Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character.
Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?
If you have stated that your character believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society, how does he deal with a man who has stolen from a bakery to feed his starving family? The Law says he should be executed. Compassion does not. Is it Justice? This is the same dilemma you are telling me the character can have only one LG option, and must choose that or break character. How is it different when we have a character whose moral views come into conflict and aren't labeled with the Alignment terms?
Now, the GM could say "The only right choice is compassion and if you do not spare him, you are breaking character." or that "The only right choice is the law and if you spare him, you are breaking character.", or even "Since you cannot both spare him for compassion and execute him for justice you have no choice but to break character and are stripped of your Paladin powers". That seems to be the game you envision. In that game, the GM is a certain part of the anatomy which I prefer not to discuss.
In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation. If the GM is going to take the stance that there are only nine possible personalities, then the game will have problems whether they are named LG, etc. or not. The problem is the gamers, not the game.
If, when you ran games with alignment, you interpreted alignment as you suggest it should and must be interpreted on this thread, then I suggest you were a crap GM in that regard, and I am glad you stopped ABusing alignment in your games as it could only improve them. That seems inconsistent with your overall statements of how you GM, here and on other threads, but we all grow over time.
A character is not defined in totality by his alignment... It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. I wonder whether there is some reluctance to acknowledge that, perhaps, when a GM made the game poor with alignment, that was bad GMing rather than a bad rules set.
True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?
So is it OK for your character who believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society to nail the doors of the orphanage shut and roast marshmallows in the flames while listening to the cries of the children, or is that just as out of character for someone outside an alignment system as within it? It seems to me that, whenever someone has suggested an action that is out and out contradictory, the anti-alignment posters have suggested that can only happen if the players are unreasonable. What out and out contradictory actions are you thinking are, in fact, in character, whether the character is LG or simply believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society in a game with no alignments?
Who said something about an out and out contradictory action??
As far as I can see, Hussar thinks the GM will rule anything he wants to do "out and out contradictory" to his alignment, but really it will be perfectly in character. Because all GM's are sadistic jerks, with him being the sole enlightened exception. At least that is the image I receive from his posts here and on other threads.
But what if your DM declares that a good act? Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.
To clarify, you are asking "What if your GM declares burning down the orphanage and roasting marshmallows in the flames while serenaded by the shrieks of dying children to be a good act"? Then he is just as unreasonable as a player who asserts this is a good act. I think we have established many pages ago that not playing with such unreasonable players is a pretty decent idea, so why would we not apply the same solution to a GM who is this crappy. Or one who thinks that everyone of a given alignment can have only one possible response to any given situation and deviating from that One True Way causes immediate alignment shift and loss of all alignment-based abilities? Why is the solution different for a lousy GM than it would be for a lousy player?
You can engage in non-good acts just fine without taking a hit to your powers. I would expect them to do so quite often - eating lunch, taking a crap, taking a nap, etc. I would argue that any GM who rules performing lawful executions an always evil act is really a GM incompatible with the typical fantasy setting, the standard tropes of D&D adventuring, and needs to recognize that and discuss it with his players before surprising a paladin with a fall.
And even if performing a particular lawful execution would be ruled evil by the GM, the paladin would just have to decline from being the executioner. Bring them to justice those who deserve it, but leave it to the state and its professional executioner to do the dirty deed.
It seems like Lawful executions being Evil would indicate the State itself is non-Good (neutral or even evil) itself, setting the stage for role playing within the game to change or overthrow the system.