Wyran Tegus's page

Interesting idea.

Is this PC older and not human? Officially, Eros Glendower lived centuries ago. So if you want to keep with the timeline of how he's been "dead" for centuries while Dagio has been running the Forgotten Archives area, this landlording would have happened a long time ago.

Alternatively, if you want the events to have been recent, that requires a lot more shuffling and rewriting. Everything in the Forgotten Archives points to it having been mostly abandoned for centuries. If Eros and Dagio are recently in this predicament, all of the clues to the ancient events don't make as much sense.

I would recommend keeping the events of the change centuries ago while saying that Eros eventually reintegrated into society under a new identity. (Maybe a dip into vigilante for the Guise of Life social talent?) Rather than kicking your character's alchemist out to perform the initial ritual, maybe there is another ritual that he wanted to perform more recently. (Look into the Occult Rituals. Maybe Eros found a ley line running underneath your PC's old shop.)

If you haven't already done so, read over the future books. There are already vampires to face, so bringing that up too early could lessen the impact later. There are also already so many organizations and claimants to the throne (and most of those are barely discussed). A rival cult to the big bads could get messy. I'm also not sure about the revenge angle: if he became a vampire, then he succeeded in his goal of immortality, and the Immaculate Circle likely could have invited him into the Inner Council. If they refused, you'd need to come up with a compelling and consistent reason for the refusal.

Here's an idea from my campaign. In Book 4, the party travels to a few different towns on their way to Zimar. In one of these (Ortalaca), I have a brief plot involving a cabal of Baetriovs trying to induct a new sister into their cabal. They task the PCs with tracking down a local vampire (a vigilante and piano player who I'll portray as sympathetic) that they can sacrifice as part of their ritual. The cabal has most of their victims already, but will plan to bring the now-weakened PCs in as the final victims. Rather than tying this directly to the Immaculate Circle, it will be another thematic hint along the way while the party continues to discover more about the secret society.

The Valley of the Azlanti would be a *major* departure from the main adventure. Very cool location, but far from all major points of action. If you're not keen on one of the future books, you could write up something, but there's minimal support there.

A few questions regarding the night hag witches, Illumia and Magilla.

I recognize that Paizo shuffled around their base night hag feats, but shouldn't they still functionally have Alertness because of their familiars? Their stat block seems to assume that Glimpse and Whisper are not with them, although having their familiars would boost their Perception and Sense Motive by +4 each. (Not having the +9 Appraise, or blocks for their familiars, or the at-will feather fall, or the 1/day levitate are smaller problems, but eh.)

My larger concern is the Ability Focus (slumber) feat. Illumia and Magilla have the base night hag's deep slumber spell-like ability, which is listed as having a DC 18 save (which seems accurate at baseline given their +5 Cha for a 3rd-level spell). Three things here:
1) Is this Ability Focus accounted for anywhere in the stat block? Because I'm not seeing any DCs higher than would be expected.
2) Wouldn't Ability Focus only apply to Special Attacks? I have seen some argument about whether Ability Focus could apply to a Witch's Hexes, with the argument that it's one of the only ways to increase the Hex DC.
3) By the time the PCs have the option of facing these night hags, they will be Level 12, and so the spell Deep Slumber won't affect them at all. If they had the Slumber Hex, they could affect a PC, but Illumia and Magilla do not have that hex. So this seems like a dead feat.

I'm ready to do one of two things: either drop the tongues hex to pick up the slumber hex and call the Will DC 20 for 10 + 1/2 class level + Int + Ability Focus, or arbitrarily declare that the deep slumber SLA can affect the PCs at 12 HD and has a Will DC of 20. I know that not everything has to be optimized, but I'm just trying to figure out the design in here.

Does anyone else have a different read on this stat block?

Are you a player or a GM? If the former, ask your GM. If the latter...

Folding Plate Armor has a cost breakdown of:
Full Plate: 1,500 gp
Masterwork: 150 gp
+1 Enhancement: 1,000 gp
Special (Instant Summons): 10,000 gp

I think it's fair to call "Folding" a special ability like Delving or Putrid (straight-cost upgrades of 10k). So future armor upgrades should go up through the typical incremental fashion prescribed in the Core Rule Book. At least that's how I'd do this at my table.

A quick bump. Monster advancement is messy, especially with a size advancement, added HD, and other boosts on top. Did I do this with any semblance of accuracy, and is my CR approximation close?

The Side Quest Inn has been doing a 2E Conversion. It's an actual play podcast. I'm sure Toby would be willing to share some tips.

As far as I can tell (they're nearing the end of Book 2), they cut most of the Influence system, ditched the Persona system, and ignored the mechanics of Rebuilding Stachys (along with the trials in Book 2). That might have been because they didn't think it would make for good radio, or because the conversion may have felt messy. They're also ignoring the relics, though that could be because the group hasn't satisfied the conditions to find most of them.

I am preparing to run the 4th book in the War for the Crown AP, which includes a creature called the Hyaleth, a CR 10 aberration. The entry in the book gives information about advancing the base creature to a Hyaleth Queen by advancing the size from Large to Gargantuan, adding +8 to all of its mental abilities, and adding *at least* 5 HD. I think I have done that fairly well, but I'm trying to figure out 1) if I advanced it correctly, and 2) what the approximate CR of this monstrosity is.

The base creature can be found here, along with the advancement guidelines.

Before even getting to the two feats I could add to the creature, it looks to me like it might be CR 15 or 16 (comparing to other aberrations and looking at the Monster Advancement rules). I don't know if I should post a whole statblock, but here's my summary of what Large --> Gargantuan, adding 5 HD, and advancing its mental scores by 8 each did:

- Str +16 [and +1 at 16 HD] [Str 38]
- Dex -2 [and +1 at 20 HD] [Dex 14]
- Con +8 [Con 26]
- Natural AC +7 [AC 27]
- Base Attack Bonus +3 [BAB +15]
- Base Fort +1 [Fort +16]
- Base Reflex +1 [Reflex +8]
- Base Will +3 [Will +18]

In summary, Initiative +6, Perception +29, AC 27, Touch 9, Flat-Footed 24, HP 250 (20d8+160), Fort 16, Reflex 8, Will 18, BAB +15, CMB +33, CMD +46, Engulf DC 34, Poison DC 28, Sting +26 2d8+14 plus poison & probe intellect, 3 Tentacles +24 2d6+7 plus grab, Str 38, Dex 14, Con 26, Int 20, Wis 22, Cha 19

(I put its new skills in Intimidate and Knowledge (arcana, dungeoneering, history), while keeping its existing skills at full.)

So I have two questions:
1) Did I advance this creature correctly? I'm most concerned about the size adjustment.
2) What is the CR of this abomination? Am I right in my initial guess of ~15/16?

I'm trying to figure out whether it would even be reasonable to insert this creature into the sewers of Yanmass or if it would unceremoniously murder my players if they tried to attack it. The book already has a built-in CR 13 gargantuan aberration that they aren't *intended* to fight, but if I know my players, once they discover the sewers they'll want to explore. I've grown fond of the hyaleth as a creature and I could see a little diversion for a monster hunter in the party. So I want to make sure that I'm getting this right instead of slapping something together haphazardly. Then, if anyone else is interested, I would be happy to post the full stat block once I finalize it.

I'm going to second the thanks, Trichotome. These are great additions. If my group hadn't already overhauled the system in our own way, I'd advocate for this.

My group used the Persona system fairly unmodified for about half of Book 2. As we started approaching 5 ranks (enabling a bonus feat), we made our first change. As a group, almost everyone was trying to max out Charm or Subterfuge because Persuasive and Stealthy seemed far better bonus feats for the campaign than Brilliant Planner, Diehard, Dazzling Display, or Insightful Advice. Rather than replace them entirely, we expanded the list of possible bonus feats granted at 5 ranks in each Facet:

Heroism: Acrobatic, Athletic, or Dazzling Display
Subterfuge: Deft Hands or Stealthy
Sacrifice: Diehard, Nature Soul, Self-Sufficient, or Street Smarts
Genius: Brilliant Planner, Magical Aptitude, or Prodigy
Sagacity: Animal Affinity, Alertness, or Insightful Advice
Charm: Deceitful or Persuasive

We basically assigned the 2-for-1 bonus feats to a facet that seemed more or less appropriate. Being able to swap the bonus feat out for each persona phase has also made for great flexibility if we knew what was coming next.

---

We kept that for most of Book 3 before we reevaluated the system again. The higher-skill characters (Bard, Inquisitor) were near max ranks, while the lower-skill characters (Cleric, Brawler) were pretty much capped out at half. None of us minded the disparity, but it felt strange to say that this group that had been traveling together had vastly different reputations when most of what we did was essentially the same.

We were also treating the system as another element to maximize rather than doing what our characters would actually do. My Bard, for instance, is definitely a charmer, but how many damn parties can he throw? I tried to mix things up by driving legislation or arranging secret meetings, but the actions to develop persona always felt tacked on and shoehorned in. He was also developing Sagacity because Sense Motive was covered by Versatile Performance and was far higher than any of his Subterfuge options, even though storywise he was disguising himself and infiltrating noble houses, meetings, cults, etc. (I would love to say that we could avoid the crunch and metagame and avoid system mastery in favor of storytelling, but the system as written seems designed more in favor of crunch.)

We also felt that the Operations were mostly useless, with either impossible DCs (an opposed Sense Motive check against a BBEG? Come on) or effects that PCs could easily do more effectively. Sure, little bonuses can be nice, but when given the option between an Operation or an opportunity to develop persona, we almost always chose to develop unless the GM said that it was Operation time. And even then, we started making up our own Operations based on what was actually happening in the story, like coordinating efforts to smuggle a high-value target out of town. The GM set the DC, and then we rolled. We enjoyed that far more.

The last issue that we had was that there became too many agents to keep track of. Either the player treated their agents as faceless, nameless peons who, if they were lost in the shuffle of the story no big deal (shattering immersion), or the player had spreadsheets and documents with 20+ NPCs that they (and the GM) would have to refer to if they were doing something. It became unmanageable.

---

We have since fully overhauled our approach to the Persona system. Starting off, everyone automatically progresses their Persona at the same rate based on actions they have taken in the story. [2 Starting end of Book 1, and 6 total for each Book, approximately 2 each section.] "Developing Persona" is essentially gone, now used as a guideline for how to frame our actions. When there is downtime, we might still throw a party or organize a protest, but those specific things only happen when they make sense rather than being an "It's time" moment. The GM and players discuss what they have done and agree on how their reputation has grown. Rather than maxing out specific facets because they match the skills we have, we now have a more diverse portfolio. (My Bard still has max Charm, but now Subterfuge has rightfully replaced Sagacity, and he has Genius in third place.)

Then, instead of a database of minor NPCs, each PC has an agent that serves as their primary contact for each facet for which they have at least 2 ranks. No longer does the party roll in to each new town with a caravan of over 100 people. Instead, they travel with 2-3 close agents drawn to their cause who embed themselves in the community and draw on local contacts to develop a network of people they can call on when directed. The GM can now use one of these NPCs to deliver information, and if something happens to that NPC it has a greater impact on the player.

Finally, this puts the emphasis of Persona back on Operations. While the Operations as written still exist, we now proceed with them in a more narrative sense. If there is something that we as players want to do that might be difficult for the PCs to do alone, we request an Operations phase to do it. The GM uses existing Operations as a guide to call for a given facet and set a DC, and everyone seems happier.

[There's more as well. We implemented a system where we have Facet Ranks, but we add 1/4 of the total number of facets we possess (rounded down, and capped at our character level) to have the "Effective Facet Rank". Then we expanded the max effective facet ranks to 15, adding a few abilities that should prove useful while allowing for a bit more scaling for Operations checks. I can share that if anyone is interested, but I'll admit it's a bit messy right now.]

Everyone else answered the crux of this: two bards can't both Inspire Courage/Competence to have them stack, and the teamwork feats to enable stacking are just bad. Archetypes are the best solution, but it's the kind of bonus that matters. A great strategy is to have a vanilla bard (or at least one that doesn't replace Inspire Courage) and a Court Bard. One buffs the party, while the other debuffs the enemies.

The Archivist's Naturalist would also be a nice, stacking complement. I'm less a fan of the Daredevil, Detective, Magician, or Street Performer's replacements, but they would (mostly) stack as well. You could have an all-bard party with an interesting mix of ongoing buff/debuff abilities that could succeed.

Just focus on the bonus type and check the core rule book on whether that type of bonus stacks with itself or not (they usually don't stack).

Book 2 is very sandboxy, but I don't think it really warrants exploration in that sense. Meratt County seems fairly well-charted, with roads and signage (however poorly maintained). Our group stuck to the roads except on one or two occasions for the duration of the book, and it still took us almost a year to get through the book. (We also had almost no random encounters.) I can see the merits of hexploration, but there's already plenty to do, especially if the group leans in on the roleplaying and semi-kingdom-building-lite of Stachys.

The best use of hexploration imo is if they really want to explore the Void Wood, Lionsmane Forest, or the Beggarwood. If you want to throw in some of the extraneous locations (Cascina, Ralthorn Manor) and let them stumble on them as a result of exploration, that could be fun. (I built up Ralthorn Manor as a location, and I still hope the group eventually decides to go there.) But the idea that Lotheedar, Pensaris, Moost, Voinaris, Stachys (and even Sotto, Jambis, or New Towne) would require any more than just following the roads seems a strain on credulity at the least.

You could make your own, of course, but someone has already done the legwork: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/aqntdo/i_made_a_hex_map_of _taldor_for_my_war_for_the/

Bonuses for good roleplaying is always good! Sure, not everyone is great at improv, but rewarding strong effort makes a difference in players' attitude towards RP.

Pooled checks are also viable-ish, but I like making it so that anyone who participates can aid, and the person with the highest bonus can roll. I also like to call for checks rather than letting people just tell me what they want to roll, like Quixote was talking about.

Extra skill points is a fair idea, but spending them on social skills is liable to make everyone's character sheet look about the same. I'm a fan of the Background Skills set, which opens enough skills that aren't frequently rolled but flesh out a character that players feel a bit more free to spend skill points elsewhere. Especially if a player invests in something like one of the non-monster knowledges or a profession, it feels good to reward them with opportunities to flex those.

Further, I'm a big fan of failing forward. It can feel frustrating to a player when they make a passionate, logical, convincing argument and roll a 2 on the die, missing the DC hard. Rather than having a heinous reaction, the NPC might lose interest in the subject, make a counteroffer, whatever. But the plot progresses forward, just in a way that maybe they didn't anticipate. It's like having a Climb DC that one PC just can't pass when climbing is the only way to progress to the next part of the dungeon. Do you have them fall forever until they give up and leave the party and the dungeon, or do you have their failure trigger a swarm of bats in the cave to make things more difficult for a bit? Treat their social checks like this: reward creative thinking and roleplaying, but have consequences for failure that enrich the experience and nove the story forward.

Lots of people have already mentioned Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses, etc., so I'll add Shadows of Fear.

If you're going with alchemist and don't care as much about bombs, the vivisectionist archetype gets you sneak attack. The fun synergy with this and shatter defenses is that if they're shaken, you get sneak attack on every attack in a round. However you get them demoralized, you attack and Shadows of Fear gets you sneak attack on the first hit. Shatter Defenses makes them flat-footed, so you get sneak attack the rest of the round and then every round after that.

I'll second Dreadful Carnage, too. Gory Finish is basically the same thing with different requirements. You'll be downing enemies with your piles of damage and be ready to hunt down everyone else on the battlefield.

Since Violent Display is technically only available to weretigers and their kin, Frightening Ambush is another option for high initiative shenanigans. It feels less useful overall, but ymmv.

My campaign has been running with 3 characters since near the beginning of Book 2 (the fourth wasn't feeling the campaign, and we couldn't recruit anyone else). We just finished Book 3. PC deaths since reducing the party to 3 have been relegated to niche circumstances: drowning and a massive crit. (We actually had a TPK in Book 1 with 4 party members, so ymmv.)

Option 1: Increasing the number of social rounds is a great idea. However you increase it, make it equivalent so that three could do as much as the four originally slated.

Option 2: Six characters would probably be overkill, though, and playing two characters makes roleplaying difficult.

Option 3: Our GM has actually been increasing the difficulty curve as time has gone on by: throwing out tactics as written, throwing on advanced templates, etc. But our group is fairly power-gamey, so we have a great chance at solving most encounters, and we like more of a challenge. (We are also 3 characters getting the loot of 4, so we're remarkably well-equipped for our level.)

The early combat encounters in Book 1 are a great time to see how the players handle themselves. If the difficulty seems like too much, you can reduce the number of enemies, throw on CR-reducing templates (Degenerate and Young), or nerf the enemies' tactics. (I like throwing on templates more than reducing levels, because reducing levels requires you to basically rebuild the monster.) Another possibility is staggering when enemy combatants join the fray. A chained encounter where they don't have time to heal up in between is a lot like the full CR, and it can lead to some memorable moments of "Wait, there's more of these things?!"

Most encounters will be about one CR higher for a party of 3 (not exactly, but CR is more of an art than a science). For instance, the 2 CR 2 Walcofindes are a CR 4 encounter for a presumably APL 2 party, so a reasonable but by no means insurmountable challenge. For three Lv2 characters, it's functionally a CR 5 encounter. But removing one of the Walcofindes makes it like a CR 3 encounter for the party of 3. It's the same if you slap on either of the CR-reducing templates, but having two monsters keeps things a bit more even in terms of action economy.

Have all options on the table. If you start out with the Walcofindes as written and it seems like the party is *struggling*, have the CR-reduced statblocks on hand and substitute them in as a deus ex machina to save them from dying in their first combat. Or start them with one and then have the second surprise them on round 3 or 4. You'll get the feel for the party's capabilities fairly quickly and be able to tailor things appropriately for them.

Check out the GM's Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGj BMDg/edit#heading=h.i37vh18ldah9 for the Math behind CR. I'm a big fan of this document for when I GM.

Yes, it's called Fast Change. It's in the Blood of the Moon book, where (almost) everything skinwalker comes from. It reduces it to a move action, but requires 13 Dex and +6 BAB.

I'll echo the idea that feat consolidation should resemble vigilante talent scaling. When my group was trying to rebalance our game, the major theme of our discussion was that felt that feats ought to grow more over time. Dense feat trees that build off of feats that grant piddly, non-scaling bonuses are disappointing and mean that your build probably doesn't come online for a significant portion of gameplay.

We did a dive into the Style feats and proposed a system for the Styles to remain BAB/level-gated, perhaps with some additional prerequisite feats, but otherwise not requiring the three-feat sequence to pick up mastery. That way it resembles something like the Magic Trick feats.

We also maxed HP like 2E. Combats last longer and are less rocket-taggy.

The last thing that we started doing (but haven't finished) is restructuring the different playable races so that they're closer to 10 RP. I wanted to build an Aasimar Bard and gave up Celestial Resistance to be closer to the rest of the party from a power perspective.

To be honest, Unchained is kind of already 1.5, or at least on its way. Between the four primary class fixes, the Revised Action Economy, and a bevy of optional rules (Background Skills, Automatic Bonus Progression, Skill Unlocks, Variant Multiclassing, etc.), there are a lot of helpful systems.

As always, I'll plug the Elephant in the Room feat tax system. My group used that heavily when devising our own fixes. Consolidating combat maneuvers into three broad categories (Grappling, Powerful, and Deft) has turned PCs (and NPCs) into multi-trick ponies. Combats have gotten much more interesting than the usual full-attack shenanigans.

My group is playing through War for the Crown and making heavy use of the Persona system, which grants you a bonus feat once you have 5 ranks in a facet. Unfortunately we found some of the bonus feats lacking. We didn't do away with the base options, but we opened it up so that these two-for-one feats became possible bonus feat options. Since you can swap that bonus feat with each persona phase, being able to boost a skill when you know you're getting into a particular situation has been super helpful.

While it's always fun to look for mechanical ways to do things within the rules (and the other posters have given some great ideas), you can basically do whatever you want as a GM (within the bounds of table fun). Find a monster that you want to throw at them that feels thematically right, but describe it as clearly being your pestilent sorcerer. You have the stat block behind the GM screen; the players only know what you reveal to them.

Outside of Raise Dead and Animate Dead, already more or less mentioned, Reincarnate is another fun option. They could come back looking completely different, and could even infiltrate the party in their new body before a later reveal.

Templates are also a fun thing to look at adding on. This is a list of some of the undead templates. https://forums.giantitp.com/archive/index.php/t-423767.html

Another fun avenue could be being rewarded as an outsider. Maybe his deity recognized his potential and exalted him as a Leukodaemon. At CR 9, that wouldn't be something you'd want to bring around a party that just killed a Level 5 Sorcerer for a bit, but it would be a portent of deeper villainy.

Juicy. As I recall, Lady Sittas is pure background, so there's no precedent holding you back. She does not come from not a major noble family named in any other Paizo publications. Just a generic Noble Scion. I'd recommend using her death to point to something that the players have missed, or to foreshadow coming events (preferably in Book 2). Invent her place being from the lands of either Lotheed, Telus, Crabbe, Voinum, or Okerra to add some depth to their interactions with the next-up noble. You can make your players regard their major neighbors in interesting ways depending on the noble's reaction. For instance: was she the last remaining noble to hold sway in the Telus barony? Maybe the bandit attacks get worse and Baronet Vort bemoans her loss. Was she a lazy troublemaker in the Voinum barony? Maybe her grace the legate is extra gruff and seems mildly pleased in her veiled way. Maybe a friend of Sepsinia Crabbe? Amp up that tragedy

I think the intent of the tournament is to have nonlethal damage only, but (rules?) 31 nonlethal damage from a mounted lance charge might be enough for the poor Lady. But if you don't want to create a new thread for them to follow in this sandbox, she should be alive.

The build looks solid. You might wish you had some Dex, but the only thing I could see switching would be the Wis, and it's a near-negligible difference. But: you have good Will saves and poor Reflex saves, most of your attacks will probably be ranged, and you have no AC bonuses. Dex is probably more important for you than Wis.

You will definitely be relying on social skills more than in some (maybe even most) APs, but there is also a good bit of combat and problem-solving. I'll second that purchasing additional spells could be useful for increasing your utility. If your party lacks a divine caster, you have the Cha to invest in Use Magic Device. But your spell list is comprehensive enough that you'll probably be able to use most of what you find/need. It is also almost always a strong choice for the party to pool together resources and get a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, but you might not have enough for that.

Pass for Human is an interesting feat. If you're using that for your backstory (the disgraced noble and all), that's all well and good. There are numerous chances to use Disguise if you want to. But half-elves are also treated reasonably well in Taldor, especially if they're nobles, so you don't *have* to hide the elven heritage.

I do like Adaptability and Keen Senses, but it sounds like Integrated and Wary fit your concept better. More social skills is a solid choice.

Might I recommend the Armored Kilt, Haramaki, or Silken Ceremonial Armor, with +1 Armor bonus, no armor check penalty, and no arcane spell failure chance. You can use them without proficiency and suffer no penalties. It's not much, but it's something. Mage Armor would also be a good investment.

Even if you'll be relying on spells for combat, it always helps to have a weapon somewhere. A dagger is a good ubiquitous choices: easy to hide, and very handy in a pinch. A spiked gauntlet is also a great choice, since it doesn't need to be drawn and you count as threatening for attacks of opportunity and flanking. Although polite Taldan society might not care for someone walking around with one of those.

Have fun! I love this AP.

City in the Lion's Eye, the 4th Book in the War for the Crown AP, features an Abadaran Tyrant (the LE archetype of the antipaladin). He's not a central figure, but if you get your hands on the book it has a good description of the guy. No code as such, but you get a sense of his outlook and personality. Combining 1) the description of his personality and tactics along with 2) the philosophy of the Abadaran splinter sect he founded and rounding that out with 3) a twisting of Abadar's paladin code seems like what you're looking for: Discipline and order, submission to strong and financially-minded authorities (which might even be you depending on your backstory), strict social hierarchy, and profit superseding individual freedom. Prosperity theology with a militant arm to rival Bioshock. Skip Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko to find religious justifications, but keep their overall rhetoric. Abadar doesn't really want people relying on the church or the government for their prosperity anyway, so Rand and Gekko might even give him a nod. Historically, there's potential precedent for what you're looking for in the buying and selling of Indulgences in the Catholic Church (condemned by people like Dante Alighieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Martin Luther before being outlawed in 1567). Pile on some Manifest Destiny instead of the Crusades and you've got your Abadaran Tyrant.

An Abadaran Tyrant is still advancing society's aims, but doing so regardless of the individual cost *except* to the self (and key supporters/your own boss). There's probably still a focus on protecting travelers for trade purposes, though they'll be levied the highest taxes currently legal. You probably still hate bandits. But corruption in the courts is probably acceptable, and maybe even something that you're a part of, especially if the corruption is about exploiting loopholes. To an Abadaran Tyrant, the march of civilization is probably the most important thing, and squabbles over rights, the protection of the wilderness, and charity are anathema.

Evil in the alignment system is less about badness and more about selfishness, mercilessness. Here is another good resource as you're drafting a specific code: http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

I haven't run Hell's Vengeance, though I'm pretty sure that Cheliax allows worship of other deities as long as you also pay devotion to Asmodeus. That might be something you'll have to contend with as a player. Asmodeus seems cool with it, and Abadar probably would, too, since they seem to have a decent partnership.

My group was also confused about this when we started the AP (and complained that agnatic primogeniture should probably be specified). But the books do consistently specify that the Taldan law at the beginning of Crownfall refers almost exclusively to the inheritance of the Lion Throne.

To echo Rysky and Zaister and add some sources:

The PFS Scenario Birthright Betrayed includes an explanation in which a character (Venture-Captain Muesello) states that Taldan laws have been changed over the years to allow women to inherit land and title, but not the crown.

There is also a brief reference in the earlier PFS Scenario Library of the Lion in which the PCs find a scroll detailing times when Taldor has chosen an heir to the throne differently than usual (usually when the previous emperor left no legitimate heirs). Two canon examples of this are the transition from Cydonus III to Beldam I (chosen because Cydonus left no heirs prior to his assassination) and from Beldam II to Micheaux (who Beldam adopted, having no children of his own).

The book Taldor, Echoes of Glory confirms all this and says that there have been over a dozen families inheriting at one time or another if there was no living, legitimate eldest son to inherit. Taldor, the First Empire confirms this as well and expands some of the history in informative ways.

All told, all of the source books are pretty unified in the idea that Taldan primogeniture at the start of this AP refers pretty exclusively to inheriting the Crown. There is still rampant misogyny besides this, but the Senate vote in Crownfall is narrow in scope and deep in impact.