If I may interject with off topic praise for everyone who has participated herein. This is a fantastic thread and I hope the developers read it, take notes, and "make it so". Thank you all for the input and seriously fantastic ideas. I heart you all.

I think that Antagonists may have an unfair advantage as it is, considering that all of the AI baddies are on their side. And boss fights? Forget about it. This is coming from a player that plays, primarily, as an Antagonist. I've had some very cohesive groups, who were doing a great job of laying the smack on me when I was being all aggro and not particularly strategic in my approach, still end up with a Loss because the combination of enemies, boss, and Antagonist became an insurmountable wave of frustrating nonsense. If you know how to use the enemies to your advantage, the Raiders don't really stand a chance, and it ends up becoming an endless wave of enemies, plus an antagonist, versus four. Which is not fair. There have been enough people voicing their frustration over the lack of options for turning PvP off because the Antagonist factor is such an unwelcome (and unprofitable) deterrence from them enjoying and continuing to play the game, that if you were to give the Antagonist any more of an advantage, making them even more annoying to those who do not want to play PvP, then you may end up permanently losing a considerable amount of the player base. I think.
I mean, it could be interesting to give the Antagonist more of an advantage if there was a considerably greater (and guaranteed) reward for the Raiders, and those who did not want it could opt out of it altogether. Like, once the campaigns have all been released, if the developers implement some special event Raids where the Antagonist is an even greater pain in the Aleph injector. That could be fun, but players should have the option whether or not to participate. And the rewards should be boss awesome sauce.
Yeah.

When Wizards of the Coast moved on from 3.5, a lot of people went nuts, because they thought 3.5 was the end-all-be-all for tabletop roleplaying. Paizo capitalized off of that by taking, what was basically, the 3.5 rules, tweaking them slightly, and selling it as Pathfinder. I've got 5th edition D&D, for sure. But some players still swear by Pathfinder (3.5), and I like to roll with both groups. However, Paizo is beta testing Pathfinder 2nd Edition *gasp*! After nine years of rolling out supplement after supplement for Pathfinder, they finally ran out of stuff to do with it (that would be worth the money, anyway). It's all a bunch of expanding or simplifying based on player expectations and playing to your audience and squeezing every bit of content out that you can. Genius, really. Wizards picked up the players who didn't like the math of 3.5, and Paizo ran with die-hard 3.5 fans.

...MercurySteam, you taking notes here?

Anyway, what were we talking about?

Dude! You respawn with full ammo but there are no ammo drops from enemies. Would not work for a mission with a boss fight, but basic missions (Hanging By a Thread as a go-to answer) would be crazy intense. Maybe no time limit then? Raiders would have to really roll slow and be a coordinated group of bad mother (shut your mouth). I mean, there'd have to be other tweaks, but I think the idea has weight, yeah? No? Potato?

Aberration is one of the Bloodline types you can take when leveling a Sorcerer/Sorceress. If I recall, it allows for a fifteen foot reach at level 20, plus blind-sight. Some other stuff that I can't remember. But I believe it means your blood has been tainted by something from outside of the planar sphere. Like a Lovecraftian Elder God. So, if she was tainted by Uras-Beherit, then I'd say "yes". But I think she's more of a Summoner type with some alien thing bound to her essence/being/whatever. But...I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think she's true neutral. Her main priority seems to be her creepy little symbiotic babies. She'd do anything for them, break any law, kill any fool.  But she'd probably follow laws and help people out if it was in the best interest of her babies too. Yeah.

Well then, let us see. They have given their lives to being Protectors. Protector would suggest they are good. I can't imagine an evil character feeling like they have to protect anything, other than themselves. Well, HIVE is protective of her little ones, but she's not necessarily good. Hmmm...they seem to be in direct opposition of Uras-Beherit and his coming signals their need to take action against him. He's chaotic evil AF, so on the opposite end of the spectrum, they're lawful good. They never raise a hand to harm anyone yet (that we have seen), and need rescuing by Harec and his crew. So, I'd say they're peacful and GOOD. They have devoted themselves to being Protectors (kinda vague, but they're not running off with Lycus to get drunk and get wild) but have set themselves apart for their position as Protector and Harec and Shae both interact with them with an air of humble respect. So, I'm going with Lawful for them. Lawful Good. Wow, that was tougher than I thought it would be. Touche'.

Ayana - chaotic good rougue character. Will do anything (chaotic) to help her people (good).
Schneider - hmmm...maybe Lawful (fiercely loyal to the 5th, even to the point of enduring Lycus's torture to hide their secrets. Evil, because he's a vindictive, sadistic, little shit who has the most tedious mission in the whole game.
Aneska - another extremely loyal character. I think she's Lawful Neutral. I believe she's portrayed as being blindly loyal to Hades, doing whatever it take for Krausier, Krossier, whatever. Is that her dad? I don't remember.

My humble opinion.