I have come to the conclusion that the alignment system is flawed...at least the
good-evil spectrum. Consider: is good-evil defined by the god(s), culture, the
DM, the player? This issue is made even muddier when we see evil priests for
good gods. Are the gods ignoring the evilness in their own priests? Why?
Perhaps the best way to deal with it is to ignore the good-evil...or limit it.
For example, as long as the priest performs his rituals and offers sacrifices,
etc. he'll get his spells. This is a good way to deal with priesthoods that
aren't necissarily concerned with morality...such as Haelyn's. Yet, how does one
then explain how paladins must be of good alignment? Perhaps the best way to
look at it is to look back at Earth's legends and the origins of the paladin
myth. Choosing Galahad as an example of a paladin, what is it about him that
makes him a paladin? He dois not necissarily the embodiment of his faith, yet he
is somehow different...better...than most other people. I think it is rooted in
his sense of a warrior's honor..tempered by his faith. Lancelot was a man of
honor, but not faith. Priests are men of faith...but not warriors. It is the
combination that creates a paladin. Note that he is not created by the
combination of good and law...but faith and honor. The concept of honor is
perhaps encompassed in "lawful", but is faith encompassed in "good"? Without an
agreed on definition of "good", we can not say. And this brings us back around
to my original assertion: the good-evil alignment spectrum is flawed because of
so many possible perspectives on good and evil.

It is 4 in the morning and I have just gotten off work. If I have rambled on,
making no sense, please excuse me. :)