Should alignments be agreed upon together or not?

[Dr TPK]

I've been thinking... The way that I have usually done with alignments is to explain my views to the players, which are more or less understood, since my views can be a bit unorthodox, but alignments have never been an issue in my games. I think that my players seem a bit lost with the concept of Lawful Good, the paladin code and in lawful behaviour in general, which may be influenced by the fact that I have my own views about them. Like I said, I have explained them to my players, I have provided them with a Google Document explaining everything in detail and I'm always willing to answer any questions. This is the way it has always been.

Lately, I've been thinking about making an alingment discussion with my players and reach a consensus as to what are the nine alignments and how they should be played. This would not affect the campaign too much, since the concept of lawful good suddenly changing a little bit should not change the world that much.

But I'm apphensive about the idea... Should the DM control the alignment and how it should be played, or should alignment be a democratic issue open to group agreement? In my opinion DM should dictate alignments 100% in his or her campaign, no matter how ridiculous is ideas may be.

[Urpriest]

In pretty much every situation, the DM's job is to make the game fun for all involved. This includes the players, and it also includes the DM.

This doesn't mean you can't have your own interpretation of alignment take precedence. It does mean that if your interpretation makes the game less fun, you need to change it, and one way to figure out if it's doing that is to talk to your players about it.

[WeaselGuy]

Unless you are one of those classes that has to maintain a specific alignment to keep their class abilities, alignment is little more than a pair of letters written at the top of a character sheet. On the one hand, you are correct that alignment should be determined by the DM.

If I start a campaign at level 1 as a LN Wizard, but after a few sessions I keep setting orphanages on
fire and murdering shopkeepers for not giving me a discount, then the DM should let me know that my alignment is slipping (or swan diving, as the case may be) into the deep end of the alignment pool. And chances are, I may or may not change my playstyle.

If I'm playing a Paladin, a Monk, or a Cleric (or something similar) however, and (un)consciously break some law or tenet, then the DM should let me know in some fashion similar to "You can feel your deity's disapproval on your recent actions. Maybe you should change your behavior, or seek atonement" (in the case of Divine casters) or "You are starting to question your abilities and martial dedication. Perhaps you should meditate on your recent actions or seek inner enlightenment" (for a Monk).

In either case, I think the player should have at least some say in the matter, something to the degree of "well, my God may be LN, but his portfolio includes War and Destruction, which we all know can be rather chaotic at times" (just an example, not something verbatim). It would still be up to the DM though, on whether the player's justification meshes with your expectations and viewpoints.

[Shining Wrath]

In general, talking about what alignment means can only help. In the real world, discussions of ethics, morality, and religion tend to be interesting (if done right) or heated (if done wrong).

I use alignment as a way to help describe a person's personality. It's only a partial description, though.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There are several ways to play each of the nine alignments, and none of them are any more or less valid than the others. This applies especially to paladins, who don't all have to be serious, humorless zealots or narrowminded moral guardians despite what some people seem to think.

Unless your players act really contrary to their stated alignment (like the LN wizard burning orphanages example) i'd let them play their interpretation without interference. If you really have a problem with their interpretation of their chosen alignment talk to them about it and let them tell you why they think their alignment fits them.

[Ashtagon]

I've long been a proponent of the idea of scrapping alignments, and replacing them with d20 Modern style allegiance system. Those classes that have a mechanical risk of falling now have an allegiance to their deity. Those spells that trigger off alignment now trigger off friend/foe of $deity instead, with an additional note that friend/foe may be keyed off more than just allegiances. This also means that a particular allegiance is described relative to an in-campaign concept, rather than something external to the campaign.

[SangoProduction]

What I would prefer is just say "screw it, who cares". Just stick a neutral on your alignment, and act however you like. The DM isn't going to care as long as you don't do anything outright evil. And no one at all will care as long as your play your character consistently.

[Red Fel]

But I'm apphensive about the idea... Should the DM control the alignment and how it should be played, or should alignment be a democratic issue open to group agreement? In my opinion DM should dictate alignments 100% in his or her campaign, no matter how ridiculous is ideas may be.

Well, yes and no. I've always seen an alignment discussion as neither a dictatorship nor a democracy, but more of a collaboration between junior and senior partners. That is, it's between the PC's player and the DM, not the entire table. And while the player's view should be heeded and acknowledged, the DM is the final arbiter. But there is a difference between "final arbiter" and "sole arbiter."

If a player tells me he's playing LG with an emphasis on the L, that's one interpretation of LG. If another tells me he's playing it with an emphasis on the G, that's another interpretation. Neither one is invalid, even though one might come across as a novel take on the alignment. For example, I have one PC who is LG; she's also coarse, raucous, with a raunchy sense of humor and a violent streak. However, she is disciplined, tolerant, respectful of authority (at least, to their faces), and constantly trying to improve herself. In my mind, that's LG; a DM might disagree.

And that's the thing. It's one thing to say, "I see your argument, and I understand it, but I disagree." It's another thing to say, "This is how this alignment shall be played, full stop." I'm not saying that you're doing the latter - I don't know enough to say that - but that's the line that I'd avoid crossing. Yes, the DM can and should be the final arbiter. Somebody playing their Paladin like an axe-murderer shouldn't be able to get away with "Well, that's what LG means to me!" But it's a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with the player's view, and stating the "right way" to play an alignment, no arguments.

I'd also like to remark on two things.


This doesn't mean you can't have your own interpretation of alignment take precedence. It does mean that if your interpretation makes the game less fun, you need to change it, and one way to figure out if it's doing that is to talk to your players about it.

Much this. The alignment system has been attacked, even in this thread, and not wrongly; it's frustrating and arbitrary at the best of times, and particularly brutal to certain classes (such as Paladins and Monks, who deserve better). It's one thing to use it to gently remind players of the tenor of game they're playing. (For example, "Hey, guys, you're supposed to be playing heroes, maybe torturing the orphans is a bit much.") It's another to wield it in such a manner as to punish the PCs. ("Aha, but the bandit was secretly a government spy! You didn't realize it when you killed him! You fall now!") Being flexible on alignment, although not necessarily a push-over, helps to keep the already irritating system from becoming un-fun.


There are several ways to play each of the nine alignments, and none of them are any more or less valid than the others. This applies especially to paladins, who don't all have to be serious, humorless zealots or narrowminded moral guardians despite what some people seem to think.

Very much this. As I tried to show with my illustration, alignment isn't a comprehensive definition of a character's personality or actions. Alignment should be descriptive (categorizing how a PC views the world), not prescriptive (detailing what a PC must or must not do). Saying "This is how X alignment is played" ignores all the myriad, nuanced other ways to play that alignment.

That said, I do agree that the DM is - and should be - the ultimate arbiter. But one of the most important things to do, in making your final decision, is to keep an open and flexible mind about it.

Alignment may be arbitrary, but it doesn't have to be.

[Dr TPK]

Unless your players act really contrary to their stated alignment (like the LN wizard burning orphanages example) i'd let them play their interpretation without interference. If you really have a problem with their interpretation of their chosen alignment talk to them about it and let them tell you why they think their alignment fits them.

This is basically what I'm doing. Even though I have very specific views about each of the nine alignments, I don't warrant an alignment change unless it's a clear thing. However, sometimes a "clear thing" can be subjective.

[LoyalPaladin]

But I'm apphensive about the idea... Should the DM control the alignment and how it should be played, or should alignment be a democratic issue open to group agreement? In my opinion DM should dictate alignments 100% in his or her campaign, no matter how ridiculous is ideas may be.
You should really take a look into this website (http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html). It gives you really clear cut rules on what each alignment is. LG is sort of my shtick. I've played a lot of characters and about 95% of them fall under that alignment.


I use alignment as a way to help describe a person's personality. It's only a partial description, though.
Right, people should play their characters and the alignment should accent them. Not dictate them. However, in the case of the Paladin and other alignment based classes (or classes with a code), their alignment does have a much larger sway over how their character should behave.

[Vhaidara]

I generally ignore alignment, replacing it with the Magic: The Gathering color pie (http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Color_Pie), which cares more about motivations than actions.


Right, people should play their characters and the alignment should accent them. Not dictate them.

Agreed completely.


However, in the case of the Paladin and other alignment based classes (or classes with a code), their alignment does have a much larger sway over how their character should behave.

And now you've fallen. This double standard needs to die. Alignment restrictions are among the worst game design to ever touch RPGs. Paladins are no better than anyone else. In any way. In many ways, they are worse at being Good. Why? Because they have this completely senseless connection to Law. Paladins are champions of Good. They Smite Evil, not Chaos. They Detect Evil, not Chaos. They have an Aura of Good, not Law. They fall for committing an Evil act, not a Chaotic one. With all of these, why are they equal parts Law and Good? They are frauds. A true servant of Good is NG. They do what needs to be done for the cause of Good, even when the rules tell them not to.

[Ferronach]

They do what needs to be done for the cause of Good, even when the rules tell them not to.

I always see Paladins more as Chaotic good than lawful for this reason. I see them as the one who will do anything to uphold their definition of good. Even if it means "burning an orphange" because the orphange is filled with evil children.

I think WoTC made them lawful is because of the "follow a code" thing. They have a code they fgollow do uphold and define ""good" and in following that code they sort of follow a "self imposed law-like sytem of rules"

[LoyalPaladin]

And now you've fallen. This double standard needs to die. Alignment restrictions are among the worst game design to ever touch RPGs. Paladins are no better than anyone else. In any way. In many ways, they are worse at being Good. Why? Because they have this completely senseless connection to Law. Paladins are champions of Good.
I still never said it needed to dictate them. But they've established a life style that they've chosen to live under.

I always felt, that as a paladin you are meant to exemplify goodness incarnate, but I think that's hard to do if you don't respect legitimate authority. It makes it really easy to be seen as an anarchist if you are chaotic. Neutral is a good alignment choice, but I think that takes away from the "stalwart defender of justice" archetype.

Now, if you believe that all paladins should have a deity, I would be inclined to say that a paladin should always share the alignment of their deity, and their code of conduct should be closely linked to it's dogma.

[Red Fel]

I always felt, that as a paladin you are meant to exemplify goodness incarnate, but I think that's hard to do if you don't respect legitimate authority.(Emphasis added.)

Here's the problem - what defines legitimate authority? Look at Captain America, whom I think we can all agree is a pretty LG character. He has repeatedly stood in opposition to the lawful and democratically-elected government of the nation whose flag he has turned into a spandex outfit, not because that government is illegitimate, and not because it's somehow Evil, but because he disagrees with it on ideological grounds. (See e.g. Civil War.) He's Lawful, and Good, and his government is Lawful and Good (for certain definitions of each), but they are different flavors of Lawful and Good, and therefore he cannot support or respect the actions taken by the government. So, yeah, Cap may be "goodness incarnate," but that doesn't mean he respects legitimate authority, nor need any D&D analogue or similar character.

I will agree that a Paladin is defined not only by being Good with a Code of Goodness, but by being Good with a Code of Goodness and Honor. But I agree with Keledrath that the Paladin is not equal parts G and L; it is very strongly G with an L methodology.

Coming back to the point, however, whether we agree or disagree as to alignment-restricted classes, they are a thing, until and unless the table decides not to enforce them. Accordingly, it behooves a DM to be flexible and attentive when PCs are playing alignment-restricted classes, as these can be ruined by overly strict alignment definitions and penalties.

[Hiro Quester]

Yes. Talk to the players about alignment.

You being clear about how you see distinctions between alignments is important. But the players having some input into how these distinctions might affect their PC is also important. Like Red Fed said, this can be a collaboration, even if the DM has the final say.

There are limits to how one can play a particular alignment, but within those limits there can be a fair degree of variation. Working out a shared view of how alignment works in your game, and where you all should see the limits, can do nothing but help. I'd say its pretty darn important, particularly if you have characters whose alignment is central to their abilities and role.

Most moral situations involve tough choices, balancing many different aspects of a situation, such that few choices are black-and-white. The PC's reasons for doing what they do (how they balance and prioritize these aspects of the situation) are going to matter more than what exact actions they take.

So yes, talk to your players. And --more importantly-- also listen when your players explain how they see the way their characters play their alignment.

Full disclosure:
I'm a philosophy professor IRL, so firmly believe that discussions about ethical principles, and the meaning of justice like this can be enjoyable, enlightening, and worthwhile. I have them in my classes every semester.


A funny sidenote: Existential Comics (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23) has a brilliant and funny comic in which philosophers playing D&D discuss alignment and what it means. The players are Jean Paul Sartre (CG Warior), Immanuel Kant (LG Paladin), Michel Foucault (CN Rogue) and Jaques Derrida (N Wizard), with Simone De Bouvior as DM.

And here's another (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/32) in which another group of philosophers playing D&D argue about whether characters are acting consistently with their alignment (also, about feminism). The players are GEM Anscombe, Simone De Bouvoir, Judith Butler and Hannah Arendt, with Phillipa Foot as DM).

(Hit the "Didn't get the Joke?" button at the bottom to learn more about the philosophers represented and the jokes about them.)


There are at least three others about philosophers playing D&D, too, if you find them funny or interesting. Search Existential Comics Dungeons and Dragons and you'll find them.

And a Philosophical Sidenote:
The book Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom (Google Books Link (https://books.google.com/books?id=4bo59BEaoDQC)) has many philosophers who are also gamers writing about D&D. The whole first third of the book is about issues of alignment.

It's designed to be easy reading for people --especially gamers-- who are not academic philosophers, but who might like to think and talk about things like ethics and alignment. I gave a copy to my DM last year and it sparked many fun conversations about these kinds of issues.

Interestingly, I have mostly played somewhat evil or neutral characters, and am just now considering having my Druid character take a swing toward Neutral Good from Lawful Neutral, in response to finally having confronted truly evil forces.

So just last night I began a conversation with my DM about my character's current alignment. I explained what Neutral Good might look like to my character, and tried to get a sense of whether acting on those principles would be consistent with how he sees a NG alignment working. Most because if I unintentionally "fell" into LG territory, I would lose my Druid powers that require at least one dimension of neutrality.


He mistakenly thought lawfulness was important, bonds between people about how we agree to treat one another (plus he wanted to take a level of Monk that required LN). So like the philosopher Nietzsche he held that "good" and "evil" were just labels people apply to behaviors they want people to do more or less of. Exploitation is a part of the cycle of life and the Laws of Nature.

But now that he has met some purely evil people, he recognizes that goodness not just a label for "behavior I like people to do" but a counterweight to the genuine moral evil that is committed against other people. People exploiting one another is a different moral category from a lion eating a gazelle (people can choose to be better than that).

He now recognizes the Good/Evil dimension as far more important. Also, people exploiting one another also is a symptom of attitudes that also justify people over-exploiting Nature (which he has sworn to Obad-Hai to protect).

Also chaos (in the form of random variation) is essential to Nature and its evolution. One can't be anti-chaos; chaos is an essential ingredient in Nature.

Conversations like that, about what matters to your characters, and how their alignment represents those priorities, and how their actions implement those priorities, are essential to a fun game.

You should definitely have that discussion.

[Telonius]

Now, if you believe that all paladins should have a deity, I would be inclined to say that a paladin should always share the alignment of their deity, and their code of conduct should be closely linked to it's dogma.

For what it's worth, this is close to how I handle them in games I DM. My idea of Paladins and Clerics are that they're the active (Paladin) and contemplative (Cleric) representatives of their Deity (or cause) in the world. Paladins are supposed to be the exemplars of the Deity's worldview, putting their beliefs into action in their everyday life. Clerics are a bit more "passive" (for lack of a better word), concerned more with spreading the faith, strengthening the community, patching up anyone who needs fixing, and generally bringing the Deity's will to the people through spells and miracles.

If it's a Paladin or Cleric of a Cause, both get their power from faith in that cause, and fill similar roles in the spread of the cause.

[Ferronach]

When I explain alignment to new players when they are creating their first I usually try to give examples of famour people/super heroes/villans and various other comic and video game characters depending on what the person knows. I think one of the wiki's does the same thing? Sadly work blocks most things so can't check to see right now :(

[LoyalPaladin]

Here's the problem - what defines legitimate authority? Look at Captain America, whom I think we can all agree is a pretty LG character. He has repeatedly stood in opposition to the lawful and democratically-elected government of the nation whose flag he has turned into a spandex outfit, not because that government is illegitimate, and not because it's somehow Evil, but because he disagrees with it on ideological grounds. (See e.g. Civil War.) He's Lawful, and Good, and his government is Lawful and Good (for certain definitions of each), but they are different flavors of Lawful and Good, and therefore he cannot support or respect the actions taken by the government. So, yeah, Cap may be "goodness incarnate," but that doesn't mean he respects legitimate authority, nor need any D&D analogue or similar character.
I actually agree with you 100%. But I guess in my mind, cap never stopped respecting legitimate authority. The authority had become corrupt and to him, it was no longer legitimate.


For what it's worth, this is close to how I handle them in games I DM. My idea of Paladins and Clerics are that they're the active (Paladin) and contemplative (Cleric) representatives of their Deity (or cause) in the world. Paladins are supposed to be the exemplars of the Deity's worldview, putting their beliefs into action in their everyday life. Clerics are a bit more "passive" (for lack of a better word), concerned more with spreading the faith, strengthening the community, patching up anyone who needs fixing, and generally bringing the Deity's will to the people through spells and miracles.
I do that as well. I also play at a table where that is the general idea. With this rule in play, a certain deity's dogma comes to mind.

A certain deity's dogma comes to mind.
AKA, the best one.

Salvation may be found through service. Every failure of duty diminishes Torm and every success adds to his luster. Strive to maintain law and order. Obey your masters with alert judgment and anticipation. Stand ever alert against corruption. Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals. Bring painful, quick death to traitors. Question unjust laws by suggesting improvement or alternatives, not additional laws. Your fourfold duties are to faith, family, masters, and all good beings of Faerûn.
I think this is the flavor that WotC was probably trying to accomplish, but they've really caused a Lg instead of lG. The player can make a large difference in this as well.

[goto124]

Coming to an agreement is much more important with alignment-based mechanics such as Paladins, Clerics, Druids, etc...

-checks- Ah, 3.5e. No wonder.

[RedMage125]

But I'm apphensive about the idea... Should the DM control the alignment and how it should be played, or should alignment be a democratic issue open to group agreement? In my opinion DM should dictate alignments 100% in his or her campaign, no matter how ridiculous is ideas may be.

I'm a firm believer that alignment and alignment mechanics work realy great, when used RAW. The PHB is very clear that alignment is descriptive and not prescriptive, and that a character can sometimes do things that seem at odds with their alignment without it shifting.

That said, by the RAW, the DM absolutely is in charge of alignment at the table, and the DMG, page 134, has rules on when and how to change a character's alignment (short version is: after a period of time of NO LESS THAN one week of in-game time of a character behaving consistently in a manner more befitting an alignment other than his own, he shifts one step towards that alignment).

Now, I also firmly believe that D&D is agame that thrives on houserules, and you seem to have adhered to the one thing I fervently and vehemently insist upon regarding houserules. that is, that you have discussed your views on the matter and the way you will rule it with your players.

With that in mind, feel free to disregard what I said about only running alignments and alignment mechanics strictly by RAW. If you have been up front with your players about how you are going to be using alignment, and they know going in what to expect, you should not be having nearly the kinds of issues that some other people (most notably alignment detractors) have had. The worst thing you can do is give your players the expectation that things are going to be rules one way, and then rule it another way, seemingly on a whim. I prefer to use RAW, because if there's any dispute, my players have access to the same source books I do that govern my rulings. They can look at the books to know what to expect from the way i am going to adjudicate things. You have, in a similar fashion, provided a document to which they all have access that gives them the same frame of reference.

As to your question, I think it's important that the group agrees, or at least has a common understanding of how the rules are going to be applied. Alignment is a hot-button issue with some players. Some people like it, some love it, other hate it with a passion and blame it for a lot of game problems. In my experience, 100% of examples people cite about issues with alignment have stemmed from issues with PEOPLE, the DMs and players in question; most frequently being rulings regarding alignment that deviate from the way the RAW prescribes, which is mainly a problemt because the DM did not forewarn them that he/she would be judging alignment in a different manner.

Bottom line, if your player prefer to have a game without alignment and you are willing to run it that way, then you should probably remove it. If your players have all read your prepared document and are all on board, then I think you're set to run it that way. If your group is divided, try and get a compromise in order.

[goto124]

There's also RAI. The DM can interpret the RAW rules differently from the players, even when they're looking at the exact same words.

BTW, I don't have any books, only free online sources such as the SRD. Making sure they're really looking at the same words may or may not be an issue.

Still, yes, communciate.

By the way, Redmage, what is your interpretation of the RAW on alignment? Just something to build off.

[MyrPsychologist]

I don't like players to worry too much about their alignment so I just let them ignore it as a mechanic.

I still keep track of what they are for purposes of all mechanics that interact with alignment but I don't make them write it down, change it, or really think about it. I'd rather that they focus more on what their character would do instead of what the alignment would do.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

I think talking about alignments with players—especially new players—can be really useful, and can help you to avoid or at least hopefully reduce arguments later.

I find that certain alignments tend to attract certain players; If a player immediately zeroes in on Chaotic Neutral, for instance, I know to keep an eye on them...

One of the things I like to do is use examples from books, movies, comics and TV shows, and discuss why I feel a character fits into a certain alignment category. Even if we don't agree exactly about my placement, the conversation usually seems to help us all get an understanding of one another's views, goals and intentions. I found that shows like LOST, Twin Peaks, Firefly and Buffy are commonly watched enough that a player's probably seen at least one of them, and they have a pretty wide array of alignments represented.

It's great when you can cite multiple examples of the same alignment, showing how different characters can be from one another while still sharing the same alignment.

*

[SowZ]

As a player, I would just make sure you understood that I don't care what your alignment interpretations are, and you can feel free to enforce them, as long as you are okay with my character acting how I envision them to act, regardless of if that fits within one of your interpretations of alignment or not. And my character will likely not agree with you beliefs as objective truths within the setting. We wouldn't have an issue unless you began saying my character needs to change in order to fit one of your nine archetypes.

[Curmudgeon]

The alignment system has been attacked, even in this thread, and not wrongly; it's frustrating and arbitrary at the best of times, and particularly brutal to certain classes (such as Paladins and Monks, who deserve better). It's one thing to use it to gently remind players of the tenor of game they're playing. (For example, "Hey, guys, you're supposed to be playing heroes, maybe torturing the orphans is a bit much.") It's another to wield it in such a manner as to punish the PCs. ("Aha, but the bandit was secretly a government spy! You didn't realize it when you killed him! You fall now!")
I think there's some middle ground. Having your morning prayers result in no new spells for the day can show the deity's displeasure in your actions without going to extremes. I prefer that more immersive approach to alignment issues to the DM telling the players how they're supposed to be playing the game. They don't have to play heroes; they could play self-centered adventurers who are mostly interested in treasure instead. If so, they might need to come to terms with a change in alignment (and maybe deity) along the way. "Good" isn't what you write on your characters' sheets, but rather how you play them.

[Frozen_Feet]

Alignments and their definitions are game rules first. Whether they agree with or cater to anyone's real-life ethical philosophy is secondary. As such, there's no need for consensus play or democratic decision of alignment any more than there's for any other rules.

[MukkTB]

There are two separate questions.

The first is a roleplay question. Is the Paladin or cleric behaving in the way that their god would endorse? If they aren't, they fall. This isn't really a matter of actually working out moral issues in a sound philosophical framework. This is about the opinion of an NPC under DM control.

The second question is simple mechanics. Players write an alignment on their sheet. Assuming their behavior falls vaguely in that direction let it stick. Effects that care about alignment key off that. So if they write L on their character sheet and take a Shard of Chaos to the face it is going to hurt. Barbarian and the basic L/G Paladin can't be successfully multiclassed. Why? Some fluff could be made up but the core issue is that the rules simply don't allow it. The same goes for the ability to cast some spells.

[Theomniadept]

Remember that each alignment is -exclusive- to the other. Chaos and Law oppose one another but have no effect on Good or Evil. So, if you;re measuring Lawful Good, you have to measure Law by how orderly, strict, obedient, authoritative, etc. your Paladin is. He doesn't need to force his views on others, which is something a lot of DMs and players forget. He also doesn't need to sacrifice one for the other. Breaking the law of an illegitimate authority in the name of good is more than just acceptable by Paladin standards.

Why the need to force a Paladin to 'respect legitimate authority'? This wouldn't be an issue if the authority was actually legitimate. Sure, a hovel of Chaotic Evil murders could legitimately elect Babymuncher Intestinaleviscerator as their president, but if the authority is one of a chaotic nature -or- an evil nature then it is diametrically opposed to the Lawful Good Paladin.

Paladin is a class with enough crap being bolted to its ankles, don't be a 'that guy' who thinks the -entire- point of a Paladin is to force him to fall while the Druid gets to go Chaotic Stupid Laserbear Lightningdinosaur Tier 1.

On that note, why do all the DMs poke and prod at the Paladin code when Druids have a caveat about their secret language? Never seen any DMs go for that one.

[Clistenes]

I think it's a matter of style of play rather than alignment on itself. The dude who likes to do stupid stuff for sh*ts and laughs will steal the other PCs' stuff if he's playing a CN, eat babies if he's NE, randomly backstab teammates in their sleep if he's playing CE, behead evil teammates if he's LG, and will do all of that if he's playing a N character.

On the other hand, good team players will try to work out why the characters are going together and make them coexist for the sake of their common goals. And, if they have to betray each other, they will do in a intelligent, interesting way.

[Urpriest]

I think there's some middle ground. Having your morning prayers result in no new spells for the day can show the deity's displeasure in your actions without going to extremes. I prefer that more immersive approach to alignment issues to the DM telling the players how they're supposed to be playing the game. They don't have to play heroes; they could play self-centered adventurers who are mostly interested in treasure instead. If so, they might need to come to terms with a change in alignment (and maybe deity) along the way. "Good" isn't what you write on your characters' sheets, but rather how you play them.

I don't think it should ever come to changing the sheet, though.

Think about a player who has the Dodge feat, but never uses it, and keeps subtracting amounts from their to-hit rolls and adding them to damage, despite not having Power Attack. As a DM, do you tell them one day that their Dodge feat has changed to Power Attack? Or do you talk to them and try to figure if they're cheating intentionally, and if not what they misunderstood?