The alignment thread to end all alignment threads.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.


Wishful thinking.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This has never been tried before.


I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.

Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:

I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.

Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)

Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy.

Just sayin'. :)

Shadow Lodge

That's not limited to alignment threads.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, Kelsey, tell me: what is Batman's alignment?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nuff sed
alignment chart

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
what is Batman's alignment?

BM.


I have posted this before. It is only how I manage the issue in my own campaign games

It is well known, among the cows, the chickens, and the pigs, that Humankind are Lawful and Evil.

To value life is good
To disregard the value of life is evil

To protect life, even if it means to threaten the life of another is often seen as good

To threaten life, even if it is only to protect the life of another is often seen as evil

To value the judgment of others is lawful
To disregard the judgment of others is chaotic

To defend philosophical positions that are based upon the judgments of one set or group, even when it is in contradiction with the judgment of yet another set or group, is often seen as lawful

To oppose the philosophical positions that are based upon the judgments of one set or group, even if the opposition is in agreement with the will of another set or group, is often seen as chaotic

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good luck with that.

Personally, if you want to know how lawful good can avoid being lawful stupid, read Order of the Stick - at least as far as the one LG main character who dies and gets judged against his alignment when he gets to heaven.


Gorbacz wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.

Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)

Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy.

Just sayin'. :)

That is also a problem...


Which Batman? Bernie Wrightson's Batman, Tim Burton's Batman, Adam West's batman?

Batman, as concieved by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, is Lawful and Good, (with chaotic tendencies)

He would choose to preserve life (even the Joker's life - see the new Arkham City video game) - if it is possible

He upholds a set of principles that he himself has not established (although he interprets those principles based upon his own life experience - he does not create those principles and is often seen refering to philosophical ideals that were set down by great men of the past, that he eschews justice, a concept that by definition requires a social pact, or social agreement, must imply that he has, as a basis, a Lawful mind set).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There will never be an absolute deffintion of alignments, and I believe this is the whole point of it. However, I can point you to this article:

All About Alignment

It is well written, extremely detailed, and should answer most of your questions if you decide you share this point of view. This is generally the one I use, and refer my players there when they have alignment questions, unless I want to use the concept differently of course. But then they are informed so.

Also, keep in mind that Detect Alignment only catches auras, as had by Paladins, Clerics, creatures with an alignment subtype or beings 4th level and above. Commoners will not register on a detect spell, which gives you some ambiguity right there.


There will never be a definition of alignment that satisfies everyone, because it Evil is helped when Good is obfuscated, and Chaos doesn't want anything to be defined. Add to this mix that there is this unreasonable assumption that everyone's opinion matters, and nothing gets done.

You want to find out what good is, hang out with a good person. Good luck finding one.


There is an entire college degree and profession around defining alignments. It's called Philosophy and Ethics. It's one of my favorite topics of discussion and one of my favorite subjects in college. I'm not discounting this thread in the slightest, but I just want to make sure you know how daunting a task this can be, even in the limited scope of the D20 system. As a baseline example, I define Lawful Good, and by extension Paladins, using Kant's Metaphysics of Morals as the pillars.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.

Easiest way quite frankly, is for you and others who post incendiary threads is to stop posting incendiary threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.

Shadow Lodge

Now there's an incendiary reference if I ever saw one. :)


Icyshadow wrote:
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.

After I read about Kant, my first thought was "THIS IS THE PALADIN CODE!" I play my paladins like that now.


I have no idea what you are talking about, TOZ :3


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is chaotic evil to engage in alignment thread discussions.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do whatever you want as long as you vaguely believe that it's right? Yay!


Fyb wrote:
Also, keep in mind that Detect Alignment only catches auras, as had by Paladins, Clerics, creatures with an alignment subtype or beings 4th level and above. Commoners will not register on a detect spell, which gives you some ambiguity right there.

On the other hand, there's see alignment


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.
Easiest way quite frankly, is for you and others who post incendiary threads is to stop posting incendiary threads.

I didn't post incendiary threads. I posted threads that ended up getting incinerated. Big difference.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.

Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:

Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"

It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.

And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")


Gorbacz wrote:
Actually, Kelsey, tell me: what is Batman's alignment?

You would first need to pick which batman comic and which writer first. But batman does give us the Joker which pretty much should be a pic in the book above CE


You must simply consider the two different axis, which are Good-neutral-evil and lawfull-neutral-chaotic.

Then it's like politic. You have the left, the center and the right, but a right party can have some center or even left ideals in his intentions. But you still focus on the main thread.

First, good neutral and evil.
You must think about what is good and what is evil, which can be a matter of perception. But I'll go about the golden rule: Don't do what you don't want other to do. If someone tend to take pleasure in seeing the others suffering, he is evil. If he defends those, he is good. I tend to say that MOST character and person should be neutral. But they can pretend to be good if so.

Neutral is not only being in the middle, but being the balance. You seek between the good and the bad, you see the bad as a necessity for the good, and the good a necessity for the bad.

Than lawfull-neutral-chaotic, which often comes to more... problems.
Lawfull is someone fair and straight in his words. He will do what he have to do, usually because someone higher ranked than him said so. By definition, a paladin is Lawful Good because he obeys to his good for the good of the people. An assassin is also lawful, because he obey to his master. A thief isn't though, since he act for his own matters. And that's why chaotic is. Being chaotic means acting in the pleasure, and not in the order.

If you ever played Neverwinter Nights, you were nearly needed to accept all the gifts offered to you to keep a chaotic alignement. Chaotic think about him first, andf might disobey to an order with which he does not agree.

The things get complicated when you think about perception. But perception is also a matter of majority in that case. Even if someone think he act for the good of the people, if he takes pleasure into killing them, there's something wrong. But killing is sometime a necessity for balance. In which case he might become neutral. But if he kills evil, I think he could consider himself as good, and that most of the people would consider him to be so.

Then, it's a matter of philosophy. But I think you can still focus on the basic. If you only keep asking questions, you will never find an answer. That's exactly what philosophy is. But if you want your games to be something else than philosophy, focuses on the basics. Golden rule.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.
Easiest way quite frankly, is for you and others who post incendiary threads is to stop posting incendiary threads.
I didn't post incendiary threads. I posted threads that ended up getting incinerated. Big difference.

We need to measure how flammable your threads are by now, Kelsey. I am starting to see a pattern here, after all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:

Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.

Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:

Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"

It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.

And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is ithe perview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")

While your view has a lot of sense, it does trip over when somebody casts any alignment-related spell or effect.

"You're Good! No I'm not! Yes you are! No I'm not!"


Goo'day Bruce,

"Emanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable..."


Gorbacz wrote:
Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy

In worlds defined by Pathfinder, though, there is black and white. Nothing doesn't fit into the dichotomy, or I guess trichotomy, since there's netural.

The difficult part is having GMs/players adjucate this.

It's hard to think this way, but in Pathfinder, players might wonder what alignment certain behaviors fall under, but characters do not. Absolute morality is codified into the world itself.

Detect Alignment spells ensure that this is the case. Every single person on the planet is aligned, and for any people with 5+HD, one can tell, with certainty, what that alignment is (and yes, everyone will mention clerics with alignments different than their god, but if you serve evil, I fail to see how you could actually be un-evil anyway).

So, we have to realize that there are no areas of gray in the actual world of Pathfinder, unless you want to be cutesy and declare Neutral gray.

If, say, torture is always evil, then there is no excuse available, no room for interpretation, nothing. It is objectively evil. Period.

So, yes, we will always have threads about "what alignment is my guy who did X," but there will never be confusion among the characters in the world judging that action.

Note that I am not actually supporting or defending alignment in Pathfinder. I personally find it silly and have never used alignment in any way whatsoever in any rpg I've ever run. But if we're talking about using Alignment, we need to be on the same page.

For what it's worth, I think that the vast, vast majority of PCs are played as Neutral Good, regardless of what they put on the page. Most PCs are generally heroic, but generally care little about how their good is done.

I think that Evil is killing/hurting/oppressing/whatever non-evil people for a selfish reason other than self-defense or defense of others (either of which might be projected).

I think that Good is only killing/hurting/whatever non-evil people in self-defense or defense of others.

I think Law is supporting society and forming rules and codes of conduct, and Chaos is violating society and breaking rules and codes of conduct.

Examples:
A mercenary who kills purely for profit and never questions his jobs is Neutral Evil. A mercenary who kills purely for profit, but never breaks a contract and/or who will not work for someone opposed to his previous employers is Lawful Evil. A mercenary who kills purely for profit, but who freely breaks contracts and deals, especially betraying their employer if the target offers more is Chaotic Evil.

Stealing jewels from a rich noble because you want to buy a brothel or something inane like that is Chaotic Neutral. Stealing bread from a starving poor person is Chaotic and Evil. Stealing bread from a rich noble to feed a starving poor person is Chaotic and Good.


Meh. The alignment system is broken because of the inherently nebulous concepts of good and evil. The law/chaos axis actually makes sense and is useful, but good and evil have no universally acceptable definition. In order to actually deal with the alignment issues, we'd need to first nail down precisely what we are using as an ethical system, in the sense of what we are accepting as the highest good.

So we have to ask ourselves certain questions first, such as whether or not it is necessary the highest good be a universal good, or not. If we feel that it doesn't need to be, then we are embarking upon a pointless exercise, since other people will approach the alignment system while using an alternate concept as the highest ideal of good in the system, and find our conclusions to be useless.

Therefore, I propose we accept suggestions on what we believe good in the alignment system should mean.

Grand Lodge

@ Gorbacz,
No tripping, if I've decided LG = x and my PC is LG then my character sheet says LG and the Alignment spells work accordingly

@Terquem,
Maybe so, but Kant was also the greatest genius of epistemological and ontological thinking since DaVinci. He just got a couple things wrong.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Try this guide

I found it to be very useful in breaking down the different alignments.


TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
what is Batman's alignment?
BM.

Wrong. True BM.


W E Ray wrote:

@ Gorbacz,

No tripping, if I've decided LG = x and my PC is LG then my character sheet says LG and the Alignment spells work accordingly

@Terquem,
Maybe so, but Kant was also the greatest genius of epistemological and ontological thinking since DaVinci. He just got a couple things wrong.

Ahem... see it’s a song, from a comedy sketch performed in ancient times you may know as the ‘nye-teen seven tee’s” by the Bruce’s’ of the University of Woolloomooloo, of the cult of the ‘Monty Python and his Flying Circus’ thingies

Grand Lodge

Ah...

(shows what I know!)


W E Ray wrote:

Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.

Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:

Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"

It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.

And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")

I like your views, however, in a world where Good and Evil (and to a lesser extent Law and Chaos) are as real and as tangible forces as the elements of Fire and Water, it simply can't work.

Paladin: Smite Evil!
Pit Fiend: Sorry, I've decided that I'm Lawful Neutral
Paladin: But you torture souls!
Pit Fiend: And what's so bad about that?


Explaining alignment is easy. Getting everyone else to agree that it's correct is the problematic part.


"You know what Alignment I am? Chaotic sexy baby!"


A big part of alignment within Pathfinder is how it applies to divine characters. While it is applicable everywhere, no one much cares if the Wizard is CN, CG, or LN... it doesn't hurt the game.

Characters can change alignment, obviously humans do this all the time (cynicism is the entropy of alignment). However, gods do not change (part of being a manifestation of an idea). The loss of divine boons, such as paladin powers, comes when an outside party (the god) decides the paladin is not representing him well. You can talk yourself into an action but you can't really talk the god into the action.

It doesnt matter if the paladin thinks he is doing good if the god thinks that it isn't. What the god thinks about any action is under the purview of the GM's interpretation of what the god is like. It should remain consistent and be swayed by circumstance only in so far as the god in question is reasonable.

Alignment sucks because it attempts to objectively define a topic for which each player and GM have a subjective understanding that is often clouded with personal bias (I am a good cleric, thus whatever things I do must also be good because by definition I wouldn't do bad things).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.

Actually, the deontological/utilitarian dynamic fits the lawful/chaotic dynamic very well.

Deontologists (Lawful) believe that the way you do something matters. An action is Right because of the way you carry it out, the results of the action do not matter. This is what leads to the absolute honesty of paladins and devils; they want to achieve their goals, but they aren't going to do things like lie to get it done. To act without any kind of code or rules to be held accountable to is a terrible idea. That would be Wrong in the deontologist's eyes.

Utilitarians (Chaotic) don't care how you get something done, as long as you get it done. An action is Right because of its results, not what your methods are. Something like stealing from the rich to help the poor (Robin Hood) is a utilitarian idea, as is doing morally reprehensible things to achieve your goals. Limiting yourself to a code is foolish (codes don't always get the job done) and leads to dogmatism and stagnation. That's Wrong in the utilitarian's eyes.

Of course the "corner alignments" (LG, CG, LE, CE) bring in moral philosophy to this as well. When it comes to good and evil, I like to think of it like this: imagine a 2D circle with a nice bell-curve to it. This represents a Neutral person's care for others. The highest point is in middle (themselves), their close friends and relatives are directly surrounding them, then their acquaintences are a bit farther and lower, and so on until you get to people they've never heard of at the edge of the circle, farthest down.

A good person would have a curve with a lot of space at the top because they care about others a great deal, including people they're not close with. Their curve has a lot of room at the top to where almost everyone is on the same level of care as the good person himself. An evil person would have a curve that's much steeper with a very high center point. They care a LOT about themselves and probably those close to them, but everyone else isn't much of a concern.

Hope this all made sense! I got this idea from an article on the Escapist, but I can't seem to find the page right now.


OmegaZ wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.

Actually, the deontological/utilitarian dynamic fits the lawful/chaotic dynamic very well.

Deontologists (Lawful) believe that the way you do something matters. An action is Right because of the way you carry it out, the results of the action do not matter. This is what leads to the absolute honesty of paladins and devils; they want to achieve their goals, but they aren't going to do things like lie to get it done. To act without any kind of code or rules to be held accountable to is a terrible idea. That would be Wrong in the deontologist's eyes.

Utilitarians (Chaotic) don't care how you get something done, as long as you get it done. An action is Right because of its results, not what your methods are. Something like stealing from the rich to help the poor (Robin Hood) is a utilitarian idea, as is doing morally reprehensible things to achieve your goals. Limiting yourself to a code is foolish (codes don't always get the job done) and leads to dogmatism and stagnation. That's Wrong in the utilitarian's eyes.

Of course the "corner alignments" (LG, CG, LE, CE) bring in moral philosophy to this as well. When it comes to good and evil, I like to think of it like this: imagine a 2D circle with a nice bell-curve to it. This represents a Neutral person's care for others. The highest point is in middle (themselves), their close friends and relatives are directly surrounding them, then their acquaintences are a bit farther and lower, and so on until you get to people they've never heard of at the edge of the circle, farthest down.

A good person would have a curve with a lot of space at the top because they care about others a great deal, including people they're not close with. Their curve has a lot of room at the top to where almost everyone is on the same level of care as the good person himself. An evil person would have a curve that's much...

That would be the same article I posted a link to above. ;)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Quantum,

You got it all wrong, mate....

Ray wrote:
a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM

So,

A Player says what is LG for HIS PC. (That's what's put on the character sheet.)
A DM says what is CE for HIS NPC. (That's what's put on the stat block.)
Another Player says what is LG or CG for HER PC. (That's what's on the character sheet.)

A DM CAN NOT say someone else's PC is such-n-such.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a monster talking to a PC in a game, or an Alignment spell being cast in a game.

And Good and Evil are Ethical Alignments.
And Lawful and Chaotic are Personality Alignments.


Explains why I always felt closest to neutral good. You can't care only for how you do something or what the results are. Doing so is nonsensical.


Pathfinder SRD wrote:

In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.

So unless your running a game for the whole planet at once, let others play as they will.

Silver Crusade

Quantum Steve wrote:
W E Ray wrote:

Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.

Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:

Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"

It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.

And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")

I like your views, however, in a world where Good and Evil (and to a lesser extent Law and Chaos) are as real and as tangible forces as the elements of Fire and Water, it simply can't work.

Paladin: Smite Evil!
Pit Fiend: Sorry, I've decided that I'm Lawful Neutral
Paladin: But you torture souls!
Pit Fiend: And what's so bad about that?

Paladin: you are not a $%#%$#@$ Punch Clock villian, you enjoy it! If you said it was just a @$@#$# then I might @#$@#$ understand! But you don't need to @#$@# eat because devils don't need to #@$@#$ eat, nor do you pay rent. Therefore you do not need a job, and do not need to torture souls. And don't give me that "just following orders bullcrap" either. Now unless you go start just dispensing justice without any arbitration or joy or sorrow in it. You cannot call yourself Lawful @$##@$ Neutral! And I know for certian that you can't be Lawful #@#$@#$ Good because you're torturing souls. Evil souls yes, but your kind tries to get MORE souls to come here so you can torture them. That's evil, it's trying to get people to do things that are morally reprehensible so you can torture them in the afterlife. That all counts towards evil you oversized BBQ!

*la smite*


Well, I am Lawfully Chaotic. Or is that disorganized in an organized way? Well, it is something like that.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm Evil Good.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The alignment thread to end all alignment threads. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.