>Re : Paladins and alignment. Alignment is a concept that is outdated in
>the AD&D game.

I used to think the same thing, but that was before I understood
what Alignment was all about.

You're right, AD&D is one of the only games left that uses any kind
of moral yard stick by which to measure the behavior of its characters.
This is because people who design games understood alignment just as badly
as you do, and therefore ignore it.

In Champions, or Vampire, or whatever, you can't have an item whose
function changes depending on the moral outlook or theological committment
of the character. This is, it seems to me, a limitation. In AD&D I *can*
have an item that works one way for characters of one moral bent and a
different way for characters with the opposite intention. Sure, you could
ignore alignment, but then what would you do when a magic item told you it
did X damage to Neutral Evil characters? Or only worked for Chaotic Good
characters? Just *guess* at what you're player's alignment *would have
been* were you to have been playing with alignment all along?
As the 2nd Ed book says, alignment is not a straightjacket. Unless
you're playing a Paladin (and let me tell you, there are *lots* of
different ways to play Paladins, just as there are lots of different ways
to play *any* alignment) then you shouldn't feel as though you're being
limited by alignment.

>Your average man on the street is far too complex to categorize into a
>neat, tidy little slot.

So what? Your average man on the street isn't a AD&D character.
There aren't only 12 types of people, yet astrology *really, actually*
exists, even though it's been *proven* not to work!

> Think about yourself - what alignment would you be?

Probably Chaotic Good, although possibly Lawful Neutral. I'd have
to look them up again.

> You can't really do it, can you?

I just did.

> Would Pope John Paul II be LG?

I don't know. . .I don't know him.

> Mother Theresa? Would Charles Manson be CE?

Don't know them either.

> A player should be able to make a Paladin who has faults, makes mistakes,
>shows weakness in >the face of temptation, or is beginning to question
>his/her faith. That's a real person!

Everyone I play with already *does* the thing you're suggesting
here, and doesn't think its violating the LG alingment restriction at all.
I simply think you have a very dysfunctional definition of Lawful Good and