Again I was working on my fantasy RPG, and I realised that I don’t have any system, or mechanic for some kind of character alignment. At first my plan was to just not include one, but then I thought back to all the times in DnD where I used a characters alignment to tell were the characters stood in acts of morality. I hated the unforgiving alignment system that DnD used in most part to the number of pvp kills that it has lead to in games I’ve played in. So I thought of using something like the “Virtues & Creeds” in the old wod Hunter game, and the heroic callings from Blue rose were players choose a light nature, and a shadow nature. My plan was to create an alignment like system that player picked two to four personality traits, were one to two would have to be negative traits, but all traits would give small bonus to skills or abilities. Another thought I had was to have a list of archetypes for player to choose from that would work like a condensed version of the perverse mechanic. I what to know how if either of this mechanics could work, and any other ideas on alignment like systems that would give the feeling that this is what my characters about, but not restricting to the players enjoyment of the gaming.

I think the way you're describing wouldn't be the best one. If you let players to choose some alignement and give some bonus because it, at the end it can turn out in players distributing bonus.

I have a rule for designing: just imagine the worst and laziest use of a rule, because it's probably what it's going to happen.

If you're trying to deal with some alignement, much better than a table of bonuses, think in how it can affect character's decisions and how it can lead them to conflicts.

Ok I think I’ll scrap my last idea, and go with this. The players pick a few like (one to four) character traits, that define what their character is about, and I just leave it at that. Or I could use again from blue rose have characters pick a light, or good trait, and a shadow, or bad trait. These traits would be the default for the sort of good act the character would do, and the same idea for the evil trait. For example a character that has charity, and lust would what to give to other, but could be tempted by their shadow nature for tainted love.

To go with this idea I’ve had that I might want to connect to the alignment ideas above, is to have some form of corruption, and purity points that character can be granted by powerful good, and evil spirits that the character has performed great deeds for said spirit. I don’t know how this idea will work with either idea above.

Corruption points would grant characters great shadow magic abilities, but destroys the characters body as the character gathers more of these points. While Purity points could either increase states, or give character special powers to protect the character from evil auras, and corruption. The way I’m planning on granting this points is to have it so that only powerful spirits that are very rare, only grants them if them feel the players have completed the mission while following the moral guild lines of the type of spirit.

Over all I plan to us this to guild players to follow their personality traits, and gives Dm’s a cool mechanic to grant to players that play their character true. I believe that these combined mechanics could work, but this might just give players to try to break the game. I what to now if this mechanics could work, and if not why.

In my system the idea is not so much alignment but more about morality.

The players follow the morality chosen by them for their characters; but through spells or bitterness/enlightenment the character's morality can change.  Thus giving the player something new to follow.

but then I thought back to all the times in DnD where I used a characters alignment to tell were the characters stood in acts of morality.

and gives Dm’s a cool mechanic to grant to players that play their character true.

I remember reading another post about alignment where the designer represented morality as how much you stick to your own set of principles.  I thought it was a rather objective method, albeit weird that a monster who sticks to his guns would be considered moral by game standards!

Do you see alignment as a stick for the GM to enforce role-playing that suits the setting?
EXAMPLES:
* The D&D Paladin MUST be Lawful Good--it's part of the game world, baked in, and deviation means loss of efficacy.
* The D*D "evil" monster may be killed without moral qualms because it's inherently, irrevocably in opposition to what is right and Good.

Or is it a means to gauge how consistently a player role-plays, based on their chosen alignment, with some arbitrary award serving as a carrot?
EXAMPLES:
* A WoD Narrator's subjective judgment that one has followed one's Nature and Demeanor means one recovers Willpower [IRC].
* Pinging character traits in Burning Wheel can earn one Persona Artha for Embodiment, by majority decision of the players (GM included).

{I am trying to think of another general function of "alignment" systems and can't... but it's Thursday, and I am mostly stupid on Thursdays.]

As a GM you usually need an aligment system when you like the characters in a game, but not the way your players usually play them. This also helps the GM do some railroading or extert at least a bit of control over unfavorable situations which the players can otherwise easily avoid to make the GM work harder or at least improvise the adventure on the run.

Using full stick makes the players (the ones who doesn't like playing a character as it is, at least) remember the sessions as somewhat unfair. Using full carrot will probably make the GM (at least one that ends giving away the whole carrot early each session) remember the game as somewhat unbalanced.

I ended up using and imaginary carrot by rewarding players with points which, when spended, just added additional color on the description of their rolls, either succesful or not. On games with a higher PC death toll those points also meant additional kills or miracle saves in the last moment. However, to earn those points the vice and virtue figure only worked as an intern metagame joke instead of producing actually good roleplaying. Replacing vice and virtue with aspects a la Fate brought, if not a better roleplaying, at least a more interesting and funnier metagame joke to the table.

So in the end it all translates as what makes you more comfortable as a GM and what makes your players enjoy better the sessions...

It may help to think of weather you want an objectivist or a subjectivist morality in your setting.

D&D uses an objectivist morality, because old mythic tales (and Tolkien) did.  It's the kind of morality that exists as something like a physical law in the setting.  It can be proven.  When a spell detects evil in a game, that's an objectivist morality.  It has the appeal of being reliable and simple, so if you want to make morality part of the "physical" structure of the game, that's the way to go.

Subjectivist morality is more common in modern settings, because we associate moral grey areas with modernity more.  It has the appeal of realism, in that it has a habit of encouraging moral disagreement that can be fun to role play. In a subjectivist setting though, you can't have abilities that effect evil or good directly, because you don't know what can be targeted.

I believe I’ve finally found a “mechanic” to determine an alignment like feel that allows the Gm to have a little control on the player’s actions. In my fantasy setting that my game is based around I’ve chosen to go with the traditional objectivist morality, where good, and evil are clearly defined, and most people would likely fall of the good side of the scale. So instead of just a list of alignments that apply to all races, each race has a list of archetypes that are common within their culture. This way each race is clearly defined in their sense of morality.

For example a Nightgrift an elf like creature in my world would have no problem slaying an earth spirit, but an Eridin a group of nature worshiping people, would only slay an earth spirit to defend themselves, and to put a corrupted one out of its misery.