From PathfinderWiki

Alignment Discussion

Article should be slightly rewritten to take out "OOC" mentions of alignment in main article. --brandingopportunity 13:55, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Alignment's a gray area here. There are quite a few in-character references to the alignment system, from protection from chaos/evil/good/law to atonement. The alignment-tied outer planes would also be hard not to associate with a system of alignment in character as are alignment based subtypes and domains. It may be a crunchy area that we need to discuss further because I don't think that brief use of alignment is that problematic. -- yoda8myhead 14:12, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. I wish there were IC references to alignment in the canon that we could take our cues from (other than vague mentions of "evil"). --brandingopportunity 14:14, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I think that references to alignments should be avoided. That is, "lawful neutral" for example. Instead, I think we should try and express those concepts in terms of the "universal forces" (my term) of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Balance. Note the caps there. This approach should be pretty easy to apply to planar alignments, but maybe more problematic with character alignments. For example, Axis is a geographical/physical manifestation of Law. Do the new rules still allow for clerics to "worship" a philosphy?
As usual: Rambling? Yes. Well thought out? No. More meant to stimulate discussion? Yes--Aeakett 15:13, September 25, 2009 (UTC)