EXPLANATION of what replaces ALIGNMENT in the Pathfinder 2e Remaster! (Spirit Damage, Holy, Unholy) 

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 time 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!

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.

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.'

Big fan of the image you used when talking about the example of a creature unaffected by a player's allignment damage.

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 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.

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.

this was very helpful because moving over is alot of confusion. as a gm i really need the monster core!

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.

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....

I wouldn't be surprised if the Remastered Bestiary would suggest adding holy/unholy traits rather than enforcing it.

I think I will still use alignment as a flavor item, without it having any mechanical relevance ingame.

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.

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.

The “Four Essences” are explained best at the beginning of secrets of magic, if you have that book.

Using 83' red box art for cleric in the holy/unholy section is... chef's kiss. Just fantastic.

13:00 Really technical nomenclature note: The universe is what was previously called the material plane. All the planes together make the multiverse.

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.

This was remarkably clear and timely, Ron. ❤ Thank you.

"We are building a revision, an incremental edition, we are now accepting callers for these variant covers!"

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 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.

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.

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?).

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.

I have a question. How did those Hell Knights fellows ended up in this new system?

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 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.

Interesting! Will have to look into this later, brain need sleep

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.

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.

Wait, how do axis and malestrom even exist? Law vs chaos is an essential part of them.

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.

For me the easiest house-rule for Alignment Damage was that it affects every creature that doesn't share the particular alignment of the damage, meaning that being neutral instead of making you immune to all alignment damage, made you susceptible to all alignment damage, which was an easy fix for the problem of true neutral being the "best" choice.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice video. I've got a question what happends to champions reactions? Because if I'm not mistaken that depends on alignment

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?

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 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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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’.

Could you go over the revised death rules? Nonat made a video and it scared me.

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 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?

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.

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

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.

Video released just in time for dinner! Tonight we feast!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I always thought that since D&D was stepping away from alignment, PF2 should lean more into it

Neat

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?

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'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.

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..

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

Why did you have to show a picture of Aleena? That brings back sad memories of my childhood..... 😉

Time for the holy undead to rise.

Is there slime god in Pathfinder?

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.

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.

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

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.

I am going to miss alignment especially for Deities. Short simple and too the point.

So my takeaway from this is I can yell "FIRE ZE MISSILES!" at my party Cleric?

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?

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.

Can Nephilim gain the Holy or Unholy trait somehow?

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.

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.

You talk about Clerics, but what about Champions? ⚔️

All stabbing damage should be hole-y. Thank you, I will let myself out.

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"

Didn't see this in the discussion and wonder how things will be handled in the future bestiary books - if no alignment is mentioned a gm could easily go "hmm this unicorn thing seems like it would be cool to fight". and now we have some classically good creatures be evil in effect? what about the GM would feels it would be cool to have a troll guard who loves people? are we just avoiding classic fantasy tropes now to allow anyone to be anything? not sure how one will choose which new monsters to use as the world as I see it would have some standard behaviors for actual creatures that are different types entirely from humans (where the word race makes more sense)

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.

your glasses are uneven. btw thanks for the video.

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.

Interesting, so this doesn't bar a Holy following Cleric from casting Unholy spells *out right*. Know that an Unholy spell could possibly save the day? Are you willing to sacrifice your connection to your god?

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

Comment for the algorithm

Throwing nukes at demons while listening to Sabaton