Nine Pages that need to be in P2, Alignment

[Shiroi]

For all the trouble with alignment, and as much as I usually houserule it away when it becomes inconvenient, I don't believe we can reasonably expect it to disappear. It's already being baked deep into the crust of the blogs, and because the issue is so clearly divided it becomes difficult to even ask that they change it.

With that in mind, whether you like alignment or not it is assumed by this topic that it is here to stay, will have mechanical impact on many aspects including spells, monsters and classes, and for at least some will be relatively immutable. As such, please remain somewhat on topic, we have plenty of vent threads and argue about it threads. I'm only here to ask that it be clarified, and propose we work together to make that available.

Nine pages in the core rulebook of Pathfinder 2.0 should exist, detailing what it means to be of a particular alignment. A full page each dedicated to actions, thoughts, and ways of life which would make you a part of this group. It can also include a few universal anathema to that concept, things which would strongly annoy an outsider designed as a paradigm of that concept.

These pages, while not designed to be RAW in any way, are a chance to express the RAI of one of the most controversial parts of the game. When a paladin of any element falls, it is because they behaved in a manner more consistent with the opposite of their alignment than with the expectations placed upon them by their code. This should be a very clear thing, a more detailed version of the rules found in their class which gives great creative space to the designers to make their intentions for the game known. It can accommodate exceptions to typical rules, such as the use of an evil spell under significant duress being accepted as neutral, and how a person who clearly despises the pencil pushing letter of the law and chooses to ignore it thoroughly can be a lawful character who holds their own values, or those of another land, at high regard.

So, with these concepts brought forth, let's hear your thoughts on whether a full page devoted to helping players and DMs understand the feeling conveyed by each alignment could help, or hinder, your game. While I'm at it, what kinds of things would you put on the pages?

[RickDias]

Sure, I'll play along. Let me offer a thought for one of the alignments.

Neutral Good: This alignment is primarily concerned with Good, with benefit for others (whether this be charity, protection, emotional support, community-building, redeeming evil, or any other form of either providing benefit or reducing harm). It is not especially beholden to lawful entities, though may try to cooperate with them if it is practical to do so and expect that entity to help others or reduce harm.

Notably, a person of Neutral Good alignment tends to wind up on this path through a fairly thorough social philosophy... or the distinct lack thereof. In the former case, the individual may express clear reasons for why they make decisions based primarily on how much good that choice will result in.

In the latter case, the individual may be consistently kind and considerate of others but either lacks the intelligence or the education to have a strong 'social philosophy.' For example, a child that has not studied politics (and currently has no understanding of the benefits and drawbacks to various social structures) but is still truly kind to people might be considered Neutral Good.

Neutral Good is willing to tell the town guards about a problem if they have a reasonable belief the guards will react in a way that promotes Good. However, if they feel the guards will either ignore the problem or condone it, or would be unable to effectively deal with the problem (for example, the problem definitely would kill the average guard) then a Neutral Good individual is willing to simply ignore the rules in order to do what they feel will result in the most Good in the situation.

[Planpanther]

Ive always done fine with 9 paragraphs or less. I'd rather not see a laundry list of can/cants. We already will have a good deal written out in class anathema. /not signed

[graystone]

I'd rather have 9 pages on how to 100% remove alignment from the game optional rules if alignment just HAS to stay: 9 pages isn't nearly enough to cover any of the alignments IMO. I want to see less about alignment, not more.

[Nox Aeterna]

Yeah, fully support this idea to a point. I mean, personally i wouldnt say they each must be a page long and so on, but it would be very nice to have a major factor in the game be better explained from the developer side.

Plenty of sites give their take on this, like:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Im not saying it has to be as detailed as this, but you know... just more detailed.

[SilverliteSword]

TBH I'll probably crib the "aspects" part of character creation from FATE and then say that the character falls within whatever alignment they most sound like from the aspects. Alignment should arise naturally out of the character's personality, not the other way around.