uh.
i didn't expect this but that is actually a really good idea for the traditional alignment system evangel (if it's done right).  it even kind of JUSTIFIES the system in the same go.
i think the problem however  is that it will be propably pretty shallowly implemented, judging the modern rpgs, so w/e 

well i mean my point was that the traditional system (dividing into good-bad lawful-chaotic) pretty much sucks most of the time since it's never really implemented well (baldur's gate, iwd = DIALOGUE AND ALIGNMENT DOES NOT MEET (shallowly at times); NWN = sucks balls in every possible way, gets even worse in NWN2!) but that kind of EXACTLY OPPOSITE CHARACTER thing could work in the context since it gives you a clear something to compare yourself to. welp basically EVEN THE PROFESSIONAL GAMES SUCK WITH THIS.

but a problem: most of the time the players choose the middle-of-the-road options which is why most of the people don't really play their e.g. lawful characters like they should since the dialogue options even allow different thoughts. ofc you can put such at good crossroads to allow paladin to become FALLEN PALADIN and such but really, this is all quite a lot of work for developers so it's not suprising that no-one has bothered to do this properly!

what is, however, more condemnable is that most of the time the dialogue options favour good choices or more exactly, PRAGMATIC or LOGICAL CHOICES. what i mean is that a player can pick the good side from the beginning and then in the middle of the quest be CHAOTIC/opportunist and steal lots of stuff from the good people without consiquences.
nah this is a bad example. in short, the player can kind of irrationally do MULTIPLE ALIGNMENT CHOICES in one quest and a lot of times without consiquences to much anything. or pick-pocket the quest award beforehand.and this is usually the best-case scenario! this only kind of works in fallout since it doesn't have set alignments (which further proves that MY FRIEND EVANGEL, SET ALIGNMENTS SUCKS) and even in that game limitedly.

the fantasy rpg's are especially inclined to have best-case scenarios where the good or rather THE INNOCENT gets to live, the bad gets fooled, you earn more gold (jesus PERSUADE IN NWN) and possibly opens up more quests or the town turns more friendly, that sort of thing.

--

so to close my post, most of players don't bother with playing their alignments so if you really really want to implement set ones they should affect the dialogue and your character from the very beginning of the game. i don't really see another choice if you want to have one properly! and ridicilously/ironicly i think the people will go all ":_(" over this kind of SET PERSONALITY things (which means i guess that players should in that case pick neutral alignment. i don't know. i really don't care!!).

suggestion: either remove the traditional alignment system or add colours to it such as Neutral, Pragmatist (which yields the best results) or neutral, opportunist actually fuck that, just have different kinds of possible of PERSONALITIES to choose from and perhaps have a max amount for them. pragmatist, opportunist, urgh EMPHATIC, hermit, whatever. these will shape the dialogue and thus the character to some extent.

let this be the last time i post in gd

I was thinking of that as well.  A professional game company could probably pull off a decent dynamic system where you play as a free man.  If I was to make it, I'd probably have to resort to 4 distinct factions or races who act in a distinct manner (Chaotic-Evil to Lawful-Good, throwing out the Neutral status), with a definite opposition for each "game".  You'd pretty much choose your path from the start.

That could be interesting because one could implement 4 different difficulties per game.  The "Beginners" game could be played Chaotic-Good, in which you'd be pitted against Lawful-Evil.  Each further setting could implement a different and more complex strategy as you play a different faction or race, all within the same world.

If I get some more ideas and free time, I'd really like to write a plot out for this.

yeah. to make the alignments work you could have some set personalities (which kind of renders CHAOTIC or LAWFUL, that sort of titles kind of useless) i suppose. chaotic good is a beginner one since people usually are pragmatic (the best for my character) but uh kind ( me not want sadness :_( me want happy ending!​!!! ).
well this brings up the problem of WHY NOT HAVE REAL PLAYABLE CHARACTER THEN. well ok. i guess you can have a colourful character which choices you can control to some extent (barkley!). it might work! i really liked how it worked in barkley (and apparently there is such in Mass Effect too but i haven't played it) let player choose the rest eg. stats, class, appearance themselves and i guess that's it.



also as you can see i didn't bother much to shape my thougths/grammar or anything. sorry Evengel! have fun in a swamp! 

I can't remember which game employed this, but you could only increase/decrease your alignment by degrees.  A neutral guy could commit petty evils, but not really bad things until he had built up his evil alignment.  That way, you couldn't flip flop around, doing whatever provides the most exp.

maybe it's not it but that sounds like NWN pretty much. POINTS IN ALIGNMENT, that sort of thing. get enough chaotic points and welp, you shift in alignment. add clear consiquences on top of this (THIS option adds x amount of chaotic etc + treasure/exprience rewards) and you have a pretty bad system. nobody cares about character's personality ever in this game. it got lot worse in NWN2/NWN expansions when certain specific classes required specific alignments.

For this hypothetical game, I think the best route would allow the player to pursue all quests within his alignment, plus some quests which are just a few degrees from that alignment.  A Chaotic-Good character would have no problem stealing from any Evil character.   However, there could also be small-time Lawful-Good or Chaotic-Evil quests that kind of blur the line, but provide fewer rewards.

Right now, I'm thinking two rival nations, one "Good", one "Evil" (of course, this won't be said, but implied), who are struggling for power and dominance.  This is where the arbitrary main goal comes into play, maybe a struggle over a generic magic item, piece of land, basically a MacGuffin. 
Each nation has their own Lawful government, who are in direct opposition to one another.  However, each nation is home to a subversive Chaotic faction, which fights to overturn the rule of law.  This is where gameplay differs for each of the 4 sides.  As a member of the Lawful government, you'd primarily be fighting anything Evil, but you are willing to do things to oppress the Lawful faction.  As a faction member, one can maybe get mercenary jobs from your own government, to fight the Evil government, but one could also take sides occasionally with the Evil faction, in the interest of toppling any form of government.

This could add a level of strategy in which you're doing a balancing act (playing one side against the other to your own end), but in the end you're trying to secure the "MacGuffin" for yourself.

I hope this makes sense!

yeah it makes sense. well, no offence but your story's premise shoots itself pretty badly in the leg considering the alignment. why would you even need any alignments if your only goal is to achieve the MacGuffin yourself? me not understand. i mean this game's idea doesn't even need alignments, it's about player topping everybody else! also the premise sounds kind of what Fallout series always had minus the final goal in the game.

actually nothing of these don't really matter. like i said, alignments blow... Deal With It! 

What is roleplaying to you?

Dressing up as princess peac......No wait you mean the other roleplying. Oooooopppps. My bad.

Anygame where you play a role that drags you into the game really.