I'd say that infusing some is a good idea. For instance, something I felt was missing in the Pathfinder Core book was an overview of the deities. I know it lists their names, alignment, favored weapons, and domains, but what was missing was a prion of them and what they stand for and their relations to one another with pictures of their holy symbols like that small chapter in the D&D 3.5 PHB. My players never felt any connection to the deities of Golarion and it's jarring when we play APs. We only just recently picked up the relevant Inner Sea books to fill us in.
Something I loved about Pathfinder First Edition was the compatibility with 3.5 D&D. My group jumped in without skipping a beat and it was interesting to see how Paizo went about fixing the problems compared to our own houserules document (we were hit and miss). With very little effort monsters and classes could be ported and it felt like my investment in D&D 3.5 was well worth it, whereas WotC was busy burning down their campaign settings and doing their best to invalidate everything to get us to buy it all again (that was my opinion at the time).
Some may say the Pathfinder is bloated now, but in 10 years they didn't even come close to burying us in playbook like 3.5. Paizo is straight with their customers and have always provided excellent services. My group is planning to test when the Beta comes out, but without that easy backwards compatibility I probably won't a supporter of anything but adventures, where you just swap out monsters and loot, and what GM doesn't love rolling loot for their players?
I don't know what Paizo is on about. That system is neither simple or easy to understand.
They mentioned fixing the "action economy problem." Are they aware the problem with the action economy is that combat usually lasts only a round or two because the PCs generally get more actions than the monsters? Paizo seems to think the problem is people don't understand how actions work.
Everyone gets a Move and Standard action a round. They may sacrifice a Standard action for another Move action, or sacrifice both actions for a Full-round action.
The change I would make to the system for 2nd Edition is to explain the system better in the Core Rules, remove Swift and Immediate actions, and re-word old effects that were swift or immediate to limit their use (so a Wizard with Quickened spells can't spell dump them in a single round).
*Stands before the shelves of D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st Edition books*
Well, old friends, we stand upon the edge of war once again. Ten years of peace and prosperity in our realm since Paizo saved us from defeat at the hands of 4th Edition. Much has changed since then. We have grown, we have prospered, we have flourished. We watched 4th Edition burn itself down from the safety of Paizo's walls. We watched with hope as 5th Edition launched and grew.
We knew peace for so long, we forgot what we fought for in the first place. But I did not, and it nears time for this old soldier to don his armor once more and put the enemy to the sword. Only this time the enemy is from within rather than without. Comrade against comrade, brother against brother.
Out of respect, we will share our tales of grand adventure and share an ale before the 2nd Edition Beta hits and we become locked in combat over game systems and rules.
I have a friend who is a good DM, but has houseruled Pathfinder so heavily that it almost feels like a different system. We don't get to play that often but when we do I feel lost, because I generally use enjoy RAW.
Some house rules are fine, especially to blanket fiat stuff that doesn't make sense (it takes 10 rounds to take off a chain shirt?), but there comes a time when it's too much.
For tabletop RPGs I keep non-dead characters in their own folders. When they die I write a short two paragraphs or so chronicling their adventures and how they died and move them to a binder labeled "the graveyard."
All of the individual miniatures in my Imperial Guard WH40K army have names and some have developed character traits if they survive more than one battle. Miniatures who "die" get new names and I have an ongoing journal of the history of my regiment.
In the Kingmaker game I am a part of, my paladin of Sarenrae could be viewed as evil by those outside of the kingdom he serves.
He is a firm believer in the law and maintaining order in the country. He fights dealing non-lethal damage with a club in an attempt to capture, and only draw his sword against mindless, instinct-driven, or irredeemable foes.
He offers his captured foes an opportunity for redemption, else they be punished by the law of the land. Seeing as the party makes those laws, there's a lot of death penalties and imprisonment without trial. That can be viewed a fairly eveil, even though he does what he does because he believes it is in the best interests of the people he judges.