Alignment: The Sensible Way

[noparlpf]

I can't sleep, so I was thinking about sketching out the basic outline of a high-fantasy RPG rule system I've been tossing around in my head as an alternative to the D&D rules I've played with. One thing I'm not sure about: Alignment. Clearly the D&D system is highly simplified and doesn't even really work within its own guidelines. But this isn't meant to provoke yet another discussion about the possible existence of objective morality and whether Law vs. Chaos actually works. Well, not unless enough people suggest just sticking with the classic nine alignments.

To summarise my question in coherent English instead of continuing to ramble: What do you all think of alignment? Is it a useful or necessary part of an RPG? Is Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos a reasonable system to use? Are there any alternatives people have seen or used that seem to work well?

[The Mentalist]

I'll leave this here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205)

This is one that I like a lot, the other feasible option in my mind is dump alignment entirely but that drops a few archetypes.

[Amechra]

I like a system a la d20 Modern's Allegience system; you list the three most important things to you, and that is that.

[DonQuixote]

I tend to rule that all characters two alignments: perceived alignment and actual alignment.

A character's perceived alignment is the alignment that she thinks she follows. It applies for the purpose of one's own spells and class features. If you are convinced, heart and soul, that you are good, then you can cast spells on yourself as though you were.

A character's actual alignment is the actual course that she follows, as determined by her actions and behaviors. It applies for the effects of all other creatures. You might think that you're the paragon of good, but--if you're truly evil--the paladin can still smite the hell out of you.

It's not a perfect system, but it covers what I view to be one of the larger deficiencies in the D&D alignment system.