I've gone back and forth on alignment my whole gaming career. The current trend seems to be to use it wholeheartedly, but mainly because there are things (such as damage reduction, spells, items, etc.) that need it to be their as a game mechanic in order for them to be useful or function at all. There was a time when I resented that fact and tried to rework the whole system to remove that element from the game.
I found it to be too much work though. Me and my players have found a way to be more philosophical about the whole thing by having a list of jus cogens...crimes against the notion of "good" itself laid out by the gods. Anyone that would be okay with those things is pretty much evil, no questions asked. It helps though that good and evil are palpable forces in my setting...in a setting or world that has a more "moral relativism" approach to good and evil problems start to crop up and debates begin.
The thing I try to keep in mind when determining alignment or trying to adjudicate it's effects in game is this: Law vs. Chaos is *how* you act, Good vs. Evil is *why* you act. With good and evil being actual tangible forces in my setting, you'd think that would cause some debates over "is this action *really* evil, or does the context change the outcome?" It doesn't though. My players don't need to think about alignment or it's effects, that's my job...LOL. They are free to do whatever they want for whatever reason. If they think that to save the village they had to burn it, and they can sleep at night after doing it...they are free to feel that they did a good deed if they wish. If down the road they get upset when a paladin Smites them because they didn't know they were evil...well, in the real world most villains don't think they're evil either. Most think they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. If in the final reckoning they come out more on one side than the other that's between them and the God of Judgement to argue about, not the GM and the players.
I'd say my biggest beef with alignment is in fact the Paladin class. It's the only class in the game where a roleplaying choice made by the player can actually affect the game mechanics. Even a monk or cleric can turn evil and keep their abilities (or choose new ones based on a different deity or what have you in the case of the cleric)...but not so for the Paladin. All he has to choose is Blackgaurd or no powers at all. I know that's one of the things that makes Paladins Paladins, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way. (Though, how a chaste and noble Paladin would learn to rub someone the *right* way is also a matter for debate ;) So, I use the class differently by having their powers tied directly to a god rather than "the cosmic forces of Good". Fallen Paladin? Now like the cleric, you can choose a new master so to speak thus opening up a few more options for anyone crazy enough to play such a restrictive class in the first place.
Alignment does not determine action...action determines alignment.
I've gone back and forth on alignment my whole gaming career. The current trend seems to be to use it wholeheartedly, but mainly because there are things (such as damage reduction, spells, items, etc.) that need it to be their as a game mechanic in order for them to be useful or function at all. There was a time when I resented that fact and tried to rework the whole system to remove that element from the game.
I found it to be too much work though. Me and my players have found a way to be more philosophical about the whole thing by having a list of jus cogens...crimes against the notion of "good" itself laid out by the gods. Anyone that would be okay with those things is pretty much evil, no questions asked. It helps though that good and evil are palpable forces in my setting...in a setting or world that has a more "moral relativism" approach to good and evil problems start to crop up and debates begin.
The thing I try to keep in mind when determining alignment or trying to adjudicate it's effects in game is this: Law vs. Chaos is *how* you act, Good vs. Evil is *why* you act. With good and evil being actual tangible forces in my setting, you'd think that would cause some debates over "is this action *really* evil, or does the context change the outcome?" It doesn't though. My players don't need to think about alignment or it's effects, that's my job...LOL. They are free to do whatever they want for whatever reason. If they think that to save the village they had to burn it, and they can sleep at night after doing it...they are free to feel that they did a good deed if they wish. If down the road they get upset when a paladin Smites them because they didn't know they were evil...well, in the real world most villains don't think they're evil either. Most think they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. If in the final reckoning they come out more on one side than the other that's between them and the God of Judgement to argue about, not the GM and the players.
I'd say my biggest beef with alignment is in fact the Paladin class. It's the only class in the game where a roleplaying choice made by the player can actually affect the game mechanics. Even a monk or cleric can turn evil and keep their abilities (or choose new ones based on a different deity or what have you in the case of the cleric)...but not so for the Paladin. All he has to choose is Blackgaurd or no powers at all. I know that's one of the things that makes Paladins Paladins, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way. (Though, how a chaste and noble Paladin would learn to rub someone the *right* way is also a matter for debate ;) So, I use the class differently by having their powers tied directly to a god rather than "the cosmic forces of Good". Fallen Paladin? Now like the cleric, you can choose a new master so to speak thus opening up a few more options for anyone crazy enough to play such a restrictive class in the first place.
Alignment does not determine action...action determines alignment.