A lot of people like the idea of being able to describe folks with the alignment system, to say that so-and-so is LAWFUL Good, but this guy over here is CHAOTIC Good and things like that, and that’s great…until you run into the issue of what alignment should actually do in the game. Because if all it does is take up space on the character sheet lots of players will just forget it’s there and the way they play their characters may bear no relationship to what they’ve written, at which point alignment has no descriptive power.

The solution is to make alignment mechanically significant – meaning that it affects how things happen in the game often enough to be worth noticing. That makes sense, but many players resist it – I think too many people remember alignment being a purely negative influence on their character, a bludgeon that required them to behave a certain way or be penalized by experience or level loss. That will generally drive people to become hostile to alignment (unless it’s refereed so loosely that it once again doesn’t mean much if anything).

My proposal is to make alignment an advantage for the character. There are lots of forms this could take, but for the moment I’d like to suggest the simplest one that comes to mind: make it a reinforcement of player choice. In other words, since alignment is meant to be a reflection of how characters act, let’s make it back that up by making it hard to force a character to act against their alignment. So you could maybe drug or hypnotize or intimidate or otherwise coerce a character into generally doing your bidding, but if you try to make them violate their alignment those specific orders might be resisted; additionally you might lose what hold you have on them.

Assuming your group has a solid consensus about what various alignments mean (if not see below), here’s an example of how things might work in a 1e-3e style game:

1. The DM keeps track of character actions, and based on how the character predominantly behaves has a current alignment for the character.
2. Any action that would cause a character to behave contrary to their alignment can be resisted with a saving throw, with a bonus (or other resistance roll); if a resistance roll is not normally allowed this is rolled without a bonus, but if one normally is allowed then there’s a bonus to the roll equal to the character’s level+1. Resistance rolls might encompass not only saving throws, but also morale, opposed skill rolls, etc.
3. The DM will determine if making one of these alignment-based resistance rolls compromises the effect overall (for example, a character ordered to do something opposed to their values may cause them to throw off a Charm Person spell, which operates by affecting their opinion of the caster; it probably won’t rid them of a Dominate Person spell since it simply attempts to control their actions).

To determine a character’s current alignment or to know what actions are contrary to an alignment you need a consensus within your group at least. If your group already has one there’s no point in messing with it, but I’ve often found that groups merely appear to have a consensus; they discover sticking points in the midst of play and sometimes end up in heated arguments.

If your group doesn’t have a consensus (or you just aren’t sure) you can use the following definitions. They’re far too simple to map well to real-world use of these terms (to avoid sticking points that tend to cause disagreements). Note that since these definitions are about how characters make decisions rather than the exact decisions they make, characters of differing alignments can plausibly agree and cooperate with each other very frequently; likewise characters of similar alignments can disagree, even violently.

• The good/evil axis is about selfishness, how the character prioritizes their desires vs others. Good characters predominantly treat others as being as valuable and as deserving as themselves (“Do unto others…”); Evil character predominantly treat others as being less valuable (it’s even possible for them to do things that benefit others in ways that are Evil, of course, whether that benefit arises as part of a larger scheme, or because that benefit arises incidentally to the evil character’s goals, or even because the evil character benefits them intentionally as a consequence of his own desires rather than any consideration for the desires of those subject to them). A character is neutral on the Good/Evil axis if their actions aren’t predominantly Good or Evil
• The law/chaos axis is about time (and to a lesser degree space). Chaotic characters value what is present – the here and now is what’s real; everything else is either only as real as a memory or outright fictitious. Lawful characters value what endures – investing oneself in transient realities is useless. This means that Lawful characters predominantly seek to abide by existing rules (not necessarily those imposed on them; these might be voluntary oaths and personal codes) even in the face of adverse conditions. Chaotic characters refuse to be bound by longer-term bonds (be they traditions or laws per se or whatever), though of course they also don’t feel bound to disobey rules, since that would be a commitment of its own. A characters is neutral on the Law/Chaos axis if their actions aren’t predominantly Lawful or Chaotic.

  Note: This is not intended to suggest that Chaotic characters would have an advantage in resisting everything; they should adjust to circumstances rather than refuse to acknowledge them. So while they’re more likely to resist an effect like a Geas (which creates a long-term compulsion) than they are to get a bonus on a morale roll (which is all about changing one’s actions to fit the moment); the reverse applies for Lawful characters.