My take on Alignments

[Nemo235]

Alignments are guidelines, and they can change in either direction on the good-selfish-evil spectrum.
So of course a player can play the character however they want, with the understanding that their alignment can change.
However, you only get XP rewards when you stick to your current alignment in difficult situations. Thats why it suggests in the rules GMs should warn players when they are about to do something "out of aligment" with their current view on life and the world.
What you have to think about is the reputation of the character.
However you have acted in the past will be how others percieve you.

Your situation is very specific because you were playing a Cyber-Knight. Even though they can theoretically be of any alignment, they have to consider their code of chivalry when deciding what to do. Constantly acting against the code will ruin your reputation among the other knights.
Some of the more conservative knights would not tolerate any breach in the code.
Others may be more leniant, depending on how you try to explain or justify what happened.

Was there evidence of his confession?
Were you supposed to bring him to some other authority for a formal trial?
Was their even any other authority around, or was it more like a lawless area?
The prisoner was completely at your mercy, and yet you killed him as if you had no other options.
Was it an act of justice, or cold blooded vengeance?

If your lucky the other Cyber-Knights would give you a chance for some sort of atonement instead of banishment, or worse.
If an O.C.C. has alignment or behavior restrictions, you knew that fact during the creation of the character and must work to maintain them or accept the consequences of breaking them.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I'll agree I don't limit myself to an alignment. I often play according to one, but I will not stop myself because it is out of alignment, I will stop myself because it is out of character. I'll be honest, I'm one of those people who doesn't think about what I want or what I would do, but what my character wants and what my character would do (which often contradicts me as a player). I don't fit neatly into an alignment and neither do most of my characters. Though, seeing as this is a problem I see often, I feel I need to address the topic of a Cyber-Knight in general (even though this was about alignments).

Some notes about Cyber-Knights ...

A Cyber-Knight answers to no authority other than the callings of his own heart and the Code of Chivalry.

...they deal out justice as judge, jury, and executioner.

Although their methods are extreme, these are extreme and unusual times.

I think people tend to forget those aspects of the knight, not sure why. I guess that's because most G.M. run the world as if there is a fair and just legal system in every town. "That man was just slaughtering innocent D-Bee women and children. There's a Coalition city only a few miles away. Let's bring him to just." And at this point I slap the Cyber-Knight upside the head. I know, I know, I take the extreme, but I do it to make a point. And yes, I know killing the man seems evil and can go against the Code of Chivalry. "Never attack an unarmed foe." True enough, but this isn't a battle, this is sentence. What about the rules that say "Avenge the innocent"? They can contradict itself and you have to find your own path. And if the man throws his weapons and begs for mercy and there is a better way it can be considered. Part of carrying out a sentence is probably deeming why the person did it. For example, one may view many Coalition soldiers as just ignorant, blindly following orders because they've been convinced it's evil. So a Cyber-Knight may be more likely to show mercy when possible and try to enlighten them instead. A man who is killing just because it's fun though is more likely to be killed because he may just be beyond redemption. It's kind of finding your own path, but I think most people always want to judge a Cyber-Knight for "executioner" part when they are meant to be "judge, jury, and executioner." Okay, end rant. Thanks for your time please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Nemo235]

Prysus, I completely agree with everything your saying.
All I was saying (in my rambling way) is alignments are guidelines for roleplaying and characters can be played however.
But the most important thing, even if you play without alignments, is how the character's actions affect their reputation.

On the topic of Cyber-Knights, not all of them will react in the same way to this character's view of the code. Just like we're discussing it now, some of them may understand the way this character dispensed justice, while others will argue he should have transported the criminal to a higher authority.
So things like alignments and codes are the characters view on ethics, and when those views conflict with other's, it can lead to some interesting roleplaying.

I'm not trying to tell people how to play or anything, just trying to show how alignments could work. Alignments are just an accesory for the game. Just like any other rule, if you don't like it, change it.
They do provide for some interesting philosophical discussions though.

[lather]

Nobody fits neatly into alignments. The alignments are not neat to begin with.

[Nemo235]

I've posted this several times, but this is basically my take on alignments and how to better understand them:

After reading the alignment guidelines and, giving it some thought, I noticed the following ideas.
In order to avoid breaking any forum rules, I'm just going to summarize the alignment descriptions. Not sure how much I can quote directly from the book. The numbers in parentheses beside each heading correspond to the numbers on the lists under the alignment descriptions. If you have any Palladium rule book, you know what I'm talking about.

It seems a character's alignment could be divided into three general aspects:

Aggression ( 3, 4, 5, 6 9 )
How much force is the character willing to use to achieve their goals? This could be a range of complete pacifism, to fighting only in self defense or to protect innocents, all the way to attacking and torturing others just for the sadistic pleasure of it.

Integrity ( 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 )
Would the character ever lie to or betray someone, breaking a promise? If so, to whom? Also, would the hero keep money or items from criminals they have encountered, or found from other sources?

Lawfulness ( 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 )
Would the character break or exploit the law for any reason? If so, to what extent? Are they vigilantes, believing they are working above the law for greater justice? Or do they actually have law enforcement power? This situation could change in a story, and lawfulness overlaps with the other two aspects of alignment mentioned above.

Since the player is supposed to be in complete control of their character, as the GM all I can do is warn them when they are playing outside of their alignment. If they continue with their actions I have considered maybe making them play with some minor psychological drawbacks, like neuroses and such, until they either get back in line with their original alignment or change to a different alignment. If they do shift alignment completely, there would be in game consequences like loss of friends, working outside the law, etc.

I hope this helps. Even if you don't play with alignments, these points are worth taking into consideration by the GM to decide how NPCs would react to a character.