[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Cerek: I disagree with many of the opinions offered so far. Alignment does define your character and the actions he/she can be expected to take. You have a choice about which alignment to choose BEFORE you create the character. That means you should have already considered what the PC's personality and motivation will be - and you should then choose an alignment that is compatible with these factors.

But, can't this change on a game-by-game basis? Isn't it the DM's decision whether you choose your alignment or not, whether you know your alignment or not, and even whether or not to use this alignment system?
I quite like the way Torment does it. You start of as True Neutral, and your alignment changes as you play depending on how you play. In this way, your alignment is a description of you rather than a definition.

While alignments are "guidelines" (and are definitely subject to change during game play), they do define the actions your character can be expected to take and the game and/or DM is perfectly within their rights to punish or penalize a player that violates their chosen alignment.

I agree about this - that a character may be "punished" for straying from their alignment - but for a very different reason. I will, as you did, take as an example the Paladin. Firstly, a disclaimer: I think Paladins should be lawful neutral, rather than lawful good. They follow the doctrines of their god in every situation, regardless of who that benifits or doesn't. Ofcourse, the counter to this that I often consider is that Lawful Neutral could be said to follow the letter of the law, while Lawful Good follows it's spirit (and Lawful Evil bends it, and finds loopholes in it, so the law can justify anything they choose to do). But anyway, Paladins are Lawful, from the perspective of their god (but may be chaotic from the perspective of the government, or to a paladin of another god)... I see their "fall" not as a punishment for straying from their alignment, but as a rejection from their god. In other words, it is a punishment from the god for breaking the law, rather than a punishment by the DM for straying from their alignment.

In this regard, I also think that Clerics should be Lawful Neutral from their god's perspective (although again, not necesarily from society's). Infact, I see a Paladin and a Cleric being much the same thing. I see a Paladin as simply being a Cleric with more of a tendancy to fight in their god's name destroying enemies and recruiting followers, while a Cleric will prefer to celebrate their god with existing followers. Infact, I see a Druid as simply being a Cleric of Nature. As such, I don't see the necesity of, or the sense in, seperating these three.