Lingering traditions of alignment?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Something I've been wondering about personally since 2e came out is how many of us have taken advantage of the fact that many classes are now unshackled from alignment almost altogether, and how many continue adhering to alignments traditional to the class out of habit.

Druids no longer require a Neutral component to their alignment. Monks no longer have to be Lawful. Barbarians CAN be Lawful now. Even the Paladin has gained more flexibility by expanding into the Champion class with Paladin as just its Lawful Good variation. The only exception is Clerics, who arguably got MORE alignment restrictions now that deities have specific alignments they allow for their faithful (sorry, CG followers of Gorum)!

But just because the options are there doesn't necessarily mean people are using them, and old habits can die hard. Playing a Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil druid seems almost a little alien when the class has been defined even before Pathfinder existed as a protector of natural balance unconcerned with civilized morality. How does a Chaotic monk find enlightenment?

So I thought I'd ask: how have you interacted with these new options? Have you played any Lawful barbarians with their rage tempered and focused through discipline? Lawful Good druids enforcing harmonious order for all life to flourish? Or have you felt more comfortable roleplaying the classes with the alignments they've been traditionally associated with, even as they're no longer enforced? One way is not better than another, to be clear! Both are valid ways to roleplay. I'm just curious and thought it'd be interesting to discuss!

[Ascalaphus]

I only recently noticed that druids didn't have a neutral alignment need anymore. It does open up some possibilities for deity-themed druids (perhaps cleric multiclass). Erastil, Cyth V'Sug...

[Captain Morgan]

Monks being chaotic isn't a huge thing anymore since the ki mastery aspect of the class became optional. Monk sort of absorbed some of the conceptual space of brawler, subsequently, and work great for any sort of pugilist or wrestler concept.

[keftiu]

I’ve been an Eberron fan for too long to think of Alignment restrictions as second nature :p

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

One of the first characters in my group was a CG Monk/Bard, so I'd say we've embraced change. Actually come to think of it another LN Monk ended up picking up some Barbarian (spirit instinct) at mid level so there's that too.

Aside from that I'm a fan of more Champion flexibility and made myself a CG Liberator of Shelyn, though I wish there were even more options for Champions without going puppy-kickingly evil.

[PossibleCabbage]

I still want to be in a party with a Skeleton Redeemer of Arazni and a non-undead Desecrator of Arazni where the former can keep telling the latter to "calm down, you're still alive".

I love that you can have deities with weird mixtures of alignments now.

[Squiggit]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Playing a Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil druid seems almost a little alien when the class has been defined even before Pathfinder existed as a protector of natural balance unconcerned with civilized morality.

Does being concerned with civilized morality even matter? We're just talking about someone's behavior.

IDK it always felt goofy to me that a druid could be altruisitc or orderly but not both at the same time. So I don't think it's actually that much of a change, especially with alignment being increasingly used as a descriptor.

if anything I wish they'd gone farther. A CG vigilante dealing out divine retribution, or an LG redeemer both seem like completely valid concepts, but Paizo says retributive strike is only for lawful characters (etc.).

[DeathlessOne]

I'm a big "Meh" on the whole unshackling alignment from classes subject. Personally, I liked the restrictions to a certain degree but also see the advantages of freeing things up. All in all, it matters very little to me.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Squiggit wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Playing a Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil druid seems almost a little alien when the class has been defined even before Pathfinder existed as a protector of natural balance unconcerned with civilized morality.

Does being concerned with civilized morality even matter? We're just talking about someone's behavior.

IDK it always felt goofy to me that a druid could be altruistic or orderly but not both at the same time. So I don't think it's actually that much of a change, especially with alignment being increasingly used as a descriptor.

The way I always saw it was like Lawful druids felt Good druids kind of anthropomorphize animals too much, ignoring that natural laws and processes are often brutal and uncaring. Like, yes, animals do cooperate and raise their young and stuff, but then they think Good druids read too much into that and will intervene when they shouldn't. While on the other hand, Good druids feel Lawful druids are callous and care more about enforcing the cycles and laws of nature than about the suffering of living things.

[Kaspyr2077]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

The way I always saw it was like Lawful druids felt Good druids kind of anthropomorphize animals too much, ignoring that natural laws and processes are often brutal and uncaring. Like, yes, animals do cooperate and raise their young and stuff, but then they think Good druids read too much into that and will intervene when they shouldn't. While on the other hand, Good druids feel Lawful druids are callous and care more about enforcing the cycles and laws of nature than about the suffering of living things.

Seems a bit iffy, to me. I mean, your character's alignment is only a part of their personality, after all. I'm not sure how one could be a Druid without being aware of the greater cycles and their importance, and the need to sacrifice for their continuation. A Good Druid would go out of their way to minimize harm and suffering, I think, while a Neutral Druid would go about things in the most expedient way, while an Evil Druid would be all about finding ways to subvert the cycles for their own ends. A Lawful Druid might be entirely committed to their traditional methods as the only correct way to practice, a Neutral Druid might be more open to finding more convenient ways in the moment, and a Chaotic Druid might think the traditional methods are stupid and limiting, seeking to create their own method from first principles and constantly improvising.

[Gortle]

Alignment is just a rough tool to put some mechanics around some elements of morality and deities. It is always a mixed bag everyone does it differently. I for one always liked the concept of a lawful barbarian (some of those tribes have very strict codes, some don't).

We are never going to agree in absolute terms on good and evil. It doesn't matter as long as you are reasonably consistent in your own game. In a public game it is best to stick to the guidelines in the rules even if they have some rough edges.

In the end alignment drives interesting mechanics, and some characterisation. Even though it is a blunt instrument, it remains a useful part of the game.

[breithauptclan]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

How does a Chaotic monk find enlightenment?

Accidentally.

[PossibleCabbage]

breithauptclan wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

How does a Chaotic monk find enlightenment?

Accidentally.

I would say "via acceptance and understanding". You come to understand and live in accordance with universal harmony and set yourself above worldly affairs (which includes laws.)

[The Raven Black]

In PFS, I play a Lawful Neutral Animal Barbarian Pahmet Dwarf, clad in Heavy Armor and with a strong metal shield.

He feels his Animal Instinct is both blessing and curse and works on constantly improving his discipline and unleashing the Animal within only when it is the right and efficient decision.

[Perpdepog]

I have a CN monk waiting for the right game, i.e., one which is kind of darker, and where someone didn't already pick monk. They gain their universal insights from, well, the universe. The black, sucking nothing that waits patiently between the stars, anyway, and whispers to them of half-understandable truths. Unlocking those truths would be represented mechanically by either going multiclass sorc and taking the aberrant bloodline, or perhaps through the Living Vessel archetype as the secrets etch themselves into the monk's flesh.

[Ravingdork]

I have a CG elf monk who works as a messenger, delivering messages and parcels throughout the River Kingdoms. She is a carefree spirit who absolutely loves to run everywhere. That's a big part of why she became a messenger; it allowed her to run for a living, always testing herself against time constraints and natural and unnatural obstacles that might stand between her and her destination.

She values her freedom and would never allow herself to be shackled by the constraints of those who think they should hold power over others. Moreover, she believes that everyone possesses an inalienable right to determine their own destiny. It is fore these reasons that she is chaotic good and not lawful.

The traditional notions of being a monk never really enter into it. She's just a messenger that was forced into learning how to defend herself against the many bandits and lawless elements of the Broken Lands.

[Leon Aquilla]

I like alignment/class restrictions (bring back illiterate Barbarians!) and while I can't enforce them I still reserve the right to reject a Lawful Barbarian who's never set foot outside the city of Absalom under the always useful catch-all "I'm really sorry but that's not the kind of story we're trying to tell".

[Saedar]

I think Alignment is pretty unnuanced, so I basically block it out outside of basic concepting.

[Mathmuse]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I only recently noticed that druids didn't have a neutral alignment need anymore. It does open up some possibilities for deity-themed druids (perhaps cleric multiclass). Erastil, Cyth V'Sug...

Two weeks ago I ported the Blighted Handmaidens (CR 12, Female blighted dryad witch 9, CE Medium Fey) on page 33 of Prisoners of the Blight to PF2 rules as 16th-level female CE blighted dryad Wild Order druids, devoted followers of Queen Arlantia and her god Cyth-V'Sug. The party was up to 16th level and eight members, so I needed to increase the challenge. I decided that druid would be more thematic than witch and looked forward to primal magic versus primal magic. The fight was intense.

The gnome Storm-Order druid Stormdancer in my party probably has NG written on her character sheet, but she acts Chaotic Good. She was living as a hermit before the campaign, does not pay head to organized government (not that Nirmathas has any organization to their government), and gives in to her temper to blast despoilers of nature to bits. She is as chaotic as a thunderstorm. Stormdancer also has a Cleric Multiclass Dedication to the Green Faith, which does not allow CG alignment, oops. Hm, I don't see an alignment requirement in Cleric Multiclass Dedication. And Stormdancer will soon have a chance to switch her clerical faith to Gendowyn, Lady of Fangwood.

The other primal caster in the party is the leshy Fey-Blooded sorcerer Gold-Flame Honeysuckle Vine, who is Chaotic Neutral, but sorcerers didn't have alignment restrictions anyway.

[keftiu]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

I like alignment/class restrictions (bring back illiterate Barbarians!) and while I can't enforce them I still reserve the right to reject a Lawful Barbarian who's never set foot outside the city of Absalom under the always useful catch-all "I'm really sorry but that's not the kind of story we're trying to tell".

Do you not allow any reflavoring? I’ve been seeing Barbarians whose ‘Rage’ is a battle-trance since 3.5, and ditto for ‘Druids’ who were shape-shifting mutants.

[FormerFiend]

I was once involved in a very lengthy, very heated debate over the paladin's alignment restrictions, and I take the reworking into Champions as a great vindication.

On the subject of lawful barbarians & non-lawful monks, I'll admit that in that previous debate I stipulated that I could be convinced that a monk's abilities required a level of discipline that a chaotic character would be incapable of or that a barbarian's abilities were incompatible with a lawful alignment, but I ultimately don't have much of a problem with the change.

Broadienng the monk out by letting it absorb a lot of the brawler's themes work well, and I do feel that a barbarian, end of the day, is really just someone who's fighting style is one based on instinct, emotion, and physical prowess rather than the martial training of a fighter or a monk. While that still seems at odds with a lawful alignment, who someone is in a fight doesn't necessarily reflect who they are in the rest of their lives.

I can easily see a character who's a stand up member of the community, a big believer in structure, order, tight schedules & routines, but when things go down they just kinda *snap*, as being a valid interpretation of a barbarian.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm just glad we got the Champion Class without "Paladins of any alignment" which was a thing that never sat well with me.

[keftiu]

The Champion's strict Alignment straightjacketing is probably my single least-favorite thing in the 2e CRB. It makes the entire class nonsensical for so many deities.

[FormerFiend]

My thing was that by late/mid 1e, between archetypes and a few other various options, you could play a paladin/anti-paladin of or at least devoted to gods of any alignment except Chaotic Good & I believe True Neutral, and at that point I felt that it was just silly given that Gorum & Calistria making their realms in Elysium meant that you had anti-paladins with an afterlife in the CG plane, but no paladins there.

Not to mention I just never felt that there was anything about the paladin that *needed* to be lawful; clerics of every alignment had some restrictions on their behavior based on their deity, druids had four non-lawful alignments that all still had codes of conduct they needed to adhere to, vanilla CE anti-paladins had codes of conduct they had to adhere to, so just having a code of conduct was clearly not an inherently lawful thing by the standard of the rest of the system. And the vast majority of the paladin's abilities were heavily flavored towards the good, rather than the lawful.

I always felt the proper solution was, more or less what they did, tie paladins to deities(paladins un-connected to deities was a thing in the core rules, sure, but practically never showed up), give each deity a code of conduct their paladins had to follow. The name change & relegating "paladin" to the specifically lawful good column were good compromises there.

I'm still open to a trio of neutral aligned champion devotions but I don't know how necessary it is at this point.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Personally I find the notion that discipline is an inherently lawful personality trait a bit strange, and found it hard buying into the idea that somebody who values their own free will is incapable of choosing to develop their spiritual powers because they don't care much for hierarchies or traditions.

But I guess that just goes back to the infinite alignment debate... I just happen not to like the idea that alignment predestines your personality traits or vice versa. I suppose this is part of what made the flexible alignments so easy to accept for my group. Ironically, paladin if any class I could gave seen sticking with a lawful good alignment for the opposite reason--there is an argument that you must adhere strictly to the hierarchy and demands of justice and mercy. Mind you, I just finished mentioning my CG Champion above so obviously I don't hold much with this argument, but I find it more relevant than the idea that Druids only know how to care about one artificial ethical stance at a time, for example.

[The Raven Black]

FormerFiend wrote:

I'm still open to a trio of neutral aligned champion devotions but I don't know how necessary it is at this point.

Very necessary.

Some deities only have Neutral followers = no current Champion.

Some deities have Good, Neutral and Evil followers. If you stop being a Good Champion, you can fall all the way down and become an Evil Champion. But you cannot be a Neutral Champion. This feels even more awkward for Neutral deities.

In PFS, you cannot play a Champion of a deity that does not have Good followers. For example, you cannot play a Champion of Gorum. Whereas you can play a Cleric of Gorum. Pretty awkward for the god of war.

[Kaspyr2077]

Alignments and classes:

Cultures that produce the iconic "Barbarians" tend to have lots of laws and taboos. It never made sense to me to have them inherently eschew law. Entering an altered mental state for battle doesn't seem like it should have anything to do with it.

I like kung fu movies, and they're just absolutely full of hermits and rebellious, contrarian students, basically all kinds of characters willing to spit at law, tradition, and hierarchy, and they seem perfectly able to learn kung fu. Again, not sure why Monks would have to be Lawful. Maybe they tend to be, as 95+% of them would be required to be in a very structured environment to learn martial arts, but the PCs can be the weird renegade ones.

Druids are... similar to what I just said about Monks, and also Wizards, too, I guess. (They put alignment restrictions on the Druid but never the Wizard? Weird.) Their need for focused, structured, hierarchical study is going to lend itself better to Lawful than Chaotic characters. Again, though, PCs are clearly more likely to be the gifted but eccentric hermit type than usual.

Clerics and Champions should be the people who align morally and philosophically most closely to their diety, or why is the diety entrusting them with divine power? It's very odd that some dieties can't have Champions because their beliefs fall outside a certain range.

[SuperBidi]

I'm personally leaning towards more alignment restrictions for Champions than less restriction. I'm always wondering why Abadar would decide to give powers to Paladins and Tyrants simultaneously. It will obviously lead to internal struggles inside the faith, something that a Lawful deity should try to avoid as much as possible.
In my opinion, Champions should be limited to the alignment of their deity. A Neutral deity like Abadar should not give powers to someone who fights for Good or Evil as it doesn't care much about Good nor Evil.

[keftiu]

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm personally leaning towards more alignment restrictions for Champions than less restriction. I'm always wondering why Abadar would decide to give powers to Paladins and Tyrants simultaneously. It will obviously lead to internal struggles inside the faith, something that a Lawful deity should try to avoid as much as possible.

In my opinion, Champions should be limited to the alignment of their deity. A Neutral deity like Abadar should not give powers to someone who fights for Good or Evil as it doesn't care much about Good nor Evil.

With how tightly bound the Champion's subclasses are to Alignment, this is forcing every single Champion of each deity into the same core build for very little gain. If a potential follower Alignment would be seen as too disruptive to the faith, the deity simply wouldn't empower it - that's why Iomedae dropped her LN devotees, but kept the NG ones around while staying LG herself.

[SuperBidi]

keftiu wrote:

With how tightly bound the Champion's subclasses are to Alignment, this is forcing every single Champion of each deity into the same core build for very little gain.

I think the subclasses should not be limited by alignement. I don't see why Retributive Strike would be something only a LG character can use.

And anyway, all Champions have the same core build.

keftiu wrote:

If a potential follower Alignment would be seen as too disruptive to the faith, the deity simply wouldn't empower it - that's why Iomedae dropped her LN devotees, but kept the NG ones around while staying LG herself.

There's a difference between a follower alignment and a Champion alignment. A LG follower of Abadar may be focused on civilization first and foremost. But a LG Champion is focused on Good first and foremost. And Abadar doesn't care about Good so the reason why it would give power to such a Champion is weird to me.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

SuperBidi wrote:

keftiu wrote:

If a potential follower Alignment would be seen as too disruptive to the faith, the deity simply wouldn't empower it - that's why Iomedae dropped her LN devotees, but kept the NG ones around while staying LG herself.

There's a difference between a follower alignment and a Champion alignment. A LG follower of Abadar may be focused on civilization first and foremost. But a LG Champion is focused on Good first and foremost. And Abadar doesn't care about Good so the reason why it would give power to such a Champion is weird to me.

Very slight amendment: a Champion of Abadar's code would place goodness at approximately the same tier as their dedication to society. At least, insofar as their anathema to Do No Evil and Not Undermine the Law/Not Steal.

In any case, it seems to me this is more an argument for giving Champions more alignment options, not fewer. Abadar already has good and evil clergy, why not a Champion code which holds Law above either?

It doesn't seem overtly strange to me that there can be those who focus on the selfish and altruistic aspects of trade and society within Abadar's clergy. If the difference needs to be completely squared, it's simply a matter that "some causes don't work for some deities" like the given example that Torag is not well suited to having Redeemers even though he permits NG clerics. I don't think that is a call I would make about Abadar's Paladins (maaaybe Abadar's Tyrants...) but it's available without limiting alignments

[SuperBidi]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

In any case, it seems to me this is more an argument for giving Champions more alignment options, not fewer. Abadar already has good and evil clergy, why not a Champion code which holds Law above either?

I agree. I reformulate what I think: A Champion Tenet should match the alignment of its deity. So you can play a Paladin of Shelyn because you are following a tenet Shelyn cares about but you can't play a Paladin of Abadar as Abadar doesn't care about Good. But if one day the Tenet of Law is written and if there's a LG Champion of the Tenet of Law, then it should be a proper Champion for Abadar and not for Shelyn.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Very slight amendment: a Champion of Abadar's code would place goodness at approximately the same tier as their dedication to society. At least, insofar as their anathema to Do No Evil and Not Undermine the Law/Not Steal.

It's still quite weird. I don't see why Abadar would remove the powers of one of his followers because they made an Evil act. Abadar just doesn't care about that.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.

About the original subject, I also prefer alignments not to be enforced by a class. Roleplay and mechanics should be separated as much as possible.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

SuperBidi wrote:

It's still quite weird. I don't see why Abadar would remove the powers of one of his followers because they made an Evil act. Abadar just doesn't care about that.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.

About the original subject, I also prefer alignments not to be enforced by a class. Roleplay and mechanics should be separated as much as possible.

Fair, you make a compelling point.

On a bonus related note, it's still kind of funny that, taking the Champion of Shelyn, such a Champion can still 'fall' from their Paladin cause by losing their dedication to law and glide along the track of alignments allowed by Shelyn. Like, I definitely would (actually have but for a Sarenite) allow a Champion an easy time retraining to a new cause if their alignment shifts within their deity's range, but it's still funny that you can fall from one cause without falling from your deity's grace.

In these cases you almost have to wonder, is it just the deity who is enforcing this code? Like your example of Abadar sponsoring Tyrants for the same acts that would cause a Paladin to fall. Shelyn clearly has little concern for law vs. chaos, so she hosts any Champion of Good, but you technically still lose your powers if you are insufficiently chaotic in her service while drifting closer to her own alignment.

--

Addendum: Also now that I think of it I'm reminded of James Jacobs' comments on faith and cleric magic, and how it is the cleric's own faith in their deity which fuels their magic, but in such a way that the god dying can still destroy that connection no matter how much faith they still have. Perhaps the intent was that the tenets and causes are themselves things which a Champion holds faith in, such that violating even something your deity cares little for can trigger a fall from grace.

Well, would be an explanation anyway; I'm still going to let sliding from one cause to another be as easy as narrative convenience or character arc demands.

[Gortle]

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm personally leaning towards more alignment restrictions for Champions than less restriction. I'm always wondering why Abadar would decide to give powers to Paladins and Tyrants simultaneously. It will obviously lead to internal struggles inside the faith, something that a Lawful deity should try to avoid as much as possible.

In my opinion, Champions should be limited to the alignment of their deity. A Neutral deity like Abadar should not give powers to someone who fights for Good or Evil as it doesn't care much about Good nor Evil.

Personally I think role playing a champion/cleric needs to start with an in depth understanding of their religion. I'm happy for a player to interpret it a bit, and I'll even move my world a little to match them if I can. I don't want to force an interpretation on them. But I do need the player to have an understanding of it.

[keftiu]

If I can make an argument for Abadar's Paladins and Tyrants, to continue this particular example:

Abadar is himself Lawful Neutral, a deity of civilization and commerce. A Champion who tries to embody that in the most straightforward, LN manner might pursue the life of a judge, frontier settler, or contracted bodyguard, concerned mostly with clear contracts and steady pay. Walls must be built. Laws must be enforced. Goods must flow, and their taxes must be paid.

One with a more altruistic heart, a Paladin, hears Abadar when he commands the faithful to civilize the frontier and loathe theft, and so they set out on a personal crusade to protect all those who use a region's roads. Bandits must see justice - brought into a more "proper" life within the community if they steal out of desperate, punished for the greater good if they are truly selfish and cruel. Trade should endeavor to be fair, and the society's rising tide lifts all boats! The best way to do the most Good is a world knit together by well-taxed roads, one made prosperous with collective effort.

There's plenty for Abadar to offer a more vicious individual, and "civilization" has always enjoyed the efforts of many such individuals who are unrelenting in the name of the world they would see built. Bandits must be put to the sword for imperiling the sacred flow of coin - but so too should those who live like beasts beyond the city walls. Abadar rewards the arrogant colonizer, the ceaseless industrialist, the brutal mercenary.

All three work toward's Abadar's ultimate goals of a world defined by order and trade; he's Lawful Neutral because he doesn't care how you make that happen for him, and is equally willing to be kind or cruel in pursuit of his own goals.

[SuperBidi]

keftiu wrote:

If I can make an argument for Abadar's Paladins and Tyrants

As a Paladin, if I know that my god actively enforce Evil by giving powers to Tyrants I'd have a massive issue with my faith. That's the problem with Champions, they are not just good and evil people, they make their best to promote Good/Evil. So a Paladin of Abadar and a Tyrant of Abadar will certainly very quickly end up fighting each other despite being of the same faith. It's even part of their tenets ("You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it." and "While evil characters in general can range from self-serving but loyal allies to the extremes of depravity, evil champions are particularly vile, with a code that requires, enforces, and depends upon their villainous behavior.").

Gortle wrote:

Personally I think role playing a champion/cleric needs to start with an in depth understanding of their religion. I'm happy for a player to interpret it a bit, and I'll even move my world a little to match them if I can. I don't want to force an interpretation on them. But I do need the player to have an understanding of it.

It's true that depending on people you can have a very different understanding of in game religions. And as PCs are exceptional characters you can also consider that they are the "only Paladin/Tyrant of Abadar" and it solves the issue of having incompatible characters inside the same faith.

[PossibleCabbage]

I absolutely miss the (anti)Paladin being an "Alignment Class" rather than a "God Class" because trying to map "alignment rules" across deities that are largely unconcerned with a lot of them does become incoherent when you try to stretch it.

You kind of avoid the Palatin/Tyrant of Abadar problem by just viewing the evil Champions as "not for PCs without thorough pre-clearance". But when we get Neutral champions you're going to have characters that are inconsistent with the lore themselves; like the TN champion of Nethys who is a strong proponent of moderation, good judgement, and lack of excess- completely unlike Nethys.

[Perpdepog]

SuperBidi wrote:

As a Paladin, if I know that my god actively enforce Evil by giving powers to Tyrants I'd have a massive issue with my faith. That's the problem with Champions, they are not just good and evil people, they make their best to promote Good/Evil. So a Paladin of Abadar and a Tyrant of Abadar will certainly very quickly end up fighting each other despite being of the same faith. It's even part of their tenets ("You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it." and "While evil characters in general can range from self-serving but loyal allies to the extremes of depravity, evil champions are particularly vile, with a code that requires, enforces, and depends upon their villainous behavior.").

IMO that's a feature rather than a bug. Various sects of real-world religions fight and bicker all the time, so why not fantasy ones? I've personally always felt it was stranger that so many fantasy faiths act like monoliths rather than being as fractious as real-world faiths tend to be. The debates are the same, if writ larger because gods in Pathfinder are demonstrably real, or real enough, and I like seeing the people act the same, too.

Likewise, what it means to "be civilized" undergoes radical interpretation all the time, and people butt heads over that definition constantly; it's why we are constantly reevaluating history through different lenses. It's a many-sided issue and I think it's cool that can be reflected by competing interpretations in Capitalism God's church.
Also, wouldn't Abadar attract those people who are willing to engage with those sorts of ideals? Like if they are the kind of person with enough conviction and faith to become a champion of Abadar rather than some other deity, then wouldn't that predispose them to being the sort of person who finds fulfillment in tackling the sorts of issues that Abadar represents? If they still want to do good and protect others but not wrestle with what it means that Abadar places law above all morality ... well there are deities who will accommodate that, like keftiu pointed out. Iomedae no longer supports LN followers because she is more concerned with upholding good than upholding the law, but still cares about upholding the law as represented by her also not allowing CG followers either.

[roquepo]

I hope one day we can get completely rid of alignment as a whole. It may work for creatures, as a quick summary, but it brings nothing to the table for PCs and NPCs.

I've seen way more people warping their original idea of a character to fit the aligment they chose than situations were alignment was even remotely interesting. All for what, legacy?

I'm fine with aligned creatures, like Demons or Aeons, or with alignment-ish elements for classes tied to deities, like Champions and Clerics, but I think having such an absolute metric that affects the kind of person your character is being part of character creation is bad.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

But when we get Neutral champions you're going to have characters that are inconsistent with the lore themselves; like the TN champion of Nethys who is a strong proponent of moderation, good judgement, and lack of excess- completely unlike Nethys.

I mean, that seems more like an argument that 'moderation' doesn't make sense as a champion tenet than the idea of a neutral champion of Nethys being inherently bad.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.

[PossibleCabbage]

Squiggit wrote:

I mean, that seems more like an argument that 'moderation' doesn't make sense as a champion tenet than the idea of a neutral champion of Nethys being inherently bad.

I think one of the problems that is why we haven't had neutral Champions yet is that the Champion is a strongly alignment tied class (i.e. "tenets of good", "tenets of evil") but it's honestly semiotically unclear what Neutral really means, since it often means "DGAF about this axis" and sometimes it means "balancing extremes".

You can't really have "tenets of neutrality" that are "do not care about good, evil, law, or chaos" but that's for sure how Nethys feels.

[roquepo]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.

I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.

[keftiu]

Hasn’t “balance” been moved to be a Lawful thing?

[PossibleCabbage]

roquepo wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I've made the argument before at length in the various Neutral Champion threads there used to be around here, but I don't think that "moderation between good and evil" is a reasonable or natural thing for a Neutral Champion to be concerned with. Wanting a cosmic balance is well and good for alien creatures like the aeons, but aside from the vanishingly few worshippers of the Monad, it doesn't seem like a thing that mortal Champions and really most deities in that track find important.

I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil.

And part of why "Neutrality" probably doesn't mean "balance" is that the alignments are asymmetric in that Good is aspirational in a way that Evil is not. Like you can have a bad day and a few moral lapses that make you no-longer-good but there's no analogous situation for "you had a bad day so you accidentally did good and now you've not evil anymore."

Like there's absolutely a case that order and chaos need to coexist, but there's no compelling argument that evil needs to exist.

[Perpdepog]

keftiu wrote:

Hasn’t “balance” been moved to be a Lawful thing?

Ish? Aeons, the arbiters of balance, shifted from TN to LN between editions, though it sounds very much like they did so in order to combat what they saw as a dangerous level of chaos everywhere.

Bestiary pg. 8 wrote:

As a result of recent shifts in reality, aeons have begun to reassert a presence in the perfect planar city of Axis. To the aeons, this is merely the latest in a recurring cycle, albeit one that mortals have not yet borne witness to. Once regarded as an independent faction, the living machines known as inevitables are now revealed as having been agents of the aeons all along, and while inevitables have their own shared themes and features, they are very much living but constructed manifestations of the aeons’ war against imbalance—particularly with regard to how this war is waged against the forces of chaos.

On the other hand, psychopomps still shepherd souls off where they are supposed to go and maintain the power balance between the various outer planes. They're judges; caring about balance and doling out appropriate punishment and reward is in their remit ... but they're also still TN.

[keftiu]

I maintain that they should fill in the CN and LN holes for the Champion, and then from there if the class needs any more, have those tied to themes, rather than Alignment. A “protect the natural world” option without a specific Alignment theme could be really fun, and open up that 4e Warden-adjacent space, while you could do a lot with interpretations for a Champion of Death.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

There's a strong argument for Lawful and Chaotic Champion tenets which don't particularly care about the good vs evil thing, but I also hope one day to see fully Neutral Champions because it will always seem a bit weird to me that true neutral gods have to have Champions that cleave to one or another ideal at the fringe of their range. That said, I won't pretend it's not difficult to come up with something satisfying for all TN champs to care about aside from their deities' special interests.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think my concern with "Law" and "Chaos" tenets is that the "law over everything" and the "chaos over everything" characters seem a lot harder to work with than the "good over everything" characters.

[AnotherGuy]

"I mean, to some degree tolerating evil is still evil."

True, in the same way that tolerating good is still good.

Alignment just doesn't make sense for actual people 99% of the time. I hate most everything it brings to the system. Alignment damage is terrible. Having the only true tank class tied so tightly to alignment and tenants is Anathema to me...

I'd much rather it not exist.