setting
I think that can be kept narratively. Axis will still be all about order and law even if characters can't be Lawful anymore.
Eh. Wouldn't be surprised if they're still there, likely with names being changed. Just because alignment no longer exists as a mechanic doesn't mean it can't exist in lore.
Maybe the upcoming divine war arc is to rearrange the cosmos.
@@phaerlax Oh sure, it just feels weird for Law to not be a divine force given all the lore around it, for instance
@@eliburry-schnepp6012 We can still see it as a major force fueling the spirit damage that creatures of Law can deal with their attacks. But I do agree that it IS a bummer that we won't be getting the same kind of "super effective against each other" dynamic between supernaturally lawful and supernaturally chaotic creatures. Maybe there will be a bit of a workaround with the specific Outsider traits (Aeon, Protean etc) and added features that specifically give them extra damage when fighting each other... but seemingly no way for PCs to "sanctify" in that regard. It is a very small part of the game though, as much as I find it endlessly fascinating
It specficially says that it damages creatures that have a spirit. In the case of a construct that has a spirit, it would hurt it. Generally speaking, a construct doesn't have a soul/spirit but it can be made to have one in which case it would be affected. Rules are clear enough to dictate the interaction and are moreso a guideline to indicate that constructs generally don't have souls/spirits. At the very least the rules are clear enough to dictate what to do in such a fringe case and at the very least offer the GM leeway in how to run an encounter that would have such an interaction.
Perhaps the machinery of the construct shield the gem and it could gain resistance or have immunity to spirit until the construct is damaged enough to be 'broken' at half health at which point the soul hosting core is exposed vulnerable. Maybe lock the ability to bypass its immunity behind a recall knowledge or thievery check. Perhaps you could just let spirit damage affect the construct that is animated by a soul like any other qualifed creature.
While I entirely understand the discontent towards alignment for many, I would like to argue that at least it was simple. I can't image how difficult it will now be explaining this to new players that may only be just interested enough to play and want to play a holy/unholy character, then realizes we bit off more than they can chew.
I was fine with the old alignment system, except for (1) the existence of "law" damage and "chaos" damage and worldbuilding limitations that this placed on settings and (2) the entire concept of "Detect Alignment" as a spell. All that stuff seemed a relic of the bad old days of early D&D.
I would call "constructs have no soul" to be a *default*, the reality for simple programmed automata that have no Will. A Construct that is soul band, that has a mind and a will, that is something that will have spirit. But that would be an exception, not the default.
Also, I recognize the two pictues at 7:30, I used the Red D&D beginners box back in the day :) Well, I am less certain about the one on the right, but she is from the same general time period at least.
If neutrality is gone, are Hellknights now forced to choose Holy or Unholy? I thought they were LN by default. Their whole brand is enforcing the Law. Did they address them or delete them?
I feel like Alignment can be a good tool, but it is easy enough to use as a bad tool, and there are enough people who insist that is how it should work (both supporters and opponents) that I understand the benefits of its removal. Also, some settings it was much more appropriate than others. I played a campaign where the gods were more distant and mysterious and basically didn't give them any alignments (essentially giving them Edicts and areas of interest instead). On the other hand, i have another setting built heavily around the opposition of the alignments and their dichotomy (which im trying to figure out how to handle with this).
While I really like in Planescape how mortals embodying concepts of the alignments literally create the outer planes which then embolden the most worthy mortals, this system is both mechanically and narratively really solid.
Hey Ron, I have a question about holy/unholy weakness and how that works in damage calculation.
Let's say my champion character has a +1 holy on all melee strikes, how much damage would an unholy creature with a 10 weakness to holy take from that?
Would it be just the 1 damage? Or would it be multiplied to 10 additional damage?
I have a question. How did those Hell Knights fellows ended up in this new system?
Or Fey for that matter. Seeing how LN / CN turn out is going to be interesting.
It makes the most sense for undead to still have souls. As far as the lore goes, its why the raising of the undead is such a heinous crime against humanity. Enslaving a soul to a decrepit rotting shell of their former selves, or shackling it to someone else's corpse.
Wait, how do axis and malestrom even exist? Law vs chaos is an essential part of them.
I still think there should be law/chaos versions of holy/unholy or something to that effect, being a 'rules at any cost' or 'freedom at any cost' type is a bit harder without that direction
Not really. You just...make a character like that. No box required.
I agree, personally I would like to run a game focused more on the conflict between law and chaos rather than good and evil, and not having rules in place for that kind of game sounds like it'd be a pain to run properly.
@@CrownlessStudios the flavor of having abilities/spells that change interactions with law or chaos is gone then, unless you're doing the 5e thing of "just homebrew it :^)"
How about this: Abilities that do spirit damage according to edicts and anathema.
Lawful abilities punish nonconformity and opposing ideologies. To use a lawful ability, the user declares an edict (or anathema) that they themselves follow. If the target does not follow the same or a similar edict, they take some spirit damage. If the target follows an edict which contradicts the attacker's edict, they take extra spirit damage. However, if the target DOES follow the same or a functionally similar edict as the attacker, they take no spirit damage.
Chaotic abilities thrive on contradictions and hypocrisies. To use a chaotic ability, the user declares an edict (or anathema) that they themselves neither follow nor actively defy. If the target follows that edict or a contradicting edict, the target takes some spirit damage. If the target neither follows nor actively defies the declared edict, they take no spirit damage. But, if the target follows two edicts, one that follows the declared edict and one that contradicts the declared edict, they take extra spirit damage.
As an example for how a Liberator Champion of Cayden Cailean might inflict extra damage on a Cleric of Asmodeus:
The champion declares the following edict -- Break contracts that rob you of power over others. Because the cleric follows an edict to rule tyrannically, but also has an anathema against breaking contracts, the cleric takes extra spirit damage.
Anarchic Chaos; Axiomatic Order
So my takeaway from this is I can yell "FIRE ZE MISSILES!" at my party Cleric?
Soulbound doll is such a weird outlier to me.
its not mindless.. but it is not affected by mental.
It has a soul, but is still treated as having all of the usual construct immunities.
RE Mindless Undead: I don't agree with the interpretation of mindless undead having a soul for several reasons.
The Book of the Dead says "a faint echo of forgotten LIFE" which is a different essence than spirit. Additionally you can find another reference on p. 32: "Curiously, the presence of a mind or soul in a vessel animated by negative energy cannot always be assumed as it can with one animated by positive energy. The teeming masses of zombies and skeletons occupying the lowest strata of undeath are little more than empty shells. More advanced varieties of undead do retain aspects of their former personas, suggesting the presence of their mind and soul, or fragments thereof."
Since we are talking a lot about Lore in this case and not only rules, there are two more sources from 1st Edition, which have a more direct language.
Pathfinder Player Companion - Undead Slayer's Handbook, p. 5: "Unlike other types of undead creatures, mindless undead consist of skeletons, zombies, and other drones whose souls have long passed on but whose broken remains have been reanimated via corruptive negative energy."
Pathfinder Chronicles - The Great Beyond, p.3: "Do they possess souls? Is their existence evil or simply an abnormality? Generally speaking, non-intelligent undead such as zombies and skeletons possess no souls. Little more than puppets of flesh and bone, animated by negative energy in a warped attempt at life, these automatons have no attachment to the souls of their former owners, and are evil merely due to the corrupting influence of the Negative Energy Plane."
All in all, I think Paizo will have to clarify this case for mindless undead. But based on the history of this group of undead, I would define them as soulless.
Interesting! Will have to look into this later, brain need sleep
I am not surprised about the death of alignment because it has been the zeitgeist for a long time to call that aspect of the game antiquated. That said, I do strongly disagree with everything that Paizo changes here.
The conflict between law and chaos and the conflict between good and evil have been the factors that drove the cosmic conflicts around Golarion and they have been one of the elements that made Golarion distinct from just "a generic fantasy setting". Now, let us look at the conflict between holy and unholy... that's the most basic conflict imaginable, it's so played out that it almost becomes refreshing if the trope is played straight instead of being subverted - and I would like to emphasize ALMOST.
I do understand that the nine alignments are a terrible system to define ethics - but that isn't really what it was to begin with. It was a metaphysical system. The only thing I like is that the new system makes sanctification rare. I always ran first edition as most people being true neutral or close to it - not because they follow an esoteric idea of "balance", but rather because they are too occupied with their own worldly life to get invested in cosmic conflicts and thus get pushed to one side or another by circumstances or even just moods.
I like changing "good" and "evil from alignment to simply magical aspects. I only take issue with calling the opposite of "Holy", "Unholy". It's like calling darkness "antilight". Heck, I'd take the cliche "light" and "dark" over that. Hmm... perhaps the opposite of Holy could be either Demonic or Fiendish?
Using unholy really isn't like using antilight, unholy has been used for hundreds of years as the opposite of holy.
I go for Fiendish. Perfect umbrella term if separating Devils and Demons and the neutral-evil aligned, deamons? I term them inbetween Demils😆
Profane?
Sacred and Profane? Don't that already exist in 1e?
I'm just going to houserule the old system back in. I can't quite explain it but this new system just rubs me the wrong way.
I always loved the alighnment system. I find it prety boring to just say that someone is good or evil, or something in the middle. I hoped that they would change the alighnments of D&D with their own more complex Pathfinder alighnments, like they did with the shield rules.
Isn’t that what the edicts and anathemas are? A more complex morality system than the 2 simple good/evil and law/chaos axes.
Time for the holy undead to rise.
Minor mistake, you said that both Clerics and Druids can cast Heal and Harm, which isn't quite right. Both can can cast heal as it's both a divine and primal spell, but only Clerics can cast harm, as it's only on the divine spell list.
I feel like the Soulbound trait is a little bit of a "specific beats general" in the case of spirits and constructs. This works for Soulbound Doll, at least. Are there constructs that "should" have a soul/spirit that dont have the soulbound trait?
Not sure how it would play out but I see the Soulbound tag on your doll construct. Does that tag make the creature susceptible to spirit damage even though its a contruct? Might be worth considering a house rule if not.
I understand the need for these changes, but I'm really not a fan of how it simplifies everything to holy and unholy. Where is the room in this system for a devoted priest of Asmodeus who focuses his unholy efforts on rooting out demons and their cults?
In terms of mechanical damage is definitely simpler, but are you trying to imply that doubling down on Edicts and Anathema is somehow simpler?
If anything my issue with Edicts and Anathema is how excessively granular and complicated it encourages people to be.
Alignment originated as a wargame ‘sides’ thing, really a placeholder for the specific faction alignments that would be relevant in a setup as nuanced as a historical one. (If you think the Thirty Years War is all about Catholics versus Protestants, then you’re a rope-a-dope for Cardinal Richelieu!)
The later developments were part of D&D becoming increasingly its own self-referential ‘world’.
Do we know whats going to happen to spells like protection?
Is it just going to to work against holy or unholy or something or are they planning on removing it entirely
Video released just in time for dinner! Tonight we feast!
Nice video. I've got a question what happends to champions reactions? Because if I'm not mistaken that depends on alignment
We don't know yet. Champion is getting remastered in Player Core 2, which is a few months away. Until then I'd assume you just use the edicts/anathema of your cause, permitting any that don't contradict your deity.
@@gackybass thank you
I wonder if Spiritual damage affects creatures whose souls are elsewhere.
For example, a lich, whose soul can be said to be in his filactery, or a character whose soul was trapped in a gem.
I mean it does explicitly let you hit someone through a projected image of them. So it seems reasonable to think it would still work in the situations you outlined.
I always thought that since D&D was stepping away from alignment, PF2 should lean more into it
My question is whether any creatures will be susceptible to mental damage but not spirit damage. Otherwise it seems like mental damage might take a back seat.
I'm curious. About the Spirit damage vs constructs. I suppose it is still remains to GM's interpritation. But the character I'm playing is an Automaton Summoner where their Eidolon is their soul. I know automatons do not quite count as constructs. But what would be a soul occupying the automaton count as? I guess technically, you can kill the soul of a creature with spirit damage).
It seems you’re not following Paizo’s definition of the Automaton.
The very first line: “These intelligent constructs **house actual souls** and represent what remains of a dying empire's last attempt at greatness.”
The Automatin ancestry SPECIFICALLY has a soul. It’s a not an ambiguity.
On the topic of Law vs. Chaos, the game The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante in Times of the Fall of the Blessed Arknian Empire arguably is a struggle between law and chaos, but not necessarily good and evil as the literal gods don't understand the concept.
Neat
Wait, in the example of holy light that you give, a non sanctified caster can cast it? If you are sanctified, you're punished if you cast the opposite but have no additional benefit? Doesn't make any sense.
I think my big point of confusion is that I really need to see the bestiary guidelines about how to handle monster weaknesses to holy/unholy
To me I feel as if they may have overcorrected alignment by straight out removing ot. While it is kinda difficult to explain to new people what's the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral, I feel like you could have easily rewritten it as Order Vs Chaos and Benevolence vs Malevolence. Holy and unholy already existed since 1e so I get that but ehh I wish they try to do their own thing with it instead of gelding it.
While this is probably better for the whole of the game in the long run, I do think Alignment got a bad rep in early 2e with Champions. You had strict Edicts and Anathema's with your type Paladin, Liberator, and etc... but there were caveats to those edicts in specific circumstances. Champions/Paladins could lie if the they were lying to a tyrant in order to save a group a people that were being threatened by the tyrant.
Though, I always viewed/played alignment as a personal thing that is tied to the character itself rather than being tied to the cosmos of morality. I could imagine an Character who is "Evil" by helping otherd which would be altruistic and selfless, exept he wants to help out of a selfish desire to be praised for their efforts. They'd still take good damge because it is how they genuinely believe themselves to be evil which makes them take the mental-like damage of being confronted about.
Im not going to miss it. unless it was an obvious integration into any of my games, my gamers hardly ever invoked the use of alignments.
Just a point on language here 11:31. The word ‘trigger’ has a specific meaning in P2e(ORC) which is not appropriate here. You might want to use the word ‘engender’ instead.
I could be wrong as I'm not particularly interested in the lore side of the game but in regards to vitality vs void it's my understanding that they are not life/unlife but rather creation/destruction, which is why undead and their creation is evil/unholy because they pervert the cosmic force of destruction to create something.
Not really.
Void is it's own kind of life force, just in opposite polarity to ours. Kind of like matter & anti-matter, if there wasn't the real life chiral bias that made them in unequal quantities. In Golarion, the whole cycle of mortal souls is already made from positive/vitality aligned quintessence, and the negative/positive split is even more fundamental before that.
In theory, there could be a void word with just as much life as within golarion, but because positive/vitality is already everywhere, it would have to be completely isolated.
The reason that undead are so messed up and "sickly" is because they are all originally made with and from vitality aligned stuff, but converted their spirit to work with void. Like trying to swap your blood with acid or something. There's perks, but it's physiologically reactive/harmful.
I am still confused on what explicity restricts a player from sanctifying unless they are a Cleric of the right deity. Is it a class feature or the Cleric? Is it baked in to Divine Font? Is it in the Sanctified trait? Or is it strictly because it is uncommon? Or is it something else entirely?
I think its that you need a sponsor to get into the Holy/Unholy conflict at a fundamental level. I bet we see champions, some archetypres, and certain sorcerers getting the trait as well
@@rileymcleran2895 that much I gather, but I was more asking where the genuine restriction comes from, if there truly is any laid out by the game rules. I keep hearing that it's only an option for clerics, but I've never gotten a clear answer why that is or where it says it. Like what if you play a Nephilim and want to be sanctified, but you're not playing a Cleric.
@@ErikkuBlade i dont think thats been explicitly defined thus far. Currently, only clerics that follow deities/pantheons/philosophies that allow or require sanctification can be sanctified because they have the feature that says they can and no one else does. I would presume this will expand as new remaster books come out. For now, my in-universe explanation is that to be truly cosmologically aligned in the conflict, a person must choose to worship and study, and be recognized by their deity, but that’s definitely just me extrapolating a story element from the blank space.
Edit: missed some words
It's a class feature of the Cleric (and probably of the remastered Champion).
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG thank you!
Could you go over the revised death rules? Nonat made a video and it scared me.
@marcusviniciusdarosa6309 thank you!
Gameplay-wise, I don't mind the removal but regarding the flavor it is a bit sad. Most players I played with, rarely ever stuck to their alignment. Maybe in the first 2-3 sessions at bets. Even beginner players. And most of the players tend to play some sort of meta version of themselves with a bit of alignment based flavor. And you can do this even without specific alignment rules and restrictions. As for the latter, alignment was often just seen as a restriction/requirement for specific builds (at least in 3.5), and which was often entirely disconnected from the actual gameplay or the character's behavior.
I can't really evaluate if the new system is a bit to simplistic in general, having only holy and unholy. But not having to look out for 4 different damage variants that may or may not have any effect on a different alignment is definitely welcome.
A video explaining Stealth and Perception qre good but they never talk about Exploration activities Searching and Hidden in context that Searching Objects and Creqtures are two differend actions and based on old posti it is bot clear if you can seek hidden enemies as Exploratuon activity and how it would work.
For examples Jack is searching he is he going to find hidden enemies? Based on rules, no?
What if Tim is searching for Hidde Enemies? That wiuld require enemies to be hidden?
Thus can Tim search for hidden creatures while Jacknis searching Objects like Hazards and Traps as Exploration activities and if Goblins are laying in ambush would the encounter start before they walk in to ambush?
This is probably my favourite change, the alignment was always wonky, at least since 3.5 wich is the one I started with, im really glad that we get another way to define a character morality now!
So does this mean that the USA is HOLY, and Russia is Un-Holy? (That's a joke son from back in 1st ed when we joked how the USA say themselves and Good and Lawful, while we say Russia as Evil and Chaotic.
I'd rather see a sliding scale of alignment, a more of a 1st ed add (In one of the add on books) on rule I used of Fame, Heroism, Reputation. Do something good and Heroic, your reputation rose and you were treated better. Do something bad, it would fall and people did not like you
Can anyone answer me this: is there anything stopping you from taking an Edict that reads “behave in a good and lawful way” and an anathema that reads “behave in a chaotic or evil way.”
If you have issues with that, let me tell you something, you have issues with alignment as it was.
You still loose chaotic/lawful damage, which is fair enough, but you could easily house-rule those back in.
If your GM allows that, it's fair game.
@@eamk887 but does the GM even really have to allow it? It is non-mechanical. A lot of people keep winging about the non-mechanical things that are lost from loosing alignment, but what were those things besides what amount to a couple of overly broad edicts and anathema? What is stopping anyone from adding them back?
@@Vendavaleznothing, people are just scared of change and see alignment as something so foundational to ttrpgs that it shouldnt be touched. Despite the fact that it was a poor system from the start and has only become more and more vestigial over time
holy and unholy sounds close to the usual interpretations of good and evil, but I wonder if there's a way to play someone who is holy but would have had an evil alignment or who is unholy but would have had a good alignment........ hmmm..
Is there slime god in Pathfinder?
Now that the nine-tile twister mat is out the room, much more interesting stories can be told.
I wonder if gods could forge temporary alliances or swear enmity against certain other gods that lead to conflicts that can be resolved in a campaign with campaign-specific effects that come from aligning yourself with one side.
E.G. The greek gods had beef with each other all the time and let mortals duke it out for them. Same could work for the Golarionian gods.
This is true! So many god conflicts in D&D and Pathfinder so far have devolved into the conflict of these cosmic forces
Why did you have to show a picture of Aleena? That brings back sad memories of my childhood..... 😉
Most players are either too stupid or immature for the alignment system to work as intended.
A system of honor and karma that the GM applies to the players based on their actions and decisions works better and helps get new players used to role-playing.
I wish they had just added a trait for immune to spirit damage, instead of doing this vague "yeah the GM can decide what has a spirit or not"
I'm pretty sure there is not any holy or unholy damage, ONLY Spirit damage. Something like Holy Light is just saying you do extra SPIRIT damage against unholy trait creatures. But its still just Spirit damage. This makes me wonder if Monster Core will even have "weakness to holy" or if it will just leave the extra Spirit damage up to the spell or feature to state whether and how much extra damage it will do. Personally I like this idea, it sounds better and makes more sense. I don't like the idea that a demon is weak to holiness, or an angel is weak to unholiness. Narratively, I feel like an angel should be able to resist unholiness better! But there's a game consideration here where I think you want to be able to use these traits for more damage, not less. So I like the idea better that an angel isn't "weak" to unholiness, but instead the unholy sanctified creature is able to use the unholiness to sort of pierce the barrier of their Spirit harder. It's a very fine distinction and some may not see the distinction at all, but as a game consideration I like it better than demons being weak to good, which made no sense at all to me, ever.
playing for over 40 years. not shedding a tear for the loss of alignment. its been a problem for a LOONG time.
Can Nephilim gain the Holy or Unholy trait somehow?
No, they don't get the trait unless they are clerics and choose to sanctify themselves.
I wonder why it took them so much time, we played without alignment already in the 90s
your glasses are uneven. btw thanks for the video.
I am going to miss alignment especially for Deities. Short simple and too the point.
You talk about Clerics, but what about Champions? ⚔️
Champions are not in Player Core 1, they are in Player Core 2, which comes out next year.
🙏