Good / Evil runes / effects

[HumbleGamer]

Holy rune says

Quote:

If you are evil, you are enfeebled 2 while carrying or wielding this weapon.

Unholy rune says

Quote:

If you are good, you are enfeebled 2 while carrying or wielding this weapon.

Now, we do have the Brilliant rune which says

Quote:

This rune causes a weapon to transform into pure, brilliant energy. The weapon deals an additional 1d4 fire damage on a successful Strike, as well as 1d4 good damage to fiends and 1d4 positive damage to undead. On a critical hit, the target must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be blinded for 1 round.

So, does this mean that evil characters can take advantage of good damage to damage evil targets ( and that being enfeebled is just something meant for those 2 specific runes )?

I see that also the spell "brilliant" rune took its efeect from, Sun Blade, is lacking the "good" trait ( though it has either the fire and positive trait )

Quote:

You fire a ray of burning sunlight from your weapon. You must be wielding a sword or spear to cast sun blade, and you perform this spell’s somatic component with the weapon. Make a spell attack roll. The ray deals 1d4 fire damage. If the target is evil, the ray deals an additional 1d4 good damage, and if the target is undead, the ray deals an additional 1d4 positive damage (both effects apply against creatures that are both evil and undead). If you are in an area of bright natural sunlight, increase the die size of each damage die by one step (from d4 to d6).

I also remember spells and items forbidding ( debuffing ) evil/good characters from using stuff with the opposite alignment, but this doesn't seem the case.

Could this be an oversight or it's simply that they allowed some items to be used from any character regardless their alignment?

[Rysky]

I’d say it’s correct.

[Castilliano]

Evil people/creatures using Good/Holy items vs. evil creatures, say in order to demand service or submission, is an old trope, even in D&D. 3.X/PF1 kind of derailed that, so this change fixes that.
Whether they end up corrupting the Good items would make for an interesting narrative choice, perhaps requiring the to procure new items or gain Good allies (dupes) to use the items for them.

[Tender Tendrils]

The holy and unholy runes are a much stronger good/evil presence on the weapon, while the brilliant rune is more "its sunlight and sunlight= drives away creatures of the night".

So there are three explanations I can think of off the top of my head.

1. There is a thematic difference between the two of how much they focus on the alignment thing which explains why one has a restriction and the other doesn't.

2. The brilliant rune also only does good damage to fiends, while the holy rune does good damage to anyone evil, so maybe that can also explain it (your evil PC picking up the Brilliant sword isn't a fiend, so its magic doesn't register the PC as an enemy, while the Holy sword smites all evil).

3. The Holy rune does more good damage than the brilliant rune, and has a "heals you if you smite evil" effect, so its goodness is more powerful and pervasive. The Brilliant rune is weaker in terms of its goodness and maybe it causes mild discomfort for evil wielders but not enough to cause a condition.