Back in the old days I have participated in quite a few alignment “debates” on WotC’s and Dicefreaks’ forums, together with Vaalingrade Ashland and the rest. Interesting, in its own way.

In that case, the answer would still be “use like normal”, whatever that normal might be for your group.

I’m not about to tell someone how to play “right”. Though I’ll gladly explain how I play, it’s not necessarily “right”.

This topic came about as part of a discussion about clarifying the definitions for Law and Chaos, so that’s all I covered.

As for the rest, I’ll leave that up to the individual groups.

On that note, here are my personal answers.

Actions dictate alignment, not vice versa, though alignment is a useful tool for guiding actions.

Alignment restrictions are stupid to begin with. As such, all alignment restrictions are gone for my games. Monks will tend to be Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis, believing in a balance in the world, though that of course won’t apply to all of them. Paladins may tend to be good, but it is unnecessary. I have personally played a Chaotic Neutral Gully Dwarf Paladin, years ago. Similarly, Bards and Barbarians may tend to chaos, but there is nothing preventing a Lawful Barbarian (which may make a lot of sense in a hierarchal tribe) or Bard.

Paladins are not, and never have been, justified to kill just because someone is “Evil”.

Mindless undead are neutral by definition, just as golems are. Intelligent undead may tend towards evil, but it is not a given.

Those are my answers to your questions. I could discuss this all day. In fact, on those same boards that spawned this topic, we’ve been discussing it for weeks.

For example: Does alignment change because of actions or does it limit them (in fiction, out of fiction)? Is alignment a matter of belief, actions, will to act, or something else?

On more practical level: Is alignment only a tool that players can refer to if they aren’t sure what their character would do? How is it changed, if that ever happens? Are class alignment restrictions still relevant (all monks, the people who devote themselves completely to personal perfection, value society above individual)?

Are paladins justified to slay all evil beings when their evil-radar blings? What about baby kobolds? Or are such situations simply not encountered in the game? Are undead evil by definition? Can there be mindless evil creatures?

I could go on. The point is that the big question about alignment is not, IMO, the definitions, but instead the way those definitions are used.

They aren’t hard and fast rules, of course, and alignment shouldn’t be that.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re asking?

Neutrality could also be defined with the concepts of balance and equality. (At least true Neutrality)…. But I prefer the L1G1 or C1E1 aspects of neutrality.

Good work mate.