| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen some people misunderstanding the new holy and unholy traits, and I felt a summary/FAQ is in order.
Disclaimer: Without Monster Core and Player Core 2, we lack concrete data for some questions, like how uncommon certain weaknesses will be. But we have pretty good guesses supported by what's published so far.
What are holy and unholy?
The new replacements for good and evil alignments Pathfinder is using to divorce themselves from D&D's intellectual property under the OGL. They are part of the Pathfinder Remaster project, which means not everything relevant has been published yet. The exact definitions are as follows:
stronger effects on holy creatures. Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to unholy causes, and often have weakness to holy. If a creature with weakness to unholy uses an unholy item or effect, it takes damage from its weakness.
What happened to lawful and chaotic?
They no longer exist in the mechanical sense that PCs interact with, though forces of order and chaos still exist in the cosmic/philosophical sense.
Do they work exactly like good and evil did?
Philosophically, pretty much. Mechanically and narratively, they're a bit different, but mostly how they interact with spirit damage. These traits will be much less ubiqitous in the bestiary and are usually reserved to celestials, fiends, undead, and divine agents like clerics and champions. Current indicators are that creatures that had weakness to good damage will now have weakness to holy, and creatures with weakness to evil will now have weakness to unholy.
What is spirit damage?
It replaced alignment damage (chaotic damage, good damage, evil damage, and lawful damage) in many situations. But beyond that, it also covers many situations
where there wasn’t truly a suitable damage type. Spirit damage doesn’t harm creatures that have no spirit, such as constructs. It is an upgrade over alignment damage in that it generally affects almost anything else as opposed to just creatures of opposed alignment.
Why only generally?
There are some weird edge cases. The brilliant rune has spirit damage it only deals to fiends (but lacks the lack holy trait) and the champion compatibility errata made several feats deal spirit damage only to unholy targets. These are downgrades which may not be intentional. The remaster process has been rushed out of legal necessity and mistakes crept in.
Are holy and unholy new damage types?
Not exactly. They are traits added to other damage types, much like how you'd add the silver trait to piercing damage from a silver dagger. Currently, most damage with holy/unholy are spirit damage or the Strikes of a Champion. But theoretically a spell could deal holy fire or ice damage instead.
How do I know if my damage is holy or unholy?
Sometimes it will be because the spell/item/action has the holy or unholy trait listed, but generally it will be because you have the trait instead and the spell/item/action has the Sanctified trait, which applies your holy or unholy to the effect in question.
How can I get the holy or unholy trait?
Be a cleric or champion of a deity that allows or requires sanctification. (Multiclassing counts.) That's it now, but hopefully we get more options in Player Core 2. Most of the deities who have been remastered so far at least allow their servant to sanctify, and some require it. The witch cannot sanctify without multiclassing, even with a divine patron, and the animist couldn't sanctify during their playtest. (The examplar could with a 1st level feat, though.)
Can I deal holy/unholy damage if I don't sanctify?
It is much harder and will probably be limited to items like high level runes. According to Player Core 1's entry on Cleric spellcasting, "Casting spells with the unholy trait is almost always anathema to deities who don’t allow unholy sanctification, and casting holy spells is likewise anathema to those who don’t allow holy sanctification." Almost leaves some wiggle room that you should discuss with your GM. For example, if your deity wants you to destroy undead, they should probably let you prepare the holy light spell which deals extra damage to undead.
Should I sanctify holy?
If you have the option to sanctify holy, you probably should. Aside from letting you prepare or learn holy spells, you're leaving a lot of damage on the table if you aren't triggering weakness against fiends. I've never played an adventure where I didn't fight fiends, and many campaigns lean on them quite heavily. The only mechanical drawback is you become more vulnerable to certain effects, but right now the only example is the Chilling Darkness spell and unholy rune. Obviously, this could change with future content. There might be ways to detect the holy trait which could hurt your infiltration abilities.
Should I sanctify unholy?
It won't matter in most campaigns because they assume you're the good guys and won't be fighting angels. Even evil campaigns often pitch you against other bad guys. But if celestials are something you'll fight then the same logic applies for sanctifying holy.
What are the best ways to deal spirit damage?
For cantrips, Divine Lance. For spells, Divine Wrath and Divine Immolation are standouts. The former won't hurt your allies and inflicts sickened, which makes even a non-heightened version of the spell appealing if you hit weakness. The latter counts as fire or spirit, whichever is better, and deals persistent damage. Persistent damage with the two most common weakness types is excelelent. Holy Light is also great if you can get Sure Strike, a Shadow Signet ring, or another way to reliably land spell attacks.
For equipment, the best spirit damage is the Astral Rune, which deals 1d6 damage and grants the properties of the ghost touch rune, all for less than the cost of an elemental rune. Unfortunately, it doesn't gain holy or unholy unless a champion wields it, so you'll need the holy or unholy runes for that. But they are very expensive and deal worse damage against non-holy/unholy targets, so I'd only nvest in them if fiends/celestials will pop up a lot.
Why are undead unholy?
Not really sure, but probably so clerics can zorch them real good with the holy light spell. It seems unlikely they will be weak to holy, but until we get some published in GM Core or Adventures after Pathfinder #200 we can't say for sure. Undead represent a perversion on a cosmic level, but it is separate from the war between heaven and hell. There's no holy equivalent to undead like celestials are holy equivalents of demons. Pharasma being neutral in that conflict, not allowing sanctification, and yet being the most notable "kill all undead" advocate on Golarion is weird. I'm also not sure if ghosts that weren't evil before would have the unholy trait now. Their existence is still bad in the cosmic sense even if they are actively helping the heroes in the short term and don't bear any malicious intent.
Can my evil bandit lord be unholy? He's real mean.
Unless he's an agent of an unholy deity, then no. I mean, you can ignore whatever rules and assumptions you want when creating NPCs, but unholy is not the same as evil. Both traits indicate he is a bad dude, but unholy means either your creation inherently tied you to one side in the cosmic conflict, or you joined one side with the approval of a god. Bandits, dragons, aberrations, and so on should not have the trait unless they find religion.
My fighter devoutly worships Sarenrae but does not have feats in cleric or champion. Can he sanctify?
No. Worship alone does not gain you the holy or unholy trait. (You could homebrew otherwise; see suggestions below..)
Can gods have the (un)holy trait?
That seems like a safe assumption though nothing has officially said it. Since gods don't have statblocks I wouldn't hold my breath getting proof of that, but there are creatures with statblocks like Tree Razer who can greant spells but will likely have the unholy trait.
Will my demonic sorcerer have the unholy trait even if they're a good dude?
Unclear until we see stuff from Player Core 2 where the class will be re-published. But I personally would play it that way in the meantime. Though nephelim lack a way to sanctify from their ancestry, so there's a precedent for blood alone not being sufficient.
Can my oracle sanctify?
Again, unclear until Player Core 2. I'd allow it personally, but there's not a consensus in the community.
How do champions work with Sanctification?
Awkwardly. Paizo published some remaster errata to the core rulebook about them, but player core 2 is where we can expect a proper remastering. It's a little clunky, but I blame that partially on the rush and partially on trying to minimize changes to the CRB. The broad ruling is you have to be sanctified to be a champion now.
Will these changes make my PC stronger?
Mostly. Sanctified Clerics are the biggest winners since their spells were buffed and spirit damage now works on formerly neutral creatures. Certain spells which depended on your deity's alignment no longer raise questions about how they interact with characters whose spells don't come from a god, like oracles, sorcerers, and witches. But a strict reading of the RAW before let you still worship a god to change the alignment of those spells, which now doesn't apply. So you get more widely applicable spirit damage but your witch can't trigger weakness anymore.
Champions are odd. They got a significant buff to their chassis from the holy/unholy trait applying to their strikes. Now an otherwise low damage martial can trigger fiend weaknesses from level 1, which is great thematically and mechanically. Unfortunately, many feats which dealt good damage before now deal spirit damage, but only to unholy creatures. Because unholy creatures are less common than evil creatures were, these feats were rendered much worse. Because this isn't how spirit damage generally works for anyone else, I'm inclined to think this wasn't fully intended or considered. But these feats are also less important because you already proc weakness with strikes, so I would probably skip them.
Will champions need to sanctify in Player Core 2?
Unknown, but there's certainly design space opening now that we are ditching alignment. Thematically, I don't see why you'd sanctification to be a champion of Gorum or Pharasma. I also see less reason to pair Lay on Hands and Touch of Corruption strictly to the causes of good and evil instead of a more nuanced choice between the two based on your god. I'm excited to see the final product.
Can I homebrew a way for non-clerics/champions to sanctify?
Sure. I've been toying with a ritual similar to atonement that lets a cleric or champion's ally pledge to serve the same deity and become sanctified as long as they do not commit anathema. But this is a pretty significant buff which also eats some of the cleric/champion's lunch. (It's also kind of like giving out the 12th level Aura of Righteousness feat for free.) Clerics got enough other upgrades to where I wouldn't sweat it, but champions didn't. Hence I'd make the ritual require continued support from a "sponsor" sanctified PC, which would make the sponsor feel like they are handing out a powerful buff instead of losing a unique edge.
What spells have the holy trait?
Holy Light and Summon Celestial. Some spells might let you apply holy even without the Sanctified trait on the spell, like Infuse Vitality.
What spells have the unholy trait?
Chilling Darkness, Seize Soul, Create Undead, Summon Fiend
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fantastic idea, and a very good guide.
One clarification I would make is that Holy and Unholy only replace the mechanical aspects of a good and evil alignment - not the role-play and character concept aspects of it.
So you can still play a heroic and selfless good guy character without needing Holy Sanctification.
Similarly, not every serial killer supervillain is going to be Sanctified Unholy.
A very thorough and easy to understand guide. Kudos!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fantastic idea, and a very good guide.
One clarification I would make is that Holy and Unholy only replace the mechanical aspects of a good and evil alignment - not the role-play and character concept aspects of it.
So you can still play a heroic and selfless good guy character without needing Holy Sanctification.
Similarly, not every serial killer supervillain is going to be Sanctified Unholy.
Yeah, I was hoping I drove that point home enough with the bandit lord example, but it's probably worth reiterating so the people in the back can hear.
|
Fantastic idea, and a very good guide.
One clarification I would make is that Holy and Unholy only replace the mechanical aspects of a good and evil alignment - not the role-play and character concept aspects of it.
So you can still play a heroic and selfless good guy character without needing Holy Sanctification.
Similarly, not every serial killer supervillain is going to be Sanctified Unholy.
Quite true.
Unholy implies evil but evil does not imply Unholy.
Same for Holy and good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who says they only grant their favoritism to mortals who behave like them?
Well, the rules do right now. You have to at least avoid anathema, and "many actions that are anathema are not in a deity's formal list." Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, but I want to be clear that idea is not really supported by the rules right now. Divine rules are spiritual, which means I think following their letter but not their spirit won't generally work. I'd maybe go as far as to hold sanctified characters to a higher standard than followers of the same god who choose not to sanctify. The basic concepts of good and evil still apply even if the traits don't.
You reminded me of a topic I forgot to address: can fiends become holy or celestials unholy? I'm waiting to see something official there. Noticula's deity entry would be a good start. I'm intrigued by whether an immortal outsider's behavior can change its traits.
How does this work with the thaumaturge? Can a thaumaturge exploit weakness to holy? Or spirit? If I remaster an monster weak to law, should I give it a weakness to spirit?
Generally I wouldn't expect things to have weakness to spirit, though it is technically possible. Usually your creature would be weak to holy. Spirit is just the delivery mechanism. It might help to think of it as a silver bullet against a werewolf. The werewolf isn't weak to bullets, it is weak to silver, but the bullet delivers the silver.
A creature with weakness to spirit damage sans holy would probably be something extremely attuned to souls. I can't name a weakness example, but spirit damage does bypass the resistance of ghosts which is a similar concept. Maybe you'd see spirit weakness on something like the Soul Eater
Thaumaturge can exploit it either way. They can basically trigger any pre-existing damage weakness. (Except maybe for really weird ones, like a specific sin vulnerability.)
As for creatures that were weak to law... I'd suggest different approaches based on their family. For example, Qlippoth are still fiends and epitomize unholy, so a holy weakness definitely feels appropriate. It does not feel appropriate for a protean, so I'd probably use the GMG guidance and reduce the creature's total HP by roughly four times its weakness value. You could also still let the Thaumaturge trigger the weakness. It wasn't like most martials were packing axiomatic runes or something.
What you really need to be careful about are creatures with regeneration shut down by alignment. I'm only aware of the Marut falling under that, but it is now unkillable without some kind of house rule.
Thaumaturge can exploit it either way. They can basically trigger any pre-existing damage weakness. (Except maybe for really weird ones, like a specific sin vulnerability.)
Personally I question whether it is intended to allow Thaumaturge to use standard weapons to trigger weakness to Area or Splash damage like Swarms generally have.
But that seems like a topic to discuss elsewhere.
What you really need to be careful about are creatures with regeneration shut down by alignment. I'm only aware of the Marut falling under that, but it is now unkillable without some kind of house rule.
That is a very good catch. The creature definitely needs errata or houserules. I really don't like the idea of the only way of killing it being some questionable rules shenanigans regarding specific timing of applying the Doomed condition after it is at its maximum Dying value.
Thaumaturge can exploit it either way. They can basically trigger any pre-existing damage weakness. (Except maybe for really weird ones, like a specific sin vulnerability.)Personally I question whether it is intended to allow Thaumaturge to use standard weapons to trigger weakness to Area or Splash damage like Swarms generally have.
But that seems like a topic to discuss elsewhere.
What you really need to be careful about are creatures with regeneration shut down by alignment. I'm only aware of the Marut falling under that, but it is now unkillable without some kind of house rule.That is a very good catch. The creature definitely needs errata or houserules. I really don't like the idea of the only way of killing it being some questionable rules shenanigans regarding specific timing of applying the Doomed condition after it is at its maximum Dying value.
To be fair the Marut was problematic before the remaster too. How many people actually packed chaotic damage? It's actually a pretty good illustration of why law and chaos got the axe. There's a bunch of Velstracs with regeneration shut down by good or silver. Silver helps, but you'd still be safer assuming the average party has good damage than chose or law.
Fair. I don't dispute it though I think there may be some RAW wriggle room for GM's who want to stick to the formal lists. And let's face it, a mostly decent mortal making a deal with a devil is a *really* classic storyline. Surely there's room in the Pathfinder universe for a few Fausts, Spawns, clients of Daniel Webster, etc. Mortals running around sanctified by Asmodeus, but obeying his anathema and other 'contract' requirements in only the most legalistic way possible.Who says they only grant their favoritism to mortals who behave like them?Well, the rules do right now. You have to at least avoid anathema, and "many actions that are anathema are not in a deity's formal list." Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, but I want to be clear that idea is not really supported by the rules right now. Divine rules are spiritual, which means I think following their letter but not their spirit won't generally work. I'd maybe go as far as t-
I thiiiink that trope is probably represented without sanctification, and instead leans on the infernal contract mechanic. Pathfinder devils definitely trade in souls, although if I stop to think about it I'm not exactly sure why. It seems like your standard corruption of good souls would be less important when so many souls are coming to you already. (Plus sin is more of a demon thing.) But I've read APs where devils are at least willing to broker deals to gain very specific souls, so there's room for a protagonist to barter their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note that the change of aligned damage becoming spirit damge is a significant change. Instead of alignment damage coming up only occasionally it is now useful in 90% of cases. Campaign dependent of course. It is a significant rebalance of the Divine spell list as Divine Wrath and other spells are very good direct damage. Where in the past Divine casters of certain religions had not all that many damage options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like your standard corruption of good souls would be less important when so many souls are coming to you already. (Plus sin is more of a demon thing.) But I've read APs where devils are at least willing to broker deals to gain very specific souls, so there's room for a protagonist to barter their own.
I don't know. It's not like the wealthy are known to leave souls money on the table just because they already have more than they could ever use. Even if Hell is owed a share of all evil souls streaming out of the Universe, one can't rest on one's laurels in this growth-oriented industry. It is vital to diversify one's portfolio by branching out to audiences who may not already be familiar with the virtues of eternal torment and meet them where they're at.
I don't think we explicitly know why the planes desire souls in the grand scheme of things (at least, if not just as a sandbag against the Maelstrom), but it's reasonable to assume that they're valuable enough to want more than what your enemies have.
As an aside, even if we imagine a world where infernal contracts don't affect the number of hellbound souls because any soul that would sign a contract was already set for an LE afterlife, it might still be valuable for individual devils to shore up their wealth by having souls consigned to them personally, rather than wait to snap them up when they arrived on their own. Perhaps even one could imagine this his how the practice of infernal contracts got started in the first place, not that Asmodeus necessarily would have needed the help himself.
--
Oh, and PS, excellent guide! I was going to add that technically all Divine casters have option of dealing holy/unholy damage, since they should not be restricted from general holy/unholy spells, but I didn't realize it's only the two spells that have the Holy trait on their own, so it's really only Holy Light if you don't count indirect damage from summoning a celestial.
It seems like your standard corruption of good souls would be less important when so many souls are coming to you already. (Plus sin is more of a demon thing.) But I've read APs where devils are at least willing to broker deals to gain very specific souls, so there's room for a protagonist to barter their own.I don't know. It's not like the wealthy are known to leave
soulsmoney on the table just because they already have more than they could ever use. Even if Hell is owed a share of all evil souls streaming out of the Universe, one can't rest on one's laurels in this growth-oriented industry. It is vital to diversify one's portfolio by branching out to audiences who may not already be familiar with the virtues of eternal torment and meet them where they're at.I don't think we explicitly know why the planes desire souls in the grand scheme of things (at least, if not just as a sandbag against the Maelstrom), but it's reasonable to assume that they're valuable enough to want more than what your enemies have.
As an aside, even if we imagine a world where infernal contracts don't affect the number of hellbound souls because any soul that would sign a contract was already set for an LE afterlife, it might still be valuable for individual devils to shore up their wealth by having souls consigned to them personally, rather than wait to snap them up when they arrived on their own. Perhaps even one could imagine this his how the practice of infernal contracts got started in the first place, not that Asmodeus necessarily would have needed the help himself.
--
Oh, and PS, excellent guide! I was going to add that technically all Divine casters have option of dealing holy/unholy damage, since they should not be restricted from general holy/unholy spells, but I didn't realize it's only the two spells that have the Holy trait on their own, so it's really only Holy Light if you don't count indirect damage from summoning a celestial.
Good take on the soul trading stuff.
Sadly, that last paragraph isn't quite true. Most divine casters can use either Holy Light or Chilling Darkness (if not both), with the glaring exception of clerics whose gods don't allow sanctification. It's kind of a goofy rule and I'd be inclined to ignore it if there were enough holy/unholy spells to make it matter.
I'd like to note that the change of aligned damage becoming spirit damge is a significant change. Instead of alignment damage coming up only occasionally it is now useful in 90% of cases. Campaign dependent of course. It is a significant rebalance of the Divine spell list as Divine Wrath and other spells are very good direct damage. Where in the past Divine casters of certain religions had not all that many damage options.
Spirit damage is a significant change, but just how significant varies wildly between gods. Good damage was always solid because most enemies are evil and many had weakness to good. Neutral enemies often could be bypassed non-violently with things like Wild Empathy.
Lawful and chaotic damage was super inconsistent, though, and evil damage might as well not have existed as a PC option. And of course True Neutral deity worshipper alignment damage literally didn't exist.
It also annoyed me as a GM because the damage my fiends' strikes dealt varied based on the alignment of the target PC, which made automated damage rolling much less easy. It also meant neutral was objectively the best alignment for PCs unless the party was using Divine Wrath or Aura of Righteousness type stuff. Based on the remastered Building Creatures rule, I think fiends are losing spirit/alignment damage on their strikes all together and will just have a higher base damage with the unholy trait. It feels much cleaner.
Neutral enemies often could be bypassed non-violently with things like Wild Empathy.
That hasn't been my experience in actual play.
Animals, plants, vermin, and more than a few Beast and Aberration enemies are N alignment. Wild Empathy only works on Animals (and Voice of Nature can give Plant Empathy which only works on plants), only Druids get Wild Empathy guaranteed, and only Ranger can opt-in to get it.
It is a very niche use thing that most characters don't opt-in to get.
Also, that seems to be a good and deliberate thing since if it was more universally available and effective, Animal enemies would be much less common in published adventures especially PFS scenarios that have to be carefully balanced. Having the climactic battle of a scenario be a polar bear that can be bypassed by the one Druid character in the party feels like a let-down to the rest of the PFS players at the table.
Neutral enemies often could be bypassed non-violently with things like Wild Empathy.That hasn't been my experience in actual play.
Animals, plants, vermin, and more than a few Beast and Aberration enemies are N alignment. Wild Empathy only works on Animals (and Voice of Nature can give Plant Empathy which only works on plants), only Druids get Wild Empathy guaranteed, and only Ranger can opt-in to get it.
It is a very niche use thing that most characters don't opt-in to get.
Also, that seems to be a good and deliberate thing since if it was more universally available and effective, Animal enemies would be much less common in published adventures especially PFS scenarios that have to be carefully balanced. Having the climactic battle of a scenario be a polar bear that can be bypassed by the one Druid character in the party feels like a let-down to the rest of the PFS players at the table.
Animals-- Wild Empathy is a problematic ability because it runs off charisma and the vagueness around "In most cases, wild animals will give you time to make your case." But if you honor that sentence, you should be able to talk your way out of some encounters. There are a lot of animal based encounters in the early levels, and many as written can be bypassed with just the Nature skill instead of needing Wild Empathy. (See Quest for the Frozen Flame for examples.) Often you just need to offer them easier food.
Vermin-- No longer a category in PF2, unless you're a mitflit. Vermin are just animals now. You'd be surprised how many things are animals, up to and including Purple Worms and their larger cousins.
Beasts-- The main distinction between beasts and animals is beasts are smart enough to understand language, which opens up the possibility of negotiation. There are also plenty of evil beasts.
Plants and Fungus-- Yeah, not much to do here, though lower level versions often don't have the speed or range to be challenging encounters anyway if you're smart.
Abberations-- I'll give this to you. I'm actually pretty surprised at how many neutral abberations there are. Feels weird that some of them are neutral when mindless zombies were not, but that's undead for ya. (Except Shangrigols are undead and also weirdly neutral.
Constructs-- Usually follow a set programming that can be exploited, like by attacking them from outside their patrol area. Their most popular OGL members were also immune to most magic anyway, which kind of made their alignment moot.
None of these are hard and fast rules, but in my experience you're more likely to actually fight evil encounters than neutral ones.
Edit: That said, if players are expecting or even desiring all of the above to be combat encounters, they probably will be. Personally, I always feel good when the party resolves an encounter without violence, but I know players who get bored with that.
because most enemies are evil and many had weakness to good.
I never really found this to be the case. Even in undead or fiend heavy campaigns it was 50% at best. Normally it was under 25%. So for me it is the biggest change.
|
|
because most enemies are evil and many had weakness to good.I never really found this to be the case. Even in undead or fiend heavy campaigns it was 50% at best. Normally it was under 25%. So for me it is the biggest change.
My PFS, RotRL and AbVaults experience sounds closer to that of Captain Morgan.
And 75% of opponents being Neutral or Good sounds pretty odd. Even 50% in undead/fiend heavy campaigns actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 25% of enemies being evil sounds absolutely wild in anything but an evil campaign. 25% sounds closer to what I'd expect for unholy enemies in remastered campaigns. Grnerally, if an adventure has a boss to fight at the end, they are evil and so are most of their minions. Neutral enemies tend to be things which aren't smart enough to understand the choice between good and evil, like predatory animals. But you can't build a city razing army entirely out of animals that won't follow orders.
Unfortunately, it's really tedious to compile actual numbers. You can't simply look at the bestiary stats in archive of neyths, as some monsters are used far more frequently than others. And since this is all moot for the remaster going forward, it probably isn't worth arguing much more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All evil creatures theoretically have the evil trait. However, possibly due to a minor editing error, only one monster in the entire game has an explicit evil trait, likely because having an alignment was considered sufficient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monster core has an indicator not all ghosts are unholy.
Kelseus compiled some Sanctification interactions from Monster Core:
Some Celestials do additional damage to Unholy targets. Tabellia (angel) deal 1d4 spirit with their warhammer, 2d4 v. unholy target. Rekhep (shield archon) has the same.
Quetz Coatl's venom is treated as a curse for unholy creatures, its radiant wings have an additional affect against unholy targets on a crit fail.
All demons, devils, daemons, and Rakshasas have holy weakness.
Coarti's (devil) Despairing Shriek causes holy creatures to also be frightened 2 on a fail.
Holy creatures treat their save vs. the Diabolic Dragon's Hell's Sting ability as one step worse.
Herexen's Strikes deal extra 1d6 spirt to holy creatures.
This doesn't change my opinion that you should usually sanctify holy. At least, if you intend to use spells or attacks with the holy or sanctified trait.