Image source: http://karenswhimsy.com/medieval-clipart.htm
In my last post, I briefly looked at the evolution of alignment in D&D, and some of the problems it creates. Now to try to propose a solution !
What I am suggesting here is very much a set of ideas I am exploring in my homebrew world. Some are very much still in experimental phase to see if they work ! I'm not suggesting it is workable in all settings, or trying to push it on people, but hopefully it is a good basis for some thought and discussion.
Let Alignment Develop Over Time
This is the way I've played my own characters for a while. I always like to start at First Level - from a DM's perspective, I think of it as the time when I can implant fears and phobias into a character which will haunt them for the rest of their adventuring careers.
The idea is that a character should be played, using elements from their backstory (for most people, a sad collection of tropes.... I've lost track of how many kids whose parents were killed by orcs/undead/whatever I've seen). The DM should throw a few moral decisions their way to see how they handle them, and should monitor their general conduct towards both their comrades and the wider world.
When the character levels up, the DM holds a one-on-one discussion with the player. A kind of "session zero plus one". During that discussion, they can iron out any wrinkles with the way the character operates mechanically (an opportunity to be generous with ret-cons for things that just aren't working), and also discuss what the character's short and maybe medium term goals are.
For the alignment discussion, the DM should make an initial decision, telling the player that their actions suggest an alignment of X. They can then discuss if this is what the player intended, and if not, what the player can do to evolve the character's behaviour closer to the desired alignment (or maybe just stick to what they are doing and enjoy the flow). There may well be the need to repeat the discussion at second level, and maybe occasionally thereafter, to see if the character's alignment is consistent with their behaviour and the player's vision.
Alignment Isn't Always About Divine Absolutes
By this, what I mean is that although most characters end up falling somewhere along the law/chaos and evil/good spectrum, it is also possible to measure alignment in other ways. In the real world, some people are idealists motivated by religion or abstract politics, but others have no interest in such things and instead are passionate about their home town, local region, local sports team, or even the business they work for.
For these people, alignment would be based on who or what they align TO. Thus, a warrior might align with the good of a kingdom or even a specific overlord (potentially creating all kinds of ronin-type roleplay opportunities if the overlord is killed or disgraced). The character's actions would then be viewed in the light of whether they are acting in the best interests of their chosen subject.
This kind of alignment is something which only works for characters local to the homebrew world; I wouldn't allow it for off-worlders because it would be likely to become just too abstract and irrelevant. It also requires both players and DM to be really invested in the setting.
Although it could create quite a bit of extra work for the DM, and the need for some downtime one-on-one interaction, this is the kind of thing I love because it can contribute so significantly to add real depth to the worldbuilding. It creates material that can be re-used and integrated with other material in the world, and if more than one player adopts the same subject for their alignment, the possibilities can get really interesting.
The Problem of Paladins
Both of the systems above work fine for most characters. But Paladins are special because they are so absolute.
It seems to me that the Paladin class has been diluted with each edition of D&D. Originally it was incredibly hard to roll a Paladin, and they had to be both human and iconically Lawful. But as time has gone on, this has changed, and now, they can be pretty much any race, and can be any alignment as long as they are an extreme example of it.
In the process, I feel that some of the original flavour of Paladins has been lost. Too many RPG Paladins focus on smiting evil, killing undead and in general being complete self-righteous dicks. But if you look back at the original legends, Sir Galahad, Sir Perceval and other paladins were notable not just for their prowess in battle, but more for the way they treated those around them, especially the weak and vulnerable. This included their enemies; the Paladins were known first and foremost for their mercy and purity, and for the empathy they showed even to their foes, not for how many corpses they piled up around themselves.
What I am suggesting here is something I have not yet put in place, but intend to with the next party that gets created. It's an idea I first came across when I used to LARP at Labyrinthe, which is played at a superb setting inside Chislehurst Caves. There, all Paladins must start as Hospitallers, an unarmed pacifist healer class, and at any time after first level if they deal with a traumatic event, they can have a "conversion" to Paladin, suitably roleplayed, where they come to the realisation that some evils must be fought with more than just prayers and pacifism and that they must reluctantly take up arms.
With this idea, no-one starts as a Paladin. Instead, a character has to develop into one, starting as any other appropriate class (fighter, bard, cleric). They then have to roleplay Lawful Good well enough for the DM to offer them the Paladin option at the level-up discussion. Although it's inevitable that they will make their intention clear OOC, they should ideally avoid hamming-up the roleplaying; after all, a Paladin is supposed to be humble, charitable and pure, not just a braggart with a smite in his pocket !
Once the aspirant Paladin converts, all future levels have to be in that class, so although they will all be multi-classed, a certain amount of planning is called for if they want more than one or two levels in the original class. They also have to avoid the temptations that any good DM will put in their way to induce them to stray from the path of Lawful Good. Being a Paladin should be a hard path, not just a way for a fighter to pick up some extra powers and spells.
Alignment Is An Aspiration, Not A Straightjacket
This is a simple concept; even the best of us strays from the path at times. Provided a character acts generally in accordance with their alignment most of the time, and doesn't do anything blatantly opposed to it (e.g. good-aligned types killing large numbers of unarmed civilians), then the occasional slip should be overlooked, both by the DM and by fellow party members.
Indeed, speaking with my DM hat on, there are times when I would prefer to see players taking a looser approach to alignment if it helps party unity and overall gameplay. Making sure everyone has fun is far more important than method-acting your character !
Of course, Paladins should still be held to a higher standard, and occasional slips create roleplaying opportunities as penance is sought. But even there, ensuring the game is fun is paramount.
Conclusion
I tend to run all of these ideas in parallel within my campaign, and don't see a problem with some characters being highly religious when it comes to alignment, while others have a primary loyalty to a city, clan or other ideal.
The main focus is always on what makes the game enjoyable rather than sticking to rigid rules, with the caveat that everyone should still know where they stand and what is considered acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, both in character and out of character.
I'd love to hear what others think of some of these ideas !