None is the best option for me, but if we must have alignment then dynamic (either version) is tolerable. Static would just be ridiculous to me, if I start as lawful good and run around murder hoboing the world then I should absolutely not be considered lawful good anymore. You deciding your own alignment could work for more mature players, but I can see some people randomly changing because they feel like it and then complaining that they were allowed to do it. None gives the best freedom for character development without being coloured by someone else's interpretations of alignment. We can pick one at the start for character flavour but that is all that is necessary.
This topic came up because I was playing Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous. I created a Lawful Good Paladin of Iomedae before I even realized that the entire game was about Iomedae. lol. My personal beliefs align more with Lawful Good - or so I thought. As I was playing the game, my alignment suddenly shifted to Neutral Good, and my paladin lost his ability to use his powers. This did NOT sit well with me at all
In the Pathfinder system, alignment can present an issue for clerics and paladins because they have to be no more than one step from their deity's alignment. The dialogue options are not always the best for people in the video games, some are absolutely stupid. If you want to play a religious class in that system then it probably would work better with a real DM where you can explain the reasons behind your actions. Otherwise you are stuck with the arbitrary alignment interpretations that someone decided to put in the game.
This does not sit well with me because of my beliefs. What also doesn't sit well with me is that Lawful Good is about obeying law regardless of whether the law is really good or not. Whether the law is serving people or not, a Lawful Good character must obey the law or they might slide towards a new alignment
This is the viewpoint I have basically had shoved at me about lawful good in practically every morality and alignment conversation I have ever had, so I find it really common. Lawful good is apparently for fanatics and people who love any excuse to be rigid and controlling (and you can't tell these people they are acting more like lawful evil.) Neutral good is much more benevolent and willing to listen to reason.
Not really qualified to get into the part about your beliefs because I do not worship your deity (and have had interactions with followers of said deity which could be considered evil aligned on their part) but I will say that it is often hard to roleplay yourself in a fictional setting where the interactions and dialogues assume you to be a part of the fictional world instead.
So, you can't just shift alignments on people because my action may SEEM like it is Evil in BG3, but it may actually just be smart. I'm SAYING I'm joining Minthara when I'm really pretending to join her to lure her into a more advantageous position for myself. Instead of 4 party members fighting Minthara in her home court, I'm luring her to a well-defendable gate with allies like Zevlor to help me wipe out her forces. So how is Larian going to judge my action of "Yes, Minthara, I'm going to help you"? Are they going to call that evil?
Another good example of why None is better, especially without a real DM to explain your reasoning to.
