Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

So that panel was very informative. I'm a little surprised at the scale of some of the changes they're making...definitely well beyond mere errata. Spells in particular seem to be changing quite a bit, with some merging and others going away entirely. It does look like we'll wind up with a better game overall, but backward compatibility definitely isn't going to be as simple as translating the old spell names into the new ones.

breithauptclan wrote:

And maybe - just maybe - we can get a better name for the opposite of Chaotic than "Lawful".

Chaos, by definition, is "complete disorder". The opposite of chaos would be "order".

Maybe they want an equivalent of Chaotic/Lawful for whatever will be there, Order would go with Chaos and Law, not Chaotic and Lawful (name vs adjective).

I suspected the alignment part would generate some conversation.

I'm sure Jason will go into this a little deeper in today's stream, but just because we are removing the classic nine-alignment grid does not mean we are abandoning the idea of certain creatures being "good" or "evil" in a cosmic sense.

The significant majority of Pathfinder rules regarding alignment hinge on that aspect, so expect the remastered books to cover this in a way that doesn't wreck the champion or demons, for example.

Alignment is a philosophical personality trait matrix which is convenient as character shorthand, but could be pressed out of the rules in favor of other mental constructions. I see it best as an optional ruleset.

And if Pathfinder isn't married to the Law/Chaos & Good/Evil Axes of Alignment, there is room for alternative alignment systems.

What about a Natural World/City-State & Magic/Science Alignment Axes or Reptile/Mammal & Air Breather/Water Breather alignments?

Erik Mona wrote:

I suspected the alignment part would generate some conversation.

I'm sure Jason will go into this a little deeper in today's stream, but just because we are removing the classic nine-alignment grid does not mean we are abandoning the idea of certain creatures being "good" or "evil" in a cosmic sense.

The significant majority of Pathfinder rules regarding alignment hinge on that aspect, so expect the remastered books to cover this in a way that doesn't wreck the champion or demons, for example.

Alignment is a philosophical personality trait matrix which is convenient as character shorthand, but could be pressed out of the rules in favor of other mental constructions. I see it best as an optional ruleset.

And if Pathfinder isn't married to the Law/Chaos & Good/Evil Axes of Alignment, there is room for alternative alignment systems.

What about a Natural World/City-State & Magic/Science Alignment Axes or Reptile/Mammal & Air Breather/Water Breather alignments?

They will use Holy and Unholy traits for the current Good and Evil damage. Chaotic and Lawful damage is gone.

They will use Holy and Unholy traits for the current Good and Evil damage. Chaotic and Lawful damage is gone.

Alignment is gone. Edicts and Anathemas will take its place. Not sure if everyone will need to have them or not.
The setting stays the same. Complete with the 8 (previously aligned) outer planes.

I didn't watch the latest discussion, but it would seem easy enough to preserve chaos/law *type* damage by simply converting the tags into planar-tag-based damage, with critters that have such a tag immune or resistant to their own type and vulnerability or weakness to the opposing type. Heck, then you'd even have 4 opposing pairs instead of 2, making the 'diagonals' stand-alone concepts/forces/powers rather than derivative. Which IMO is kinda cool.

And not to get too Euthyphro about it, but 'holy' and 'unholy' are slightly different from plane-aligned. They vernacularly mean a God's favor/disfavor. Keeping those terms separate from plane-aligned makes it possible to talk about a holy relic of Abadar or Gorum, whereas if PF2E uses "holy" to mean "associated with the alignment formerly known as good," then things get confusing.

I didn't watch the latest discussion, but it would seem easy enough to preserve chaos/law *type* damage by simply converting the tags into planar-tag-based damage, with critters that have such a tag immune or resistant to their own type and vulnerability or weakness to the opposing type. Heck, then you'd even have 4 opposing pairs instead of 2, making the 'diagonals' stand-alone concepts/forces/powers rather than derivative. Which IMO is kinda cool.

Yes it is, and I'm sure the designers at Paizo have considered making it. But in the end, for legal reasons, they opted for the safest thing not to do. Even any accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement or the OGL being extremely fragile in this matter since the universal alignment rule would no longer apply to all characters, it would only apply to outsiders.

But at the same time, this system makes it extremely simple to homebrew it. Just add order and chaos as possible damage traits to spiritual damage in the same way that holy and unholy are, and apply the current immunities, resistances, and weaknesses against lawful and chaotic damage.

And not to get too Euthyphro about it, but 'holy' and 'unholy' are slightly different from plane-aligned. They vernacularly mean a God's favor/disfavor. Keeping those terms separate from plane-aligned makes it possible to talk about a holy relic of Abadar or Gorum, whereas if PF2E uses "holy" to mean "associated with the alignment formerly known as good," then things get confusing.

It's because that's the concept of holy/unholy used for monotheistic religions. In the case of polytheistic religions like those of PF2, holy ends up being really associated with good/celestial and unholy with evil/fiend.

It's funny, because I have long said the alignment debates were basically just especially polarizing sandwich debates. They were about people arguing about definitions of words as if one definition could be "right".

Perhaps, but there are wrong answers. Whatever definition you decide on, if the other mechanics make no sense according to a particular definition, then that definition is wrong. I'll grant however, that assumes your definitions for those other mechanics are not wrong.

In any case, I find alignment far too useful to abandon.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

It's funny, because I have long said the alignment debates were basically just especially polarizing sandwich debates. They were about people arguing about definitions of words as if one definition could be "right".

Perhaps, but there are wrong answers. Whatever definition you decide on, if the other mechanics make no sense according to a particular definition, then that definition is wrong. I'll grant however, that assumes your definitions for those other mechanics are not wrong.

In any case, I find alignment far too useful to abandon.

Many other games have Alignment. PF2 will not going forward.

I’m personally very glad to see it gone, and was surprised the move wasn’t made when the edition began.

It's funny, because I have long said the alignment debates were basically just especially polarizing sandwich debates. They were about people arguing about definitions of words as if one definition could be "right".

Thankfully, we will have no arguments about Edicts and Anathemas... wait a minute.

And I am pretty sure players and GMs in their great creativity will find a way to have angry debates about Holy and Unholy.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

It's funny, because I have long said the alignment debates were basically just especially polarizing sandwich debates. They were about people arguing about definitions of words as if one definition could be "right".

Thankfully, we will have no arguments about Edicts and Anathemas... wait a minute.

And I am pretty sure players and GMs in their great creativity will find a way to have angry debates about Holy and Unholy.

Of course, I won't know until the final products arrive but, generally these tags are not as useful as they once were. I'm liable to throw them out and just focus narrowly on the fact that the damage is spiritual damage.

Removed some off topic posts.

Deleted though it be, my sandwich debate comparison lives on in the words of my enemies*. >:3

Anyways, yeah, I'm really happy about the alignment change. I find the new system to be a better roleplaying prompt, and that's something I enjoy. It also helps with messy GM house rules! Instead of a blanket "no evil or CN PCs" rule, a GM can just ask to read people's edicts and anathemas, and they'll get a much more specific feel for what problems the PC's sense of ethics and morality could cause. That's handy!

By encouraging players to provide much more specific examples of their PCs' morality, it both kind of opens the door to GMs allowing way more amoral or even traditionally "evil" PCs (since instead of a player saying, "here's my evil sorcerer", they'll say, "here's my sorcerer who's willing to resort to dark magic in the short term for the sake of saving his brother, even if he doesn't like it"), and may help avoid the old chestnut of players feeling like they have to play their alignments instead of their characters.

That latter sort of problem can still happen with Beliefs, but I predict it will be much less common thanks to Beliefs' improved clarity. The fact that you can have more than one Edict or Anathema may make it feel less drastic for players to switch up their Beliefs when one isn't working out, too.

Deleted though it be, my sandwich debate comparison lives on in the words of my enemies*. >:3

** spoiler omitted **

Anyways, yeah, I'm really happy about the alignment change. I find the new system to be a better roleplaying prompt, and that's something I enjoy. It also helps with messy GM house rules! Instead of a blanket "no evil or CN PCs" rule, a GM can just ask to read people's edicts and anathemas, and they'll get a much more specific feel for what problems the PC's sense of ethics and morality could cause. That's handy!

By encouraging players to provide much more specific examples of their PCs' morality, it both kind of opens the door to GMs allowing way more amoral or even traditionally "evil" PCs (since instead of a player saying, "here's my evil sorcerer", they'll say, "here's my sorcerer who's willing to resort to dark magic in the short term for the sake of saving his brother, even if he doesn't like it"), and may help avoid the old chestnut of players feeling like they have to play their alignments instead of their characters.

That latter sort of problem can still happen with Beliefs, but I predict it will be much less common thanks to Beliefs' improved clarity. The fact that you can have more than one Edict or Anathema may make it feel less drastic for players to switch up their Beliefs when one isn't working out, too.

TBT I fervently hope Beliefs are optional rather than required.

That said, I wonder how PFS will enforce the No Evil PC and Infamy under Remastered.

And I would not be surprised that, when GMs or players have trouble understanding the typical behaviour of a character based on their Belief, they go back to using alignment for a simpler description.

I'm guessing there may be "suggested" anathemas for organizations, and the Pathfinder ones will be mandatory in PFS.

I think the idea that GMs and players might feel they need alignment to understand a character's "typical behavior" is a very good example of why I'm personally glad we're moving away from it. It was too often a crutch that encouraged simplistic roleplay and black-and-white worldviews. That's not how I used it, but it's become very obvious that it's how many people did.

I'm guessing there may be "suggested" anathemas for organizations, and the Pathfinder ones will be mandatory in PFS.

I think the idea that GMs and players might feel they need alignment to understand a character's "typical behavior" is a very good example of why I'm personally glad we're moving away from it. It was too often a crutch that encouraged simplistic roleplay and black-and-white worldviews. That's not how I used it, but it's become very obvious that it's how many people did.

It was a very efficient way to communicate basic trends in behaviour for NPCs. Sadly, someone decided to impose it on PCs. Hilarity did not really ensue.

I can just roll 3d6 for each axis of alignment, and that is enough, within the context of me making the npc, to determine basically the whole character, their motivations, morals, ethics, desires, and general habits, it all stems from alignment.

Things like beliefs and anathemas might be better at fine detail (and there is potential there), but I can't think of anything that does a better job of handling what lies underneath that detail.

"Alignment is better for minor NPC characters" is a fair take. Hopefully, we'll get some nice simple "stock edicts/anathemas" that substitute just as well. "Help those in need" vs. "Take what you want", for example. "Follow the law" vs. "Act first, think later".

It's a big relief for the Morally Neutral outsiders, though. Aeons and proteans, the kinds of beings that just sort of cause hurt and harm in equal measure or at random, should be beyond alignment.

I'm guessing there may be "suggested" anathemas for organizations, and the Pathfinder ones will be mandatory in PFS.

I think the idea that GMs and players might feel they need alignment to understand a character's "typical behavior" is a very good example of why I'm personally glad we're moving away from it. It was too often a crutch that encouraged simplistic roleplay and black-and-white worldviews. That's not how I used it, but it's become very obvious that it's how many people did.

"Explore., Report, Cooperate.," does sound like a very handy, ready-made list of edicts.

I think there might be some sort of rule about "your character has to care about something" that means you need to have some sort of code for a thing you want to do on purpose (edicts) and a thing you want to avoid doing (anathema) but you can select those from any suggested set or just come up with your own.

Like even 13th Age, which never had Alignment to begin with, gave you a number of points you had to spend on relationship with the Icons (the main setting NPCs) which can be positive, mixed, or antagonistic.

I think there might be some sort of rule about "your character has to care about something" that means you need to have some sort of code for a thing you want to do on purpose (edicts) and a thing you want to avoid doing (anathema) but you can select those from any suggested set or just come up with your own.

Like even 13th Age, which never had Alignment to begin with, gave you a number of points you had to spend on relationship with the Icons (the main setting NPCs) which can be positive, mixed, or antagonistic.

I would like to see this. Either require it or provide a carrot.

Perhaps a mechanical benefit like an extra skill, or maybe make hero points a bit easier to get.

That is starting to sound like the obligation system from the latest star wars system. You get benefits by accepting debts, responsibilities, etc.

Personally I'd prefer edicts and anathema to remain quarantined to the classes that ostensibly require it and otherwise just let me roleplay my character without having to worry about gaming it.

I am easy. But I do want to see some role playing prompts.

"Alignment is better for minor NPC characters" is a fair take. Hopefully, we'll get some nice simple "stock edicts/anathemas" that substitute just as well. "Help those in need" vs. "Take what you want", for example. "Follow the law" vs. "Act first, think later".

It's a big relief for the Morally Neutral outsiders, though. Aeons and proteans, the kinds of beings that just sort of cause hurt and harm in equal measure or at random, should be beyond alignment.

LN and CN fit them perfectly. They were beyond / unconcerned with the struggle between Good and Evil. Their own goals, which also defined their nature and behaviour, were more important.

All I'm saying is, if a player tried to convince me it's Neutral to burn an orphanage down if you build a hospital later, I wouldn't consider that in-keeping with my read on Neutral alignments.

Neutrality meant different things for PCs and outsiders. That wasn't ideal.

{. . .}

And not to get too Euthyphro about it, but 'holy' and 'unholy' are slightly different from plane-aligned. They vernacularly mean a God's favor/disfavor. Keeping those terms separate from plane-aligned makes it possible to talk about a holy relic of Abadar or Gorum, whereas if PF2E uses "holy" to mean "associated with the alignment formerly known as good," then things get confusing.

Can we get a weird symbol(*) to go with this?

(*)Given a major part of the reason for removing alignment, this is actually surprisingly on-topic in a sideways way.

All I'm saying is, if a player tried to convince me it's Neutral to burn an orphanage down if you build a hospital later, I wouldn't consider that in-keeping with my read on Neutral alignments.

Neutrality meant different things for PCs and outsiders. That wasn't ideal.

I am on the same page.

Balancing acts of good and evil to stay Neutral was beyond weird to me.

Now, committing Evil acts with great remorse because their overarching goals could just not be achieved otherwise could be Neutral at my table.

And wishing to protect innocents but not doing it because it would have put your overarching goals in jeopardy. That was Neutral at my table.

Good old times. For the most part, I'm enjoying these last alignment debates we're having.

Like the last discussions with a dear friend who has to leave and you know you will never see them again.

Also the No more Chaos-Law thread helped me realize I'm now getting old. Which oddly gave me some appeasement and serenity.

Like all momentous happenings, there is much to be gained from the arrival of Remastered. And not only in the game.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Alignment is better for minor NPC characters" is a fair take. Hopefully, we'll get some nice simple "stock edicts/anathemas" that substitute just as well. "Help those in need" vs. "Take what you want", for example. "Follow the law" vs. "Act first, think later".

It's a big relief for the Morally Neutral outsiders, though. Aeons and proteans, the kinds of beings that just sort of cause hurt and harm in equal measure or at random, should be beyond alignment.

LN and CN fit them perfectly. They were beyond / unconcerned with the struggle between Good and Evil. Their own goals, which also defined their nature and behaviour, were more important.

I'd argue a character who's truly completely disconnected from the morality of good and evil would need to be Evil, not neutral. Neutral on the Good/Evil axis implies a degree of moral restraint: Neutral characters are not overtly Good, but are unwilling or unable to perform acts of blatant Evil to accomplish their goals.

So Law, completely unrestrained by morality with no concern for who gets hurt in the pursuit of perfect Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral, because if Law-Chaos is the ends, then Good-Evil is the means and a Neutral character is not wholly unrestricted.

But LE doesn't read right for a being of 'pure Law' so you end up with Lawful and Chaotic outsiders that ostensibly represent the ultimate expression of their alignment, but are still somewhat constrained by the other axis (which helps further cement it as the primary one), both because of the nature of the alignment axis and to further differentiate themselves from Fiends.

The Raven Black wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Alignment is better for minor NPC characters" is a fair take. Hopefully, we'll get some nice simple "stock edicts/anathemas" that substitute just as well. "Help those in need" vs. "Take what you want", for example. "Follow the law" vs. "Act first, think later".

It's a big relief for the Morally Neutral outsiders, though. Aeons and proteans, the kinds of beings that just sort of cause hurt and harm in equal measure or at random, should be beyond alignment.

LN and CN fit them perfectly. They were beyond / unconcerned with the struggle between Good and Evil. Their own goals, which also defined their nature and behaviour, were more important.

I'd argue a character who's truly completely disconnected from the morality of good and evil would need to be Evil, not neutral. Neutral on the Good/Evil axis implies a degree of moral restraint: Neutral characters are not overtly Good, but are unwilling or unable to perform acts of blatant Evil to accomplish their goals.

So Law, completely unrestrained by morality with no concern for who gets hurt in the pursuit of perfect Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral, because if Law-Chaos is the ends, then Good-Evil is the means and a Neutral character is not wholly unrestricted.

But LE doesn't read right for a being of 'pure Law' so you end up with Lawful and Chaotic outsiders that ostensibly represent the ultimate expression of their alignment, but are still somewhat constrained by the other axis (which helps further cement it as the primary one), both because of the nature of the alignment axis and to further differentiate themselves from Fiends.

I actually agree with your points so I guess I did not choose the right words.

In my view, not caring that you hurt innocents is Evil. Neutral is trying to avoid hurting innocents, and even protecting them if possible, in the poursuit of your goals. And if you have to hurt them, you will deeply regret it but you will do it.

Good would go out of its way to protect innocents.

Evil would not care one iota what happens to them. Or at the very least would feel no remorse.

I meant beyond/unconcerned with the Good/Evil struggle as neither always protecting (Good) nor never caring (Evil).

It's precisely for things like these that I give thanks to WotC for being a motherf!*+er and trying to screw everyone up and thus indirectly making Paizo have to review all the mechanics and contexts inherited from D&D and finally get rid of this mess that it was the system of alignments.

It might even be something interesting to discuss on the forum or at a bar table. But it sucked because we never had a really clear definition that defined what characters could and couldn't do to stay in or out of an alignment and its side effects on the mechanics related to it.

Squiggit wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Alignment is better for minor NPC characters" is a fair take. Hopefully, we'll get some nice simple "stock edicts/anathemas" that substitute just as well. "Help those in need" vs. "Take what you want", for example. "Follow the law" vs. "Act first, think later".

It's a big relief for the Morally Neutral outsiders, though. Aeons and proteans, the kinds of beings that just sort of cause hurt and harm in equal measure or at random, should be beyond alignment.

LN and CN fit them perfectly. They were beyond / unconcerned with the struggle between Good and Evil. Their own goals, which also defined their nature and behaviour, were more important.

I'd argue a character who's truly completely disconnected from the morality of good and evil would need to be Evil, not neutral. Neutral on the Good/Evil axis implies a degree of moral restraint: Neutral characters are not overtly Good, but are unwilling or unable to perform acts of blatant Evil to accomplish their goals.

So Law, completely unrestrained by morality with no concern for who gets hurt in the pursuit of perfect Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral, because if Law-Chaos is the ends, then Good-Evil is the means and a Neutral character is not wholly unrestricted.

But LE doesn't read right for a being of 'pure Law' so you end up with Lawful and Chaotic outsiders that ostensibly represent the ultimate expression of their alignment, but are still somewhat constrained by the other axis (which helps further cement it as the primary one), both because of the nature of the alignment axis and to further differentiate themselves from Fiends.

I actually agree with your points so I guess I did not choose the right words.

In my view, not caring that you hurt innocents is Evil. Neutral is trying to avoid hurting innocents, and even protecting them if possible, in the poursuit of your goals. And if you have to hurt them, you will deeply regret it but you will...

Yeah its really not that difficult:

Good wants to help everyone and is self-less.
Neutral will not go out of their way to help or hurt someone.
Evil wants to hurt everyone else and is selfish.

Lawful wants things to be orderly and organized.
Neutral won't blindly follow laws but will not go out of their way to break them.
Chaotic wants things to be chaotic and free.

Someone having an anathema/edict of "always carries their clan dagger" tells me nothing about how the character behaves. It does tell me that they won't just give away their dagger. Someone "hunting the enemy of their people" does not tell me how they will act outside of being very patriotic or vengeful.

Yeah its really not that difficult:

Good wants to help everyone and is self-less.
Neutral will not go out of their way to help or hurt someone.
Evil wants to hurt everyone else and is selfish.

Lawful wants things to be orderly and organized.
Neutral won't blindly follow laws but will not go out of their way to break them.
Chaotic wants things to be chaotic and free.

Except these definitions didn't really work. You still end up with alignment restrictions and such that don't make sense with these definitions and thus they are wrong.

Also you defined neutral in terms of legal laws which makes even less sense.

Once again, I do not feel that PCs' behavior should be dictated by alignment. For me, it was always the opposite. Alignment didn't tell me how to roleplay; it was, if anything, merely a tool of analysis. The fact that so many people did use it that way is a big part of why I'm glad it's leaving.

Anyways--

While aeons are not malicious creatures, they care nothing for individual beings or the struggles and emotions central to most life. The ruin of an entire city or burning of a vast forest means equally little in their manipulation of symmetry. By the same right, creating new life or constructing defenses against impending calamities are equally characteristic acts. For aeons, only the final tally matters, and a land overpopulated by humanoids is just as much in need of culling as a land overrun by ravenous fungi.

I am very glad we don't have to fit these guys on an alignment scale intended for mortals anymore.

Temperans wrote:

Yeah its really not that difficult:

Good wants to help everyone and is self-less.
Neutral will not go out of their way to help or hurt someone.
Evil wants to hurt everyone else and is selfish.

Lawful wants things to be orderly and organized.
Neutral won't blindly follow laws but will not go out of their way to break them.
Chaotic wants things to be chaotic and free.

Except these definitions didn't really work. You still end up with alignment restrictions and such that don't make sense with these definitions and thus they are wrong.

Also you defined neutral in terms of legal laws which makes even less sense.

Which one doesn't make sense?

I used law because to describe that because its easier to imagine. I could also describe it as: not being orderly but not going out of the way to cause chaos, and vice versa.

For what it's worth, I don't think you and TRB are exactly on the same page on this, even if you both wanted alignment to stay.

(As someone who enjoyed alignment, I would be on a third page--I did not enjoy playing mortal evil as unrepentantly cruel, and my standards for "neutral" were a lot morally stricter. Honestly? Making mortals unrepentantly evil often feels a little gross to me. It's a way of dehumanizing one's enemies, of rewriting complex moral realities into black-and-white morality plays, like something out of propaganda. I liked Evil as something you could fall into by accident.)

(It's almost like nobody ever agreed on how to interpret alignment, which led to endless conflicts and a confusing system for newbies.)

Which one doesn't make sense?
LG wants order to help people.
NG wants to just help people in any way.
CG wants freedom to help people.
LN wants order for the sake of order.
True N wants to just do their thing in the way that causes them the least issues.
CG wants chaos for the sake of chaos.
LE wants order to hurt people.
NE wants to just hurt people in any way.
CE wants chaos to hurt people.

I used law because to describe that because its easier to imagine. I could also describe it as: not being orderly but not going out of the way to cause chaos, and vice versa.

What doesn't make sense?

Most notably is your concept of lawful.

Doesn't make sense for monks to require lawful.
Doesn't make sense for paladins to require lawful.

Also, you have no place for apathy, nor for amorality that doesn't seek to hurt people.

Freedom is not chaos.

For what it's worth, I don't think you and TRB are exactly on the same page on this, even if you both wanted alignment to stay.

(As someone who enjoyed alignment, I would be on a third page--I did not enjoy playing mortal evil as unrepentantly cruel, and my standards for "neutral" were a lot morally stricter. Honestly? Making mortals unrepentantly evil often feels a little gross to me. It's a way of dehumanizing one's enemies, of rewriting complex moral realities into black-and-white morality plays, like something out of propaganda. I liked Evil as something you could fall into by accident.)

(It's almost like nobody ever agreed on how to interpret alignment, which led to endless conflicts and a confusing system for newbies.)

It might have been better if alignment had been implemented as one of those trait wheels you see in certain video games to explain character traits. That way you could scale your "good", "evil", etc.

Would also allow the rather nuanced, good and evil in turns. As anyone who has seen abusers in action likely knows. No one's cruel at all times anymore than kindly folks are kind at all times. Behavior is much more situational. It monolithic nature was one of the key problems with alignment. Which is why I'm not sad to see it go.

For what it's worth, I don't think you and TRB are exactly on the same page on this, even if you both wanted alignment to stay.

(As someone who enjoyed alignment, I would be on a third page--I did not enjoy playing mortal evil as unrepentantly cruel, and my standards for "neutral" were a lot morally stricter. Honestly? Making mortals unrepentantly evil often feels a little gross to me. It's a way of dehumanizing one's enemies, of rewriting complex moral realities into black-and-white morality plays, like something out of propaganda. I liked Evil as something you could fall into by accident.)

(It's almost like nobody ever agreed on how to interpret alignment, which led to endless conflicts and a confusing system for newbies.)

Actually, I believe you and I share very similar views on what the alignments meant ;-)

And the last point is why I feel alignment had to finally go. When the news arrivée, I tried to imagine another system that could take its place, but to no avail. It is very likely impossible by nature. Which made its exploration endless.

Once again, I do not feel that PCs' behavior should be dictated by alignment. For me, it was always the opposite. Alignment didn't tell me how to roleplay; it was, if anything, merely a tool of analysis. The fact that so many people did use it that way is a big part of why I'm glad it's leaving.

Anyways--

Aeons wrote:

While aeons are not malicious creatures, they care nothing for individual beings or the struggles and emotions central to most life. The ruin of an entire city or burning of a vast forest means equally little in their manipulation of symmetry. By the same right, creating new life or constructing defenses against impending calamities are equally characteristic acts. For aeons, only the final tally matters, and a land overpopulated by humanoids is just as much in need of culling as a land overrun by ravenous fungi.

I am very glad we don't have to fit these guys on an alignment scale intended for mortals anymore.

I agree that non-mortals (and their authors) had far more leeway in what they were allowed to do while keeping their supposed alignment. I used my suspension of disbelief power to deal with it as long as it stayed in the background of the setting.

Here's an idea, since alignment was so close to psychology, lets try looking there for inspiration.

There are the big 5 personality scales, and that system that breaks things down into 16 personality categories.

Neither directly addresses what alignment addressed, but they are somewhat similar and certainly could be useful in establishing personality.

It's OK. For generic NPCs and monsters I will just go back to PFS (and other adventures too)'s staple of Fights to the death + Cannot be reasoned with.

It's OK. For generic NPCs and monsters I will just go back to PFS (and other adventures too)'s staple of Fight to the death + Cannot be reasoned with.

Remind me to never play in your games. I hate that way of handling bad guys.

Generally speaking. It does make sense for robots and cornered animals.