TwilightKnight's page

...the implication is that people with high level characters are the ones who love the game is flipping arrogant

I don't think someone expressing an interest in more high-level options suggests that they are any more/less a lover of the game than those who prefer low-level content. Seems to be a rather large leap there. This isn't a zero-sum issue.

...y'all certainly have a right to your opinion (exclusionary and elitist as it is)

Yep, nothing like labels and insults when someone expresses a difference of opinion. Sheesh. There is no intent to exclude anyone, merely an attempt to promote more high-level play. There is nothing Machiavellian going on here.

...how many of the folks who share your fringe belief

No one, not even Paizo knows the distribution of the personal preferences of the community. They probably know what the authors/developers prefer since they are there and can be asked about it directly, but to suggest they know the predominant game-play preferences of the greater community is wrong. That data simply does not exist.

Years ago, tickets for the interactives were not sold by tier. You just bought a ticket and showed up with like 1,200 other people, waited in the hall and then within about 45 min or so you got seated. A few years ago, we changed from that model to selling tickets by Tier. And you should have heard the outcry: “That will never work!” “It will be too confusing!” “Why would you make such a change? Why not just improve the mustering process?” And the change was made and it WORKS.

This is a good point and an example of our demonstrative experience. We know from the past few years, at least those prior to the Covid issue, that if the community is given unrestricted access to a special, the largest interest (generally speaking) will be for levels 5-10. Often times, the lower tiers do not see significant registrations until they are the only ones left. Given the opportunity, the general player-base WILL gravitate towards mid-high levels for specials. The data is undeniable.

Will it work?

I am quite sure the new special will work. Players adapt to the options and if the options only include levels 1-6, then that is what they will do. At the end of the day, playing is almost always better than not playing but that is not the same as selecting based on preference.

The simple fact is that the restrictions to the level range for specials has nothing to do with player interest. It is primarily because of the challenge to producing specials and making it easier on the authors/developers. Secondarily, it will encourage new players, at least theoretically. There has never been an adequate analysis of whether or not specials actually do promote new player participation to any meaningful amount.

It is important to note that this change is not based on community preference, but campaign convenience. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. Having an appreciation for the challenges the authors/developers face is only right.

All I am suggesting is that there certainly is a significant portion of the community that would like to play high-level specials, someone will even prefer it. That is not to say there are people with the opposite preference, but given the current trend, we are only catering to the later and IMO that is not the "best" solution for the widest swath of the community. Again, this is not a zero-sum issue. Having a lower-level special does not mean we cannot have a higher-level special or vice-versa.

It is no secret that the specials with the widest level ranges are/were incredibly hard to pull off. Encounters that work at 1-4 do not at 9-12, and vice versa. Anyone who played in those knows first hand that low-level parties are primarily responsible for the success because they can resolve challenges so quickly. High level play simple takes longer and is rarely resolved in the time allotted. So, I can certainly agree with tighter level ranges. I just do not think it is the best solution to simply eliminate higher level play. We should be looking to provide special quality content, not at the expense of lower-level content, but in addition to it. I hope that the more restrictive special works in all the ways the staff want it to and that they take that experience and apply it to high-level play as well.

...to write an interactive special that actively prevents new players from participating is gatekeeping, plain and simple

Balderdash

I have never been one to suggest that writing/developing is easy (I am published and have worked with and observed a number contributors). Quite the contrary in fact. However, it IS true that the mid-high/high level content volume for PFS2 is lacking compared to what we have come to expect. The comments by staff seems to indicate that will continue to be true.

It is no secret that there is an ongoing emphasis on low-level content with the expectation that it will bring in new players. To be honest, this is a societal trend. Most companies that have a model that includes ongoing customer commitment cater to new subscribers and tend to diminish the ongoing value of existing customers, sometimes to the point of ignoring them completely. The idea is that it is a bigger hassle to change to the next available option than it is just sticking with what you know. There is a ton of psychological data supporting the concept. No, I am not suggesting that Paizo is ignoring higher-level content, but they certainly demonstrate a greater interest in acquiring new players, than maintaining existing ones.

If it is easier to produce content that covers a narrower level range, then I would encourage the production of two separate specials; one targeted for levels 1-6 as announced above, and the other targeted at something like levels 5-10, assuming you don't think there are enough characters approaching higher levels with the ultimate goal to cover levels 7-12. Yes, I realize it means adding another scenario to the schedule, but we are already seeing a couple/few months only getting one (instead of two) scenarios, so maybe drop one more and fill that slot with the second special.

The point is, don't underestimate the value of your most committed players possessing high level characters. They are often the ones most likely to be bringing in new players, GMing most of the games, and organizing events. Reward them by providing more gameplay options for their favorite characters. After-all playing our favorite characters in exciting adventures is what hooked most of us on RPGs in the first place. YMMV

I don't bother with replay tracking and would just replay. Its 1E afterall, so what difference does it really make? Though I admit I am not a fan of replaying and no longer play 1E so it doesn't much matter for me anyway.

Count me as another one disappointed with the lack of higher level tiers. We may/not be ready for 9-10 yet, but we certainly have a growing pool of characters for 7-8. I do not understand the logic that having fewer levels means "easier" organizing. The key to organizing is options, and having more tiers equates to more options. Specials are by their very nature, special. That means most players want to play them with an established character that they are invested in, not the next in a long line of new 1-2s because they are unable to play their higher levels. I hope you plan to offer A LOT of 5-6 tables at Gen Con.

Also, the numbering seems illogical. If the Pathfinder scenario is meant to be the end of season 3, why not either just call it 3-24 or 3-99. If it is meant to be a starting point for season 4, then why deviate from the accepted nomenclature that would call it 4-00? Based on the information available, just seems odd.

Keep in mind it's about players using weapons as improvised weapons ( it doesn't impact in any way TKP )

It does go to provide insight into how the designers view special materials vs runes which will help to determine their intent with telekinetic projectile

There is no reason for each metal to be its own trait because the precious trait already encompasses all the materials that the rules recognize as special. Anyone who says that the materials listed above are not special materials is factually wrong and intentionally ignoring explicit text. While I admit that the precious word does not appear under special weapons and armor that are specifically crafted from those materials, graystone already demonstrated examples of missing traits from the special weapons so using the listed trait as an exhaustive list is problematic at best. Despite all of that, no one as of yet can reasonably refute the very blatant and direct language for the precious trait that I have quoted upthread, but will one more time.

Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait

In no way is that unclear or ambiguous. Things like silver, cold iron, etc. are by definition special materials with special properties. They gain the precious trait no matter what form they are in: raw, armor, weapon, tool, whatever. From the perspective of RAW, there simply cannot be any question as to its impact on the spell. Telekinetic projectile by RAW does not conveyed special materials.

More importantly, who cares?!? No rule in this game is such that we cannot adapt it to fit the needs of our own campaigns. So what if some designer says, "no, you cannot do that?" What authority do they have at your gaming table? Many here clearly think that the spell should convey special materials, so LET IT! You are not required to follow the dictates of any keyboard warrior here in forumland.

The continuation of this argument is pointless unless your intention is simply to be argumentative for argument's sake.

I don’t see that in the text anywhere

Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.

Abysium, Adamantine, Cold Iron, Cold Iron Blanch, Darkwood, Djezet, Dragonhide, Grisantian Pelt, Inubrix, Mithral, Noqual, Orichalcum, Siccatite, Silver, Sovereign Steel, and Warpglass are all identified.

In case you want to "hear" the words directly from the proverbial horses mouth...Jason Tondro's Twitter

Seems there is still a lot of leaving Paizo primarily because of being grossly underpaid.

I'm glad that both Gen Con and Paizo have taken a firm stance on protecting the health of others.

It is interesting to note that a month or so ago, Gen Con's published stance was to leave masking to the individual. I read the rules when I bought my badge and again when I booked my hotel. At some point between then and now, they reverted to a mask mandate position. Given that most public places are relaxing their mask mandates, it is quite possible that Gen Con might change again between now and the actual show. If at the time of the show the city of Indianapolis doesn't have a mask mandate and neither do any of the restaurants or hotels or the mall, it might be meaningless for the actual convention to have one.

However, Paizo said (upthread) they were not planning to change their mask mandate even if Gen Con changes theirs. Though given Paizo's history, it would not surprise me if they changed their position and relaxed their mask mandate after the deadline dates for cancellations at Gen Con.

If the status of masking is a deal-breaker, we should have a fairly clear view of what to expect, though there is a greater than zero chance the rules will change.

cold iron traits

As graystone demonstrated, not all weapons list every trait that applies. Armor, weapons, etc. gain the precious trait by nature of being crafted from a special material as I quoted upthread.

...the spell causes the damage. The object does not.

Given the description of how the spell works, that is patently inaccurate.

You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target. Make a spell attack roll against the target. If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled..."

It is clear, by the description, the spell is merely the power of propulsion and the object is what is doing the damage, the type to be determined by the nature of the object.

Whether or not it affects a golem is a different argument for a different thread and I am not taking a position on that, but since the object is the source of the damage, its another example of it being reasonable for special materials to be conveyed to the target.

As clarity for those who may not have read all the text, I am in favor of telekinetic projectile conveying special materials against resistance/weaknesses and rule as such in my games. However, I am NOT suggesting that is the core rule. The spell specifically does not convey traits to the target and by rule, all special materials gain the precious trait. Therefore, it seems that the official ruling should be that the spell does not convey the special material to the target.

You are literally proposing that Holy Avengers and any other Cold Iron weapons don't trigger Cold Iron weakness to demons with this interpretation, thereby making Holy Avengers a worse weapon to wield against Demons than any other Holy weapon in the game.

What?!? The description of the Holy Avenger specifically says it is a "+2 greater striking holy [b]cold iron[/i] longsword." It is crafted from cold iron and would therefore count as cold iron vs resistances/weaknesses. The quote I listed above does not change that, if anything it reinforces it.

The comparison between Holy and Cold Iron is irrelevant since they do not interact. Holy does what it does regardless of the weapon's material construction. Cold Iron does what it does regardless of what property runes are applied.

At the end of the day, you rule it however you want to at your table and I will rule it however I want at my table. You are correct at your table (regardless of what I think) and I am correct at my table (regardless of what you think).

We already went over this; weapons, armor, and other objects made of special materials don't possess the Precious trait in their statblocks or entries.

Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.

Seems pretty definitive to me. Unless you want to suggest that special materials do not possess "special properties" when they are used in armor, weapons or other objects in which case, what was the point?

Silver is not a Trait and never was. It is something else...The technically correct answer for silver and TKP is that it applies.

Anything constructed of silver has the "precious" trait. Telekinetic projectile specifically says it does not confer traits. So, technically, no, it does not apply. However, many of us think it is reasonable for a chunk of silver hurled by the spell to confer the silver. This is not an issue of RAW, its an issue of RAI and how you feel about the text. Myself, I allow it to work, but I stop short of saying that it should be universally true.

I think he was referring to the thought that Gen Con might relax their requirements between now and then, but Paizo/Alex is indicating that they do not expect to even in that case. Gary has clearly expressed his dislike for masking and apparently will not participate in org play if there is a mask requirement.

Sheesh people, if you are worried about someone exploiting telekinetic projectile then just limit how much special materials you give out as loot. Pretty simple really. I'll never understand why GMs are so worried about players breaking the game when they can do whatever they want to correct it, up to and including simply saying, "well, I did not realize this was going to be over-powered when I previously allowed it, but clearly it is, so I'm shutting it down."

Personally, I am incline to allow it since it is incredibly difficult for spell-users to overcome resistances and take advantage of weaknesses. Doesn't seem very logical that if I pick up a chunk of silver from the ground and hurl it at a lemure using telekinetic projectile it will resist part of the damage, but if I throw it with my bare hand it'll ignore the resistance. I think in my games I would allow a chunk of special material hurled with telekinetic projectile to take advantage of any material weaknesses if the player is prepared to lose said item since at that point I would rule it is ammunition and therefore expended or it is consumed by the magic of the spell. Either way, its gone. In the long run its not very cost effective, but at least it gives them some options.

4 GMs in each room

Alex confirmed that if/when they assign GMs to a room, it will only be two. If there are three/four in a room it is because they requested it.

If we get to the point where Paizo is assigning rooms, they will be two to a room. You are free to voluntarily take up to four people in your room but we won't be assigning them that way this year.

We should have the Sag at full capacity...

You are assuming it was Paizo's decision to only book part of the room. It is possible the convention limited Paizo's footprint. The price difference between booking the entire room, and only most of the room is relatively minor, so there is really no reason for Paizo to choose to remain in the Sag (some of the most expensive floor space), but leave a little piece out for a competitor. Unless of course, its not a competitor, but a partner.

There's only 28 rooms which means 112 GMs...

No, it means there is space for 112 GMs who are at the room reward level. There are A LOT of GMs who volunteer for less than that level of reward so you cannot make a direct correlation between room vacancies and total GM headcount. Historically, the average commitment level for Gen Con GMs is just over five slots (roughly 1500 tables vs 300 GMs). That may/not apply to this year given the circumstances of the past two years, but until they process the volunteer applications, there is no way to know.

600 tables

So far I cannot find anywhere that leadership has posted the table counts. You are conflating hotel room vacancies to table seat counts which has never been a "thing." Table counts are determined by Gen Con, not Paizo, based on the size of the space. They provide a table floor map and Paizo can request some minor adjustments, but in the end it is determined by Gen Con and ICC. If Gen Con is going to increase the spacing between tables, there will be fewer tables in the Sag. If Paizo has to share the space, there will be fewer tables.

What I perceive...

You are certainly welcome to draw whatever conclusions you want, but at this time, we simply do not have enough information to jump to the conclusions you have made.

There is no reason to start getting persnickety at each other. If they don't require masks and you think they should, don't go. If they require masks and you think they shouldn't, don't go. Pretty simple really.

Does it need to be any simpler than Paizo feels that it is still in their best interest to require masking for the protection of their staff and volunteers? Just because state governments are relaxing their requirements, there are some who feel it is still premature and given that there will be a large group of international travelers in a confined area for an extended period of time, perhaps they feel it prudent to take additional precautions. YMMV

Personally, I am more interested in details like how many tables will be offered for each system and what "our portion of the Sagamore ballroom" means.

The most recent UPW Twitter thread from earlier this month.

Thank you for the link. I do not follow Twitter (or most other social media sites for that matter) and I imagine I'm not alone. Interesting that Twitter would have more up to date information than their own website.

These sources will always contain the most up-to-date information...

Does not seem so in this instance as it seems the UPW posted something on Twitter that was not present on their own website. Hence, the appearance of radio silence and the impetus of the inquiry.

So, its been more than three months since the last blog update by the UPW, much longer since Paizo shared anything meaningful. Has the UPW lost steam? Has their leadership been determined? Are they in active negotiations with Paizo?
Has Paizo successfully "weathered the storm" and returned to business as usual?

Is Paizo required to have an official public message on every global sociopolitical event that occurs? Do they need to make a statement about all the occurrences of malnutrition in the world? Do they need to have a public opinion on the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? How about the treatment of the Uyghurs in China? They are a relatively small nitch-product book publisher who's priority is to run their businesses. No reasonable person should be expecting them to take a stance on anything/everything, especially something that has virtually zero to do with their market, or at least anymore than any number of hundreds of other issues.

If I/you/we want to make personal declarations in support of an event that is meaningful to me/you/us and share ways we can make similar support, that is excellent and should be applauded. However, its not our place to choose for other people (individually or collectively) which global issues they will choose to get involved in or even have a public-facing opinion on.

Alignment is objective on Golarion

The alignment axis is objective, but what is included under the scope of each box is subjective. Almost no action (only the absolute extremes) is likely to be judged the same by all viewers. And we are rarely talking about or interested in the most extreme of actions which becomes more clear the more extreme they are. We generally concern ourselves with the much more nuanced of actions. If there actually was a Pharasma or an Asmodeus or an Imodedae, we could ask them and have an objective truth. However, we are always making assumptions about those entities as viewed through out own interpretations of morality.

The only real objective truth is that there is good and evil in the multiverse, but where along that line a particular action falls is subjective.

I really want the study of alignment on Golarion to be part of the natural sciences instead of magic research. I bet Rahadoum studies it as part of their anti-religion teachings and there's a conspiracy within the government about how close the country is to tipping into LE over its LN tendencies.

An adventure that could really lean into objective morality certainly seems like one that would be hard to make, given all the table variation we can expect.

While personally I would find this an interesting topic to approach, its probably better we steer clear of it. Ya know, that whole religion thing. It is incredibly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about fantasy morality and religion without drawing on real world understandings and beliefs in an attempt to find common-ground

And discrimination

Even moreso than the others listed, IMO we need to steer very clear of this one. Not in a general society sense (where it should be discussed), but within the scope of this game forum. It absolutely will lead to arguments and moderation.

Maybe. But the fiction of the setting has no such ambiguity. Actions are aligned. On Golarion, I can say X is Evil and be right regardless of anyone's opinion or beliefs.

Only if you are the GM. If you are a player and your evaluation differs from that of the GM, then you are in fact wrong within that context.

But here we are supposed to be talking about the setting, where Good and Evil are undisputed cosmic realities.

In theory, I agree, but the nature of the game leaves those undisputed cosmic realities to be adjudicated by the GM and therefore, by definition there cannot be undisputed realities. What is evil only exists within the scope of your game. It is not universally true in all games. Morality and alignment is way too nuanced for the designers to be all inclusive/exclusive in their descriptions. Hell, if you study the narrative of all RPG editions you will find contradictions within their own texts. Virtually everything has context/motivation that goes to the degree of which something is evaluated within the alignment system.

Surprised nobody's mentioned murder yet.

It is certainly an interesting topic, but probably deserves its own thread and is usually better discussed within the more general topic of killing. Any discussion of murder has to include the topic of motivation which is the crux of alignment assignment.

We have been arguing about this for more than fifty years and people continue to think they can resolve it. Not gonna happen. If anyone is making definitive statements about what is/not evil or what alignment is/not and thinks that their OPINION on the subject is the "RIGHT" one or is likely to be shared by a large enough majority to be considered prevailing is either naive or narcissistic. We all have our opinions about what is/not evil, how alignment is applied, etc., but those are just individual opinions. If someone tries to suggest that their opinion is a universal truth, they are wrong. Period. Saying, "I think <enter subject matter here> is evil" is true and perfectly reasonable. OTOH, saying, "<subject matter> is always and universally evil," is not true and can be insulting to others in your discourse. Especially in a fantasy world where our characters routinely perform and sanction actions that would be unacceptable in our real world.

The whole "we will torture the bad guy to get the location of the bomb in time to defuse it" is just a myth that people use to justify torture.

Except that historically there are uncounted times when it did work. If it never worked, it would be much less frequent. Course if it always worked, it would be even more frequent. Like most things, it is not absolute.

Torturing an innocent is probably always evil since there is nothing good that can come from it. However, if there is a bomb and only the subject of the torture knows how to resolve it and you get that information through torture which results in countless innocents being saved, I cannot classify that as evil. YMMV

The reason why it is generally detestable is that no matter how many times it does work, the one time you torture an actual innocent, you have lost your moral position. At least that is how it is generally judged. Similar to how capital punishment is evaluated. Even most people who are against the death penalty are not so because of the act itself. It is because we cannot guarantee that a mistake won't be made and an innocent is inadvertently killed due to human error, faulty science, etc. If we could guarantee only the "right" people were executed, chances are it would be used everywhere and only the most absolutely radical would oppose it on some other grounds (religious beliefs, etc).

We probably agree that torture is evil

Generally, yes. Universally, no. At least that's true if you believe in the adage the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Meaning that if the subject of your torturous efforts is aware of an impending evil, but refuses to prevent it, the question of using torture to forcibly extract that information becomes much less certain. Does an "evil" cease to be so if it benefits society? Kind of like killing is generally evil, but there are circumstances when it is arguably not evil (war, capital punishment, self-defense, etc). Course torture can become increasingly unreliable so its use is complicated. By the time you know if the extracted information is reliable, it might be too late to act on and then the torture becomes less justified. Like most things, there is enough nuance to have a blanket morality applied to it.

Gen Con has posted a "sold out" notice to the hotel portal, but if you keep looking (refresh) at it over time, numerous options are popping up periodically. They don't seem to stick around very long and they aren't within walking distance, but if you want to go, there are options. A lot depends on when you want to arrive and leave. Good luck!

Typical Gen Con. All the hotels downtown are sold out less than two hours into their staggered lottery. Very disappointing.

The standard response from Paizo regarding unannounced books has generally been something to the effect of "we do not currently have plans to produce such a book, but we are always considering our options and new ideas so it is possible we might do it in the future. We have nothing to announce at this time." Or essentially what was said above. They are not going to announce new books in a random forum thread and they virtually never discuss the release schedule beyond what has been announced. I would think that eventually they will get around to producing something akin to epic material, but its probably quite a ways off. If you need something immediately, your best bet is to use a combination of 1E Mythic rules as well as D&D 3E Epic rules and anything from 3PP as the foundation of a set of house rules for your campaign. Good luck!

If the numbers don't work or are meaningless than it's a waste of time and the devs failed.

If you expect a single, or even a narrow set, of numbers to meet the requirements of a game as complex and expansive as Pathfinder, then it is never going to meet the needs of most players.

IMO, all the math arguments fail because they do not take into account that the GM has full autonomy on setting the DCs. Whether you are a group of highly specialized PCs or pragmatic characters with a wide, general set of abilities, the GM can, and should adjust the campaign to meet the unique conditions of the PCs. This isn't an MMORPG. I find the math works just fine. For a game that is supposed to appeal to such a wide range of interests, it simply cannot be "perfect" for everyone. We have to be willing and able to vary the crunch or we will be unhappy a lot more often than not. Remember, the point of the game isn't to follow some rigid set of rules, it is to collectively experience an interesting story. If your rules do that, great. If not, you have an obligation to adjust them.

Now that Gen Con badges are on sale and the hotel lottery is in two weeks, any more word on the status of org play at the convention?

Short version: Eurogames have rock-solid mechanics first, then pad sme fluff around it, Amerigames are big on fluff, trying for mechanics to fit the fluff.

I am not familiar with the origin of most games to know there was even a difference. I know there are always exceptions to any rule, so my limited experience immediately points me to Games Workshop who is notorious for having poorly written mechanics that not only require extensive errata often before the rules are even published, but constantly release more rules that contradict or outright ignore existing ones that require even more errata. There are one of the worst examples of a power-creep system I can think of. Doesn't stop me from playing of course, just saying :-)

So yeah, D&D is based on christian mythology cross-bred with Tolkien mostly.

I wouldn't say 'mostly.' I find there is as much influence from such authors as Vance, Howard, Burroughs, even Lovecraft as there is Tolkien. While they are not usually referenced largely because they focused on SciFi rather than fantasy, the stylings of Asimov, Van Vogt, even Clarke and Bradbury can be found throughout RPG fantasy.

Welcome Ms. Gallagher! I truly hope you are a step in the right direction for Paizo. Please don't hold it against me/us if I am little more than cautiously optimistic. You see, Paizo has repeatedly conducted themselves poorly when it comes to employee and community relations and promised improvements that have not come to fruition. These issues stem from the very people responsible for hiring you. I hope you can understand how that is going to be looked at with a very critical eye. We are looking for action and results, not more promises. Good luck and best wishes for success!

dnjscott wrote:

...how do you feel about the ratio of rules to lore in the recent books? Feels like they are way more lore heavy

Are you distinguishing between the rulebook product line and the Lost Omens (setting) product line?

^^^THIS!^^^

I don't seen a reason we cannot have our cake and eat it too. The Rulebook line should concern itself primarily with game rules and I think it does that with just enough lore to tie the rules to the campaign world. This is important so we can better understand when/where the designers want their rules to apply. OTOH, the Lost Omens line is perfectly suited for lore, which by its very definition is campaign specific. This where we learn about the Who/what/why and get a smattering of rules based on the lore, like archetypes, backgrounds, etc.

While I am sure everyone has their own comfort level for what constitutes the "right" mix of crunch vs fluff, I think 2E has done an excellent job with that mix. YMMV.

Alignment damage...

is one of the things I dislike the most. Increasingly in org play, and even in my own home campaigns, players are discovering that selecting an alignment other than Neutral (unless you have to for rules reasons) is suboptimal. A character's alignment should be a reflection of their personality and actions, but because players have learned there are (to date) no neutral-specific damage traits, selecting anything else will lead to it being exploited by their enemies. As a GM, your only recourse is to "force" alignment changes based on your own evaluations of how a character is being played. If you always tell the truth, follow the rules, perform actions of self-sacrifice, do the right thing, etc. which is fairly common with heroic characters, you are much more LG than N and your "official" alignment should reflect that. However, I am loath to force players to play their character's MY way.

Personally, I like champions, clerics, etc and their connections to certain alignments, however an alignment system cannot work unless all of them are balanced for gameplay. One, or more cannot be patently better or worse than the others and the further away from neutral you get, the more punitive they are.

Thematically, I don't feel like "neutral" damage makes much sense given it is generally the lack of an emotional conviction which is at the heart of the non-neutral alignments. However, it is necessary to avoid the situation we currently have. Sure I can fix it with my own campaigns (and I will*), but I should not have to fix a fundamental imbalance in the game system. This isn't a math problem like so many of the game complaints that stem from the belief that something is better or worse than something else. This is a fundamental hole in the alignment system that should be addressed. YMMV

*I am still working through options, but I think the cleanest, easiest way to address this is to change the language of alignment damage to:
"Weapons and effects keyed to a particular alignment can deal chaotic, evil, good, or lawful damage. These damage types apply to any creature that lacks the alignment trait along the same axis. Chaotic damage harms lawful and neutral creatures, evil damage harms good and neutral creatures, good damage harms evil and neutral creatures, and lawful damage harms chaotic and neutral creatures."

Of course this does make neutral more susceptible to alignment damage, but I am okay with that because it means I don't have to create an entire "neutral" subcategory that I will have to remember to apply to an ever growing number of monsters. It also applies equally well for characters providing their alignment weapons and spells more utility. Although, because the neutrals are twice at risk, I might give them half damage to "balance" it.

I issue three Hero Points when my PCs level and one at the start of each game session (still capped at three). On average, we play bi-weekly for 3-4 hours at time. Also, since I believe that a heroic action (ie one influenced by a Hero Point) should never result in a worse result*, the player gets to chose which number to apply (generally the better one). Not only does this make a critical failure much less frequent, they also occasionally reroll a success hoping for a critical success without fear of failing. Seems to work very well for my two ongoing campaigns.

I like the Hero Point system because it allows all the characters (PC, NPC, monsters, hazards, etc) to use the same game system, while giving the players an edge over their challenges. They are, after all, supposed to be heroic and tell fantastic stories like those we read in fantasy novels and comics growing up.

*I have experienced way too many occurrences in org play of a failure becoming a critical failure through the use of a Hero Point. IMO, that is the exact opposite of what Hero Points are supposed to represent.

Global warming :-)

I allocated a nice big shelf to Pathfinder 2e rule books and adventure paths, and it's now full. You can stop publishing new stuff now, Paizo.

LoL. I long ago surpassed a "shelf." Between game books, novels, FlipMaps, and nicknacks I couldn't even devote a single bookcase to Paizo. I think I have a sickness and the only cure is more Pathfinder. :-)

Last three recent emails replied within 24 business hours. Very satisfied with recent trending.

Pathfinder Wiki was never really focused on the crunch, moreso an archive of the fluff. If you want rules, consult the Archives of Nethys. However, the wiki is an excellent source of narrative when you have to remind yourself about who/what some name or place is that you read in a description. For example, while prepping an AP for my home campaign, I occasionally run across a obscure deity with whom I am not familiar. One quick peek at the wiki gets me a ton of useful information that I can 'take it or leave it'. The same can be said of towns and villages. Sometimes they received a wider workup in somepast product. The Wiki summarizes the information and gives you the original source. It might not always be updated perfectly for 2E, but in many cases the narrative remains the same between the editions. IMO, for a GM, the wiki is the 2nd most important saved link after AoN. YMMV

Sad to see Mark go, but glad for his new opportunities. In my experience Mark is among the smartest human beings I have ever met. In his presence, I am always in awe of how quickly and creatively his mind works. And if that is not enough, he possesses a pure and kindly soul that radiates friendship to whomever he speaks. Truly an amazing person. Best of luck to you, good sir!

Batman...

is the perfect example of where the alignment system breaks down and why it needs to be more of a broad way to guide ethics and morality, not a rigid system of putting things or creatures in a box.

Unfortunately, we have aspects of the game like "this applies vs evil" or champions and their (perceived) rigid alignment restrictions that force us to use alignment in ways it is not really prepared to. IME, the only time alignment discussions work is when you are evaluating a specific event, knowing all the related factors. Hypothesizing just doesn't work. There is virtually nothing that can be rigidly classified as always good or always evil. You'll always find people who will say, "yes, but what what..." even in cases like burning down an orphanage.