What is, objectively, the best alignment?

[eggynack]

Alignments describe characters. They do not define them.

There is no, "You can't do that, your alignment is LG."

There's a, "If you do that, you'll move more towards the neutral alignment."

That's the case up to a point, but alignment absolutely does have mechanical impact on the game.

[Xuldarinar]

Im just going to throw this one out there:

What about unaligned? or any condition that would make it so you, technically, lack an alignment for that matter.

[Extra Anchovies]

What, TN? Unless there's a way to not have an alignment at all, in which case an explanation of how to do so would be nice.

[Xuldarinar]

What, TN? Unless there's a way to not have an alignment at all, in which case an explanation of how to do so would be nice.

Im unfamiliar with how in 3.5 without just replacing the alignment system such as with taint, which I would assume to be the primary subject matter in terms of edition, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way there. But for an example, there is at least one way in pathfinder. The unchained Oracle's Curse, which provides the following at 5th level:

At 5th level, you have no alignment. You can become a member of any class, even one with an alignment requirement, and can never lose your membership because of a change in alignment. If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion. Attempts to detect your alignment don't return any results. If a class restricts you from casting spells with an alignment descriptor, you can cast such spells without restrictions or repercussions. If you're the target of a spell or effect that is based on alignment, you're treated as the most favorable alignment when determining the spell's effect on you. Any effects that alter alignment have no effect on you.

[Sacrieur]

That's the case up to a point, but alignment absolutely does have mechanical impact on the game.

Sure, the quintessential paladin's code of conduct gives a penalty for behaving in a certain way.

But that doesn't mean you paladin can't do that, it means that he receives a penalty for doing that.

[eggynack]

Sure, the quintessential paladin's code of conduct gives a penalty for behaving in a certain way.

But that doesn't mean you paladin can't do that, it means that he receives a penalty for doing that.

You're kinda ignoring a lot of the stuff that's been discussed in this thread. Like, say, the fact that an evil caster absolutely does not have access to sanctified spells, and to take things from the other direction, that a good cleric can't cast animate dead. Moreover, even looking at your example, you're taking things in the wrong direction. Yes, a paladin can go evil, but the inverse is not true. An evil character, in other words, cannot go paladin. Now, granted, that's not exactly a big loss, but what that represents is a lack of access to certain resources on the basis of alignment.

[Sagetim]

You're kinda ignoring a lot of the stuff that's been discussed in this thread. Like, say, the fact that an evil caster absolutely does not have access to sanctified spells, and to take things from the other direction, that a good cleric can't cast animate dead. Moreover, even looking at your example, you're taking things in the wrong direction. Yes, a paladin can go evil, but the inverse is not true. An evil character, in other words, cannot go paladin. Now, granted, that's not exactly a big loss, but what that represents is a lack of access to certain resources on the basis of alignment.

An evil character cannot go paladin? Well, not while remaining evil, sure. But there's always the example of that succubus paladin from ye olde wizards articles. It's not so much a matter of 'this can never happen' but more 'it's up to the DM if it's possible'. This is where your mileage may vary, some DM's will say that paladins have to always be super lawful good, pure, and cannot sway from their path or they fall forever or some such thing. From what I've seen, those DM's are usually *******s who try to nitpick anyone playing a paladin into falling for even the most minor of things. Other DM's will say 'no, you've been an evil alignment, so no matter how redeemed you might get, there's no god that has paladins who is going to want you as one of theirs.' Which is fair...most of the gods in dnd aren't exactly...nice. A lot of them are *******s really. Especially in forgotten realms. And then there are DM's who would say 'well, this character has redeemed themselves so far and so well that they qualify to be a paladin and have become one'.

But in any case it would require redemption first. It would require not being of evil alignment anymore. So (barring Unearthed Arcana's alternate paladins) there is no way for an evil character to go paladin while still remaining evil. But the potential exists for formerly evil characters to become paladins.

[eggynack]

An evil character cannot go paladin? Well, not while remaining evil, sure. But there's always the example of that succubus paladin from ye olde wizards articles. It's not so much a matter of 'this can never happen' but more 'it's up to the DM if it's possible'. This is where your mileage may vary, some DM's will say that paladins have to always be super lawful good, pure, and cannot sway from their path or they fall forever or some such thing. From what I've seen, those DM's are usually *******s who try to nitpick anyone playing a paladin into falling for even the most minor of things. Other DM's will say 'no, you've been an evil alignment, so no matter how redeemed you might get, there's no god that has paladins who is going to want you as one of theirs.' Which is fair...most of the gods in dnd aren't exactly...nice. A lot of them are *******s really. Especially in forgotten realms. And then there are DM's who would say 'well, this character has redeemed themselves so far and so well that they qualify to be a paladin and have become one'.

But in any case it would require redemption first. It would require not being of evil alignment anymore. So (barring Unearthed Arcana's alternate paladins) there is no way for an evil character to go paladin while still remaining evil. But the potential exists for formerly evil characters to become paladins.

Sure, I guess. It seems almost like a semantic argument, rather than an actually impactful one. Unlike with many factors of optimization, alignment can be swapped without any mechanical impetus, but that doesn't make it stop being a factor of optimization, especially when changing parity usually denies access to whatever you were gaining from your old alignment. Not always though, I suppose, as you can, for example, go monk/barbarian by changing alignments between classes. So, this doesn't really eliminate the question as much as it just complicates it, though I'd assert that the struggle intrinsic in swapping alignments makes, "First go evil, pick up this stuff, then swap to good," a really tricky plan.

[Segev]

For a while, I've had a concept of a "wild boy" who was raised by proverbial wolves in the wilderness, and thus had a level of barbarian at a very young age. He was eventually discovered and taken in by a monestary, where the monks taught him civilized behavior, to read, to think coherently, and to meditate. His vicious, wild, destructive behavior when they first took him in shames him now.

He still has a level of Barbarian, but he is loath, due to his now Lawful alignment, to ever dip into that well of feral rage in which he once wallowed. If he ever does, he fears he'll never regain control of himself.

Mechanically, he was CN with maybe a risk of turning CE until the monks took him in, and he's now LN to LG, somewhere in there.