>Not a particularly good system but I like my friends
>Playing a CN cleric worshiping a CE deity (good of war)
>Be in the king's throne room
>Guard comes in, says demons are attacking the city walls
>King orders castle gates shut and man the towers
>The whole city is outside the castle gates
>Convince king to bring in masses, be at the gates as people are being let in
>Party is fighting off demons while evacuation is happening
>GM congratulates party in making right choice and not being murderhobos
>Moves alignment to NG
What the shit?!
>Lose all divine class features
>Lose all spells
What the shit!
MFW I'm dead
You worship the God of War, I would assume your god dont give a flying shit what your alignment is aslong as you enjoy and practice war as often as you can, and teach others that war is the righteous path of the world. Even good people could enjoy war as much as evil people.
What he said.
The way I play alignments with my players in pf is just let it be a thing that only abilities and spells interact with.
E.g. it is completely okay if you're playing CE and being a charity giving, homeless helping, justice serving saint. Detect evil will still detect you and smite evil will still smite your ass.
This serves to unrestrict players from playing monochrome archetypes, and allows them to play colorful personalities that overcome the prejudice and stereotypes associated with their alignment.
Tl;dr alignments are basically pokemon types
>CN to NG
>not CG or TN
>a single action shifted your alignment on two different axiseses
Even if the situation warranted a shift that's complete bullshit to make it such a massive one. Not that it does, of course. A character that is neutral on the good-evil axis can do a good thing without becoming good and a character that is chaotic on the lawful-chaotic axis can certainly propose a plan to save some citizens, especially when it was their idea and not an order handed down from the local authority figure.
You should say these things to your DM and if they stand by their decision it's probably time for another one of your friends to be the DM.
Personally I consider aligments to depend on what your intentions are than what you do. Evil people can still do things that are considered good, but likely do so because it serves their interests. Similarly a paladin wouldn't fall for being put in a situation where he has to choose between two evils, provided he's aware what he did was a bad thing.
Doing charity and helping old ladies across the street won't make your aligment change from CE to CG unless you genuinely want to be a good person and are motivated to do good things because of that.
Did your DM explicitly say you lose all your cleric shit or is he cool with you keeping your new alignment and keep your cleric shit as is?
Did you even talk to him about this shit?
>>GM congratulates party in making right choice and not being murderhobos
OP, your GM is an idiot. Only an incompetent moron would leave all the surfs and peasants outside. "Out of the goodness of my heart" - My left testicle! If they're all left outside, who will do the cooking, cleaning, and other scut-work like mucking the stables or emptying the toilets? No noble in the right mind would stoop to that. Bring in the peasants immediately, and then set their sorry asses to work! This is a castle, not a charity ward.
The part that has me fucked up is that if that's how your DM plays it, there isn't a version of this where you weren't going to change alignment.
If saving the people resulted in a shift on both axes (CN to NG) then knowingly not saving them should result in an equal two axes shift (CN to LE). As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this would've been to have just not been there.
I want to punch that stupid faggot baby in the face. I could defeat an unlimited amount of babies in hand to hand or armed combat.