Alignment in Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I ran across a thread that got me thinking about alignment in Pathfinder, and RPGs in general. What it basically boils down to is what do each of the alignments mean? What defines a chaotic evil character? What makes a lawful good character good? Things like that. To me, an alignment isn't so much a restriction or a rule as it is a tool to help define your character, but you have to have a clear and consistent definition for each value on the two axes of the alignment scale for this to work, or at least I think you do.

So my question is this, How do you define lawful, chaotic, good, evil, and neutral?

Since it wouldn't be fair to ask a question I'm not willing to answer, Here is how I define those values, even if I don't always adhere to them very well.

Good-Evil
-Good: Good characters respect the sanctity of life and free will. They are the people who would help another person even if it meant their lives. They are also the people willing to show mercy to those that they have defeated, though, they may take the lives of those that have proven to be beyond redemption. In short a good character is a healer, a crusader, or a guardian.
-Neutral: Neutral characters are more in the gray area of morality. They may have inclinations towards good or evil, but they generally look after themselves without causing others harm for gain or enjoyment. They may help someone, but it's generally to try and get something in return. In short a neutral character is a self-interested, impartial, or apathetic character.
-Evil: Evil characters take joy from the suffering of others. They go out of their way to cause harm to others for various reasons. They would never help a person unless they were certain they would benefit from it. They are the most driven by greed, lust, and jealousy. In short an evil character is a spiteful, manipulative, or sadistic character.

Lawful-Chaotic
-Lawful: Lawful characters uphold the rule of law and consider promises and contracts just as binding as chains and fetters. They will do everything in their power to honor an oath or promise, even if generations old. They will also follow any code they hold to, whether a paladin's code, a code of law, or a generations old custom, to the letter, if not the spirit. In short a lawful character is an honorable, law-abiding, or traditional character.
-Neutral: Neutral characters are more about balance or self-interest. They may follow the law until it conflicts with what the other half of their alignment is and then break it. They are more willing to bend definitions and intents to suit their needs or morals. In short a neutral character is an adaptive, impartial, or selfish character.
-Chaotic: A chaotic character is one who follows their whims. They may have a code they follow, but they are always willing to break it if they believe it necessary. They find laws a bother and traditions even more so. They are more likely to do something to spit someone, even if it is wiser to refrain from doing it. In short, a chaotic character is a free-spirited, mercurial, or contrary character.

In case you haven't noticed, I struggle the most with neutral alignments. To explain a bit more, the descriptors I put at the end are not meant to be alignment specific beyond the one they're listed in. While some fit better, for example, manipulative and selfish for NE, it's possible to have characters that are best described by things not normally associated with the other half of the alignment, such as an honorable, law-abiding manipulative LE character.

Anyway, I've probably bored you enough, so get to writing and please be civil.

Lantern Lodge

Well, I liked the 3.5 DnD description of all nine alignments, I don't have them electronic or I would share but I will post some of it later, particularly the lawful and neutral ones since I deal with those misconceptions the most.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad you posted this since I had actually crafted a pretty long post about it in a locked thread. I tend to dislike the idea of having law refer to anything but the laws and customs of the land. It's why I dropped the Lawful Requirement from Monks. I hear all the time about typically 'chaotic' individuals having a personal code they follow, and I think almost all of us do. Even 'If it feels good, do it!' is a personal code and a sort of ethos that will inform the character's actions. I'm only concerned with how that 'code' influences how you will interact with your surrounding world, and define lawful in accordance with that. So this is how I would define it:

LG - Do what's right within the confines of the law; if law and good conflict, Good supersedes law. But you will exhaust every legal option possible before getting to that point. It's not necessarily 'more' good, but it's usually the most respected since lawful good does everything within the confines of the law and satisfies itself with gradual, lasting change.

NG - Do what's right. Period. You won't hesitate to break an unjust law, but you will worry more about what good you can do than the underlying order of it all.

CG - You actively seek to agitate and overturn laws and social orders which harm or denigrate others. It's the difference between, say, helping slaves escape to freedom under cover of darkness, and attacking the slaveholders plantations in broad daylight. Both are breaking the law, but one wants to get away with it, while one wants to engineer immediate upheaval.

LN - I see this as similar to Lawful Good, but when Law and Good collide, Law wins handily. I often hear this described as the alignment that will, by definition, follow the law WITHOUT QUESTION but that's far more the realm of LE (more on that later). More likely they trust that those in authority know better than they do, or if they're in positions of authority, are willing to make hard choices that trade off lesser evils for greater goods.

TN - You, me, and just about everybody you know. Will usually commit victimless crimes if they're unnecessary. Will be altruistic to their friends and family, but probably don't do a lot outside of their social circle. Have probably balanced some good deeds and random acts of kindness by also doing thing that were dishonest and selfish, although they regret the latter.

CN - Flouts the law often and openly. Like CG will try to agitate and upend the system, but are more concerned with the stuff that prevents them from doing what they want than major injustices. This is a small 'l' libertarian (not the political party, just to be super clear) on steroids. Alternative interpretation is, I suppose, somebody with a severe disorder that has a view of society that follows no earthly logic and is completely incomprehensible.

LE - Two flavors: The person who uses the law to their greatest advantage at the expense of others. Lobbyists are the quintessential example; sure it's not illegal, per se, but it is harmful to large swaths of the population. The second is somebody who follows the law mechanically, without question of wrong or right. LN may not question torture if it gets results, but to be the one doing the torturing, even if the law says it's OK, is an evil act and even a mostly neutral person will be disgusted by it.

NE - Like TN, but with victims. I needed money, so I robbed somebody. I couldn't have witnesses, so I murdered them. Has done incredibly selfish and dishonest things without regretting it, so long as they got away with it. Every thing a NE person does begins and ends with the question, "How does this benefit me?"

CE - Hurts others for the sake of hurting others. Can be self-interested, but it's unnecessary for the equation. A NE person is defined by their selfishness, but a CE is defined by their maliciousness. They'll kill, maim, steal, rob, rape, torture unless doing so would be actively detrimental to them. And sometimes even then.

Lantern Lodge

Interesting but I personally think you miss the point of lawful.

Personal views of the alignments.

Lawful is not so much as caring about the laws of the land but rather that one has strict values that they adhere to even if it hurts them, regardless of what those values are. The good vs evil would determine the values and the law vs chaos would determine how much one has defined and dedicated themselves to those values.

Good- One has values that are all about the well being of the community.
Evil- One has values that are all about the individual.
Neutral- One has values that see both as being important.

Lawful- One adheres strongly to defined values.
Chaotic- One who does not consciously recognize their values or how those values interact with their choices.
Neutral- One recognizes their own values but may act against them on occasion(generally leads to regrets).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion