Improved Alignment with Relative Morality

It's that time again, ladies and gentlemen.

I've made a couple of these threads before, presenting attempts to make alignment better.
Previously, all of them have been flawed. They've been unclear, non-intuitive or just not aesthetically pleasing.

This time I think I've cracked it.

These are the goals of the new system:

... Y'know, this might be the best alignment rehash I've seen yet, at least when it comes to introducing new terms and not just some people who have made very, very good interpretations of the existing ones. Are Paladins automatically Principled?

Hi. Thanks very much!

Paladins are indeed principled by nature. The principled attitude in general is associate with the the shiny, wholesome powers of the game.

If you were looking for a grim paladin-type character under this system, the anti-paladin does the job admirably and can follow a benevolent philosophy. Just don't expect people to be glad to see you.

I was ready to mercilessly mock the system when I opened the doc, but this... this is actually pretty good. I feel it might be finicky because the game will need to stop to figure out what opposes what when you cast holy word or something.

An interesting consequence is that now a character's moral philosophy is a measurable thing (via, detect evil). Imagine, you go on a date, and instead of being surprised by your date's philosophy later, a quick scan and you know if you share world views :p

Thanks.

I don't think the game will need to stop. The GM is going to know this stuff ahead of time if he's picking out antagonists himself.
If it's a published adventure, it shouldn't have to be a speed bump. The GM will quickly learn the philosophies of his party, so all he has to do is look up those of the enemy, which he's always needed to do anyway.
It'll be one to watch out for in play though.

Note that detect evil doesn't actually tell you the target's philosophy, only whether or not their philosophy is evil.

Absolutely brilliant! This is the best and most "realistic" treatment of alignment I have seen.

-Cheers and +1

This is really really good. I do think that the philosophies need nicknames or similar rhough, much easier to keep track of than abbrevations.

Woo :)

Glad you think so. Thanks for the encouragement guys.

I like this.

I've often gone with the following alignment scale:

Selfless vs Selfish / Kantian vs Utilitarian

But I think I like yours better. At least, it suits the fantasy theme a lot better.

In the section that further explains how the two axises interact with each other, there are some missing. You only have six out of nine listed.

Hi Ciaran. There aren't two axises to interact with each other in this system. There is only the one Attitude axis of Grim -> Neutral -> Principled.

The 3 beliefs don't exist on an axis at all. You can pick one to support and one to hate, which will define your philosophy as one of the six listed.

Since you can have any of the 6 philosopies or none in addition to being principled, neutral or grim, there are 21 alignments in this system, not 9. Thankfully, there's no need to describe each individually, as the attitude axis only defines how you follow your philosophy, not what it actually is.

Reaver, your Kantian vs Utilitarian sounds like it's my Principled vs Grim scale in a different guise.
I really like having it there, but in practice I prefer to leave the law and chaos parts of the game intact, which is why I made it its own thing rather than replacing an axis.

I have tried selfish vs selfless before. I think it's an improvement on good and evil because it's better defined. When not using an alignment variant I usually take good and evil to mean exactly that.
I think there's potentially a lot to gain by going relative instead though, hence this system.

Ilja, you may be right about the nicknames. Any suggestions, people?

Have you considered letting principle/grim match law/chaos instead? Was there a specific reason you made it match good/evil?

you mean for determining what abilities you can have? Yeah, absolutely.

It qualifies you for options as though you were good or evil for several reasons.

First and foremost, almost everything in the system that is only for evil characters is nasty, ugly or associated with evil entities, but not inherently evil to use. It's possible to use devil powers against real devils, or to heal the sick, and when you get down to it, animating a slain horse as a skeleton is probably more forgiveable, all else being equal, than blowing up six people with a fireball.
None of these things have to be evil, but all of them are exactly what I mean when I say Grim.
That's partly what I mean when I say I want to add depth and clear definitions. It's hard for me to accept that poison and death-related stuff is inherently evil, but it's obviously SOMETHING. Grim is there to be that something, and principled is there to oppose it.

The second reason is when good and evil are defined in terms of your character's own beliefs, you need some way to stop every single character counting as good for the purpose of their own abilities. That would be thematically ridiculous and wasteful of existing mechanics.
It's what stops the nasty guys having to use powers that look more at home on a paragon of virtue. I think characters ought to get a choice, and that the choice ought to be meaningful rather than purely aesthetic.

Finally, I think law and chaos, if defined clearly, work just fine as-is. They're pretty simple concepts and they are absolute. You follow the rules or you don't.
Absolute Good and Evil as represented in the core rulebook had to go to make way for ethical questions with no right answer, because I think "what is right?" is a really interesting question.

EDIT: The philosophies really do need names, don't they? I could cute one of the adjectives describing each one and bold the other, but I think propper names are probably in order. I think of BvL as Liberal and CvB as Social Darwinist, but I don't think I want to use historical names or modern political language.

I see. I'd probably have gone the opposite direction, but it seems well thought-out.

I think one way to name the philosophies is to name their adherents instead. There's basically three major ways to do it: Let them name themselves, try to pick neutral names, or let their opponents name them. What I mean is, if we look at LvC, they'd probably name themselves "The Just" or similar, while a neutral name might be "Orthodox" and their opponents might name them "Conformists".

Regardless of which, I think all should be named after the same pattern. Personally, I like the idea of them being named by their opponents primarily, because hey, it's fun. I like planescape, and this feels a lot like the factions in planescape, which often where referred to by derogatory nicknames. Neutral names have the benefit of being, well, neutral, but to me they feel less personal.

My suggestions:
BvC = Two-Shoes
BvL = ? The Naive?
CvB = Egoists
CvL = Insurgents? Opportunists?
LvC = Conformists
LvB = Heartless?

Or, if we want to go with what they'd call themselves:
BvC = Righteous
BvL = Anarchists? Revolutionaries?
CvB = Jungle's Law?
CvL = Individualists
LvC = The Just
LvB = Organizers?

I certainly don't want any names which judge, or suggest that these people are organised groups, though a setting dominated by organisations upholding the philosophies would be very interesting.

LvB in particular is a tricky one, because it covers people who think everybody should obey the boos, whether they are the boss or not.

I am seriously considering going with

BvC = Unity

BvL = Tolerance

CvB = Competition

CvL = Freedom

LvC = Propriety

LvB = Compliance

but while they're quite accurate they don't sound like the names of philosophies.

Any better ideas, people?

Sort of a different theme for the naming scheme. I'm honestly not sure if I like these myself, but maybe they'll spark someone else to think of something better.

BvC: The Ordered Society
BvL: To Each Their Own
CvB: Survival of the Fittest (alternately, The Strong Will Rise)
CvL: Individualism
LvC: Protection Under the Law (could swap BvC and LvC names, if you like)
LvB: Authoritarianism (alternately, Honor Thy Ruler)

Some of those could work really well as quotes to put next to the final names, whatever they may be.

While I don't want the philosophies to become in-game/setting terms, I feel like their names should be reasonable answers to "What philosophy do you follow?"
The Ordered Society sounds like a particular society, but Survival of the Fittest could work very well.

The only one I disagree with is Protection Under the Law, since LvC isn't about protecting people. It's about following the book, whatever it says.

You may have given me the ideas I needed. Thanks.

Better one for LvC would be "The Greater Good," now that I think about it.

I don't want to use the greater good, because all the philosophies strive for "good" as they understand it. Also when people talk of "the greater good" that's commonly in the context of grim deeds, as defined in this system.

I just updated the document. In the end, I went with Live and Let Live, Harmony, Propriety, Authoritarianism, Individualism and Survival of the Fittest.

Thoughts anyone?

Looks good, but authoritarianism is a mouthful. Compliance is better in that case, though still not perfect.

Conformity, Autocracy, Despotism. Obedience is a more neutral term, perhaps.

Autocracy is a bit to specific, being a system of government and about absolute power, rather than just power.

Conformity sounds more like LvC to me.

Obedience and Compliance make it sound like people with that philosophy only follow the orders, rather than give them out too.

Despotism would only be accurate in the case of a nasty LvB society.

It is a long word, but it's probably still the best name I have yet.

EDIT: Just changed Propriety from "the philosophy of structure and regulation" to "the philosophy of conformity and regulation"

#BreakingNews

Looks good, but authoritarianism is a mouthful. Compliance is better in that case, though still not perfect.

What about simply "Order"?

Because that sounds more like LvC and could also mean BvC.

Obediance/compliance I think works, it could as well mean "people should obey me". And a lot of order-givers that fit that philosophy will also take orders.

On the other hand, Survival of the Fittest and Live and Let Live are both more or less whole sentences - so what about "Order Above All" or similar?

Order Above All would be LvC, if you ask me. I might use Obedience for LvB though.

Order Above All would be LvC, if you ask me. I might use Obedience for LvB though.

I was thinking LvC people could still be motivated primarily by compassion, and change the law for the betterment of people - while LvB feels like kind of like the Mercykillers philosophy or similar.

Kind of like "order no matter how much people suffer", and "mercy and love are the enemies of order, bound to cause rebellion". The Lawful Evils with a focus on Law, if one where to translate it to the standard system.

That was why I felt "Order Above All" would fit.

It feels to me as if LvC would see law, order, and conformity as the best way to make the world a better place (in that persons opinion).
Meanwhile, for the LvB, the hierarchy/law/order would be the goal itself, and any "goodness" (compassion, solidarity etc) must be seen as a threat to the absoluteness of the hierarchy/law/order.

Or at least that a large amount of people adhering to those philosophies would feel that way.

LvC isn't like that, no. LvC is meant to be "for the law", not for the people, necessarily.

LvB would be "for the boss"

The alignment you're looking for for that sentiment is BvC, which is out to help people, but is still a lawful alignment because it helps them by using the law to protect them from chaos.

Oh. From the descriptions given, I thought both LvC and BvC could be kind of what I described though with different focus, while both LvC and LvB could be both "for the law" and "for the boss".

Well, all alignment/belief systems are a little vague, so nothing unexpected. And this is still far more clear than vanilla alignments.

I may have to work on that then.
It doesn't need to be absolute and LvC characters can certainly look out for other people.
The only important difference is that the alignments which start with L think that "doing what's right" and "following the rules" are pretty much the same thing.

Questions:

1) Is it possible for someone to hold a belief and simultaneously be neutral on the Law/Chaos axis? As written, it doesn't seem like it is as all philosophies either support or oppose either law or chaos.

2) Does the Attitude actually affect anything? As written, it seems that everything is based on philosophy not attitude with the exception of labels that end up non-mechanical since no ability hinges them. (Undead may have the Dark subtype, but if nothing procs based on that subtype what does that mean?)

3) This seems to throw most alignment restrictions out the window (which I'm okay with). I assume only Paladin/Cleric and similar retain their alignment restriction via philosophy restriction?

4) Related to #3, Does this mean that Paladin and Antipaladin essentially become different flavors of the same thing, or would you say that Antipaladin must have "vB" and Paladin must have "Bv"? (This leaves 2 options for each, LvB/CvB for antipaladin and BvL/BvC for paladin. Perhaps LvC/CvL could support either class.)

1) All the philosophies are either lawful or chaotic, to varying extents. What do you think of that?

2) Attitude dictates your effective moral alignment for qualifying for classes and using abilities. Principled makes you count as good for those purposes, while Grim makes you count as evil. That means all Paladins are Principled, all Assassins are Grim and Grim clerics can't channel positive energy.
(As far as the subtypes are concerned, this means that undead can't be paladins or channel positive energy.

3) Alignment restrictions are still in place, as modified by this system. I may at some point add recommendations for removing frivolous ones, though.
Also see the stuff about Attitude in answer number 2.

4) This means an anti-paladin is a Grim and Chaotic counterpart to the Paladin's Principled Law. Either can support or oppose Benevolence as they wish.

Looks good, but it seems to have its basis on all things being inherently good. Grim as a replacement for evil doesn't cut it IMO. Taking the Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker from Batman. By the orignal system he is an archetypal chaotic evil and he would translate to be CvL Grim by your system. However he is CvL and CvB and is principalled, but his principles are to cause death, destruction, chaos and misery wherever possible.

Perhaps selfish as a fourth attitude would cater for those personalities not caring about being good.

I also think a destructive philosophy would be a good counter to benevolent. The Joker would then be Destructive v Law and Selfish. Though I guess CvB and Selfish could also describe the Joker

With four items in each of the two dimensions you would be better able to map to the old alignments.

Selfish as a fourth attitude didn't make much sense or work very neatly when I tried it. The Joker sure as hell isn't selfish in The Dark Knight anyway.

People generally do not stand for destruction. It's an essentially boring concept. "Ok, you broke a wooden plank in half, good for you." Meaningful destruction is usually Chaotic, which I think we can all agree the Joker already is.

I'm not interested in mapping the old alignments. I don't think it's required.

All in all I don't have a problem with some people like the Joker being principled. It's a natural consequence of allowing Grim heroes.

I think if there's a problem here, it's that Grim is both the attitude of doing ugly things and of compromising your own beliefs to advance your philosophy. In the case of the joker, he does the former constantly and the latter not at all.
Probably the description of grim needs to be changed to doing horrible, ugly stuff, which includes but is not limited to violating your own philosophy.

1) All the philosophies are either lawful or chaotic, to varying extents. What do you think of that?

2) Attitude dictates your effective moral alignment for qualifying for classes and using abilities. Principled makes you count as good for those purposes, while Grim makes you count as evil. That means all Paladins are Principled, all Assassins are Grim and Grim clerics can't channel positive energy.
(As far as the subtypes are concerned, this means that undead can't be paladins or channel positive energy.

3) Alignment restrictions are still in place, as modified by this system. I may at some point add recommendations for removing frivolous ones, though.
Also see the stuff about Attitude in answer number 2.

4) This means an anti-paladin is a Grim and Chaotic counterpart to the Paladin's Principled Law. Either can support or oppose Benevolence as they wish.

1) But all philosophies either say "Pro Law" or "Against Chaos" and the definitions of those beliefs fit pretty dang closely with the existing law/chaos boundaries to which you refer. It seems difficult to see a Chaotic or even Neutral character with "Pro Law" on the list. I'm wondering if the law/chaos boundary can't just be mostly ignored or rolled into philosophies as well.

2+4) I agree that a regular paladin would need to be Principled, but I can't see them being principled and anti-benevolence. Antipaladins would have to be principled as well because they also fall if they violate their beliefs, and I cannot see them being pro-benevolence given that they are explicitly forces for darkness, evil and destruction, which doesn't exactly fit with the "want better for people" image.

I would say that both paladins and anti-paladins would have to be Principled, with LvC and CvL being philosophies for either along with the vB for antipaladin, and the Bv for paladin.

3) Alignment restrictions can mostly be replaced with philosophy and attitude restrictions, it seems. The classes with law/chaos restrictions can pretty much just lose them in this system (thought he L of paladin is replaced by Principled).

Overall) I don't think that Attitude works well as a good versus evil replacement, especially given that you don't actually use it as such for most of the rules.

I would suggest leaving the "attitude replaces good/evil" idea behind completely and have it and philosophy be the only two axes. Philosophy takes care of how holy/unholy type of effects work, while channeling can always be a choice (with the possible exception of a few gods who are extremely against one type or the other).

Many things that are normally labeled evil are completely culture reliant, such as cannibalism, raising the undead or poison use. If morality is supposed to become relative, then judgement of these aspects probably should be as well. This is a lot more work, though.

As an example: A CvB character might be totally on-board with mass poisoning without being Grim. From their point of view anyone who didn't survive was simply unworthy. Heck, this act might even be a Principled one from their point of view (depending on the circumstances).

TL;DR - Attitude works well as a metric for classes that are supposed to follow beliefs strongly, but does a poor job at being a good/evil indicator in a world with relative morality. Philosophy, however, does a good job of being a good/evil indicator. Law/chaos is more-or-less unnecessary and overlaps too much with the law/chaos beliefs, making it seem that law/chaos abilities can also be rolled into philosophy.

PS: Is philosophy optional for intelligent creatures? I hope so; not having a philosophy is a good candidate for a "neutral" replacement and works well with the "mindless has no philosophy" angle.

Ok, I can see some things could have been clearer here. This is all good to know, as it'll help me improve the document.

1) Law and Chaos already are rolled into the the philosophy system. Take a look at the document again.

2) There's actually a mistake in the document there, so thanks for finding it. Anti-Paladins are supposed to be able to violate their own philosophy, but only when doing so serves it more in the big picture.
The Paladin and Anti-Paladin of this system are intentionally re-cast. They are no longer agents of good and evil, they are instead principled agents of law and grim agents of chaos.
Paladins opposing Benevolence makes a lot of sense to me when the higher power they think people should serve is Old Testament God, King Arthur or the like.

3) Alignment restrictions are entirely replaced by Philosophy and Attitude restrictions. That's the point. In fact, Philosophy and Attitude entirely replace the old alignment system. There's nothing else left to restrict by.

Overall) Attitude isn't a good and evil replacement. Attitude is just a character's attitude. It replaces good and evil for one purpose alone: Meeting requirements. I'm not sure why you think it's intended to do other stuff.

None of those examples of cultural evil you mention are necessarily aligned with anything in my system, with the notable exception of raising undead, which I do treat as inherently Grim.
It's quite possible for a Principled Survival of the Fittest character to poison people to weed out the weak.

Attitude never indicates anybody's moral alignment, that comes under Philosophy already. The philosophy of another creature determines whether you detect it with detect evil, whether you can smite it etc.

Yes, Philosophy is optional for sentient beings.

Does that help clear things up?

Here's the document again, complete with anti-paladin correction, for those whole are averse to scrolling.

Lawful or Chaotic?

Law and Chaos remain simple absolutes.

Characters who support Chaos or oppose Law are Chaotic.
Characters who support Law or oppose Chaos are Law

What does this section mean, then? It is just referring back to philosophies? As written, it makes me think you are referring to the old L/C alignments, which you've just stated isn't the case.

None of those examples of cultural evil you mention are necessarily aligned with anything in my system, with the notable exception of raising undead, which I do treat as inherently Grim.

I don't think that Undead should be inherently Grim. Whether undead are or are not against beliefs would be perpendicular to the entire system as currently laid out.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but I actually have a custom setting that demonstrates a counter-point to the Grim nature of undead. One major nation believes that being turned into an undead after death is an honor because it allows them to serve their nation that much more (LvX). After that undead breaks, the remains are then buried and honored as other nations might. I wouldn't exactly call them necessarily Grim nor necessarily Principled, it is simply part of their philosophy that being made undead allows them to serve their country better. NOT becoming undead or disallowing another from becoming undead might be a possible Grim choice for them, even.

Either way, I hesitate to make anything "inherently" grim or principled as it makes presumptions about one's philosophy. While many "evil" things may end up grim for most, it is not something you can really assume. The same goes the other way, of course. A CvB character may consider healing someone a Grim act, despite that being a stereotypically good act.

To make anything inherently grim or inherently principled would introduce an element of objective morality to the system, which I think is against the intended goals.

That's intended to refer back to the three beliefs which are the basis of the philosophies, yes. I'll change the language to clarify it.

As for the Grim undead thing, undead are canonically always evil. Having removed objective evil, I chose to assume they still were always mean sons of b*#+$es.
I chose to lump them in with the magic of filth, pain and suffering because it seemed thematically consistent.

I see exactly what you mean about the problematic nature of inherently grim things, but I disagree that having them introduces objective morality. Grim is not bad. It just... is. I for one wouldn't think any less of a person because they were grim.

You have given me much to think about.

I like the system but I don't like the Grim being associated with Evil and Principled associated with Good, even for Undead, chanelling etc. It strikes me as though benevolence is the measure of good and evil an in effect the 6 philosophys are similar to 6 of the alignments with NG, N and NE missing as every philosophy is either for or against L or C.

A good grim character could sometimes do evil whereas a principled good character wouldn't. A principalled evil character wouldn't do good whereas a grim one might become the reluctant hero for a while to further their cause.

E.g. the prince is drowning in crocodile infested water. The principalled villan laughs at his plight and delights at the national mourning that follows. The grim villan rescues the prince at great personal risk, absorbs the adulation and wins the trust of the king. A month passes and the king and prince have disappeared on a hunting expedition with the nation's hero.

But as you have stressed this is not a remapping of the nine alignments and indeed CvB need not be evil - competitive would also describe the philosophy and would fit many salesmen for instance. I think what is missing, and what I tried to highlight earlier with the Joker example is that your descriptions are very good for describing basically good to neutral characters and would be excellent for the PCs and similar. But the truly nasty NPCs such BBEGs and evil outsiders need something similar to describe their motivators. Is it power, personal glory, causing misery, wanton destruction, greed etc.

I see one general and one published setting mechanical problem with this system: What are the alignment restrictions for druids under it? and similarly, If the old system doesn't map to it what do you do for the alignments of deities published with alignments under the old system, in particular those that are neutral on the law/chaos axis?

I think you really need a philosophy representing genuine belief in law/chaos balance to use this in existing settings or without altering the druid alignment restrictions.

I would also prefer the law and chaos restrictions be removed from antipaladins. I've always disliked chaotic antipaladins and pretty much the entire rationale for paladins being lawful has been stripped away by incorporating "adheres rigidly to a set of beliefs" into principled.

That's intended to refer back to the three beliefs which are the basis of the philosophies, yes. I'll change the language to clarify it.

As for the Grim undead thing, undead are canonically always evil. Having removed objective evil, I chose to assume they still were always mean sons of b%$+#es.
I chose to lump them in with the magic of filth, pain and suffering because it seemed thematically consistent.

I see exactly what you mean about the problematic nature of inherently grim things, but I disagree that having them introduces objective morality. Grim is not bad. It just... is. I for one wouldn't think any less of a person because they were grim.

You have given me much to think about.

By calling it grim, you're saying that its use is against one's beliefs. By saying that it's grim for everyone, you're saying that it's against everyone's beliefs, which means you are making a philosophical choice for them.

If you want, you could say that "undead are assumed to be considered grim unless one's philosophy explicitly states otherwise". In this case you are saying "This isn't global, but it's close enough you can probably assume." This removes the issue with creating an objective morality while allowing the "grim" assumption to be made.

Very interesting read, nice work. Could easily see this working a lot better than current allignment rules.

I see one general and one published setting mechanical problem with this system: What are the alignment restrictions for druids under it? and similarly, If the old system doesn't map to it what do you do for the alignments of deities published with alignments under the old system, in particular those that are neutral on the law/chaos axis?

I think you really need a philosophy representing genuine belief in law/chaos balance to use this in existing settings or without altering the druid alignment restrictions.

I would also prefer the law and chaos restrictions be removed from antipaladins. I've always disliked chaotic antipaladins and pretty much the entire rationale for paladins being lawful has been stripped away by incorporating "adheres rigidly to a set of beliefs" into principled.

I don't think completely ditching druidic alignment requirements would cause any problems. The gods, though, would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. You'd have to read their philosophy and match it up against one of the 6. This may be annoying, but is honestly probably not that hard given that you generally only need to do this when someone makes the god relevant.

As for the law/chaos balance... I suppose I could see that. I will note, however, that those who seek balance are often themselves unbalanced. For example, a character (in the normal alignment system) who seeks balance between good and evil might slaughter many for no reason other than to ensure that balance is attained, which would make them evil (they may or may not take this into account when balancing). Maybe "no philosophy" can be used in the case of this system?

Honestly, I would not make the "I strive to balance all things" niche a high priority. I have never seen anyone even think of playing such a character, nor seen any DM use such a character.

As for the paladin/antipaladin thing, I believe the intent was already to remove the law/chaos element and replace it with Principled/Grim respectively. I could be wrong, though.

Well, it should be pretty obvious how the vB philosophies can do evil, since they're opposed to attempts to improve people's quality of life.

Your classic Dark Lord and his unquestioning minions are LvB through and through, while a CvB character who thinks life should be a free-for-all and acts as though it is one is pretty classic villain material too.

Then you have CvL and LvC. Those are also quite capable of being scary villains, for pretty much the same reasons as their vB counterparts.

The Benevolent philosophies are inherently out to help people, but that's not going to stop the making great antagonists.
A Grim BvC alchemist could be out to exterminate the weak, forbid reproduction by natural methods and force the world to do things his way, not out of selfishness, but in an attempt to reduce suffering. After all, he's a genius, so he must know best, right?
If I have any philosophy at all, it's got to be BvL, so that might explain why I find it hardest to see that philosophy do anything I would consider evil. Certainly they're just as capable of hurting people as the alchemist above, probably by tolerating things that hurt people and blaming the "closed minds" of the victims, or by going completely against their own principles to bring down a regime they consider oppressive, doing far more harm in the process than the regime ever did.

Your traditional self serving thief or leg breaker is probably not principled and doesn't stand for a philosophy. He's not evil so much as his is pig-ignorant. Nobody is actually going to detect him as evil, but nobody is going to detect him as good either.

I'll keep all this stuff in mind for potential re-writes of the descriptions.

Woah. A lot of posts appeared while I was typing that. Lets see...

Altarlost, I completely forgot the druids! By following the rules of the system, we can see that characters with neutral attitudes qualify for classes as though they were morally neutral. We can also see that characters with no philosophy count as neither chaotic or lawful. Logically, a druid must be one or the other of those.
I am aware that those are stupid requirements, so I say remove the limits entirely.

As for deities, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. I suggest giving them philosophies and attitudes which you think match their descriptions. At some point I might make a list of official alignments for pathfinder's core deities though.

Excellent catches both. Thank you.

I'll consider removing the lawful restriction from paladins, but while I like that rule, I've so far been thinking of it as beyond the mission statement of the revised alignment system. You may, again, have a point.

Jon, thanks for the encouragement.

Stabbitty, I do not mean to say it's against anybody's beliefs. Grim is meant as the attitude of dreadful methods in general and violating the tenets of your philosophy is only the foremost among them. It's very clear at this point that I need to edit the attitude descriptions to better reflect that.

Paladins need to be Lawful and Principled. Attitude replaces moral alignment requirements, not law/chaos requirements

Stabbitty, I do not mean to say it's against anybody's beliefs. Grim is meant as the attitude of dreadful methods in general and violating the tenets of your philosophy is only the foremost among them. It's very clear at this point that I need to edit the attitude descriptions to better reflect that.

There you go with that objectivism again :P

By saying that a method is "dreadful", you are making a philosophical statement. To some that method may be dreadful, to others not. If you make it so that the system as a whole considers undead dreadful, then you are saying that the world itself is judging those who use undead to be Grim, regardless of that individuals beliefs, and are thus making it an objective rather than subjective facet.

This is why I was suggesting making undead default to grim for any philosophy that doesn't state otherwise: Most people would agree that it is dreadful, but not all will.

As another way of stating it: Making undead or their use "always grim" makes no more sense "always LvB" or "always CvL". The only way to make sense of it is to add objectivism, which I believe is not your goal.

Couldn't Mummies serving as tomb guards for ancient kings be Principled LvC?

I think it makes more sense for Grim to mean "willing to violate principles" and Principled to mean "unwilling to do so," with no statement as to what methods are "dreadful" or not. For example, a Principled LvB character would never break the law for his own advancement, even if he believed in his own advancement at the expense of other people. A Grim LvB character would believe in law and order in general, but be willing to break the law for larger goals (in the same way a Grim BvC character might break a law for a "Larger Justice").

As for the law/chaos balance... I suppose I could see that. I will note, however, that those who seek balance are often themselves unbalanced. For example, a character (in the normal alignment system) who seeks balance between good and evil might slaughter many for no reason other than to ensure that balance is attained, which would make them evil (they may or may not take this into account when balancing). Maybe "no philosophy" can be used in the case of this system?

Honestly, I would not make the "I strive to balance all things" niche a high priority. I have never seen anyone even think of playing such a character, nor seen any DM use such a character.

Strive for balance in all things is, indeed, a bogus alignment. You are absolutely right that someone seeking balance between good and evil is self deluded evil by any honest assessment, but wanting a balance point between two non-evils is entirely possible. At the risk of bringing up real politics, most people who think about politics philosophically are neither totalitarians nor anarchists. They believe there is some balance point between no rights and no rules that is best.

Call it BvL&C. BvL tends to accept some orderliness a necessary evil because anarchy is pretty indefensible to a benevolent philosophy, but tends to consider things like tradition unnecessary evils. BvC may value freedoms in the abstract, but not in practice (contrast freedom of the press with restrictions on cigarette advertising in America). BvL&C may value even the messy freedoms like BvL while also valuing tradition and traditional morality like BvC. I'm not going to claim that's the entirety of law/chaos balance, but I think it's enough to demonstrate that philosophies balancing law and chaos can exist.

There are a few other crazy neutralities associated with druidism like nature and people or growth and decay that can go under a catch all "miscellaneous nonstandard philosophies" entry that aren't common enough among real people to worry about but are associated with D&D druids running back to when true neutral was their only permitted alignment. These tend to be purple and green alignments in the context of this system and would probably ping as evil to just about everyone that doesn't hold them.

What about this instead:

Principled = You stick to your beliefs, even if that means you don’t advance your cause as much as you could.
Pragmatic (rather than grim) = You are prepared to commit acts against your own beliefs, so long as such acts do more good than harm to your cause.

Then, for restriction purposes, let those replace the lawful/chaotic requirements rather than the good/evil ones. In most cases, lawful requirements already seem to focus on being principled on your own beliefs, rather than necessarily focusing on the beliefs of society (esp. monks, which are even described as potentially skilled assassins, IIRC. though that might be 3.5)

Then let good/evil be described by the belief system: If you are BvX you're good, if you're XvB you're evil, if neither you're neutral.

That way, a pragmatic cleric with the philosophy of Harmony might see it as necessary to sometimes commit acts against that philosophy - but since they're ultimately out to make people's life better, it makes more sense for them to have channel positive energy, healing people.

Principled/Pragmatic would reflect how hard you judge yourself for following your beliefs, while philosophies that deal with lawfulness/chaos would deal with it on a societal level. Lawfulness/chaos philosophies would be more directly concerned with collectivism/individualism.

So a principled CvL would probably believe law should be opposed at all times, and refuse to take part of any lawful system.
A pragmatic CvL would probably believe the law should be opposed and broken down, but would not be directly opposed to try to break the system from within.
Both would be seen as neutral in respect to good/evil; the first would be able to take classes/abilities etc that required it to be lawful, like Monk, while the second could take classes that required them to be chaotic (though I can't think of any right now).