So, I've been plotting out a D&D 3.5 campaign recently (just broad strokes at the moment: who, what, why, etc), and I started thinking about the main antagonist's alignment. Basically, he's murdering established heroes (his own friends, at that), and conspiring with dark powers to bring an end to all life on an entire plane of existence. This sounds pretty down the line Chaotic Evil, but his reasons for doing it are noble. Without going into too much detail about the campaign world, he believes that killing everyone and giving them a chance to be happy in heaven is preferential to them carving out hard, interminable lives in the dangerous, inhospitable world they live in. And he's not necessarily wrong about this. While his motivation will never land him on the Lawful end of the spectrum, from his perspective, he's still fighting for the Greater Good.
This led to me musing about how much interpretation and inference there are even in the fairly stratified Alignment system of pre-4e D&D. And just about every system has their own way of codifying behavior. I was wondering what other people tend to do about these systems. Is there one that you really like? Are intentions or actions more important? Or do you tend to ignore them?
Uncroaked for Hire
No, no, Misty is Uncle Ben; Bogroll is Gwen Stacy.