Rebuilding Alignment

[Greywander]

I've said before that I don't think it's really possible for D&D to make any big changes to the alignment system, partly due to being a sacred cow, but also do to how closely it's tied into the lore (especially the Great Wheel), but let's imagine for a moment that it was possible to build a new alignment system from scratch and somehow integrate it into the existing lore with only minor tweaks. Or you could just play in an original setting.

Part of the problem, at least for me, is that in D&D alignments have a definitive meaning, but that meaning is communicated in a rather vague way, so many players don't have a good grasp on what each alignment represents according to D&D. You might have your own idea of what an alignment means, but there's a good chance that it doesn't line up exactly with what that alignment actually is in D&D, and this is probably the root of all those alignment debates.

So basically, I want to make alignment something definitive, rather than vague. What I'm thinking specifically is that each alignment has a core idea/belief, which then has a cascading effect on the world view of the adherents to that alignment. Then, we can further divide alignments into Creeds, which are basically specific implementations of a given alignment. Each creed has a set of tenets that its adherents follow, which generally includes some sort of overarching goal that your creed is working toward.

Let me give an example. One way I've interpreted Law vs. Chaos is that Law believes in Absolutism, while Chaos believes in Relativism.

Because Law believes that things are Absolute, this means that a thing has qualities that exist independently from the context in which that thing is placed. This leads to the idea that one thing can be definitively better than another thing, which in turn leads to the idea of hierarchies, aka a system of organizing things according to "value" (whatever that value may be). We also get the concept of systems, or, methodically ways of dealing with a thing, and because of hierarchies we can also rank some systems as being better and more effective than others. This all combines to give rise to the idea of a society that lives under a hierarchical authority structure that uses a system of laws to govern its people. Another important aspect of Law is the ideal of Perfection. Since some things are better than others, there's a desire to strive for constant improvement. Truth is also a type of Perfection, as Truth is absolute; if something is true, it is always true, in any context. Untruths are then seen as imperfections, and thus, undesirable.

Chaos, on the other hand, believes things are Relative, which means that a thing only has qualities as it relates to other things. Thus, one thing cannot be better than another thing in an absolute sense; one thing might be better than another in a given context, but would be worse than the other thing in a different context. Hierarchies then make no sense, as a thing's place in the hierarchy would change depending on the metric being used to measure it, and the context in which it is applied. Systems need to be personalized to the specific context, and thus cannot be applied universally. Truth is also relative, and even reality itself can change depending on the person perceiving it. Chaos chafes at the rigidity of Law, and eschews an elusive Perfection for Freedom to find one's place in the world. Basically, seeking the "context" in which you fit ideally into.

For creeds, it might not be practical to make an exhaustive list. Rather, it might work better to show a few example creeds while also allowing players to create their own if they wish. A few examples of Lawful creeds might be things like the following:

A tyrannical creed, where imperfections must be destroyed. Tenets generally revolve around punishing those who won't convert to your ways, and insuring you're worthy of your station.
A personal creed, where you follow a code of honor and constantly strive for self-improvement.
A scholarly creed, where the tenets are focused around preserving Knowledge and Truth, and discovering new Truth.

Examples of Chaotic creeds might be things such as these:

A selfish creed, where you only care about how something relates to you, specifically. If it's not useful to you, then it's worthless.
A helpful creed, where you try to find the best place for everything. Tenets involve seeing the value in everything and putting them where they belong.
A rebel creed, where oppressive systems are torn down and individuals are encouraged to seek their own truth and way of living.

Now, something else I want to address is the Good-Evil axis. I don't find it that useful or interesting, so what I'd like to do is replace it with a more morally ambiguous axis, not unlike Law-Chaos. The thing is, the Good-Evil axis is tied too heavily into the existing D&D lore that it's probably easier to downplay it until it basically doesn't exist anymore, and add a new axis that doesn't need to be a 1-to-1 analogue of the Good-Evil axis. Basically a three-axis system where we pretend that one of the axes doesn't exist.

There's a couple ways we could go with a new axis, but I'm leaning toward Harmony vs. Dominion (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HarmonyVersusDiscipline). I'm not entirely sure what the best way to express these is, though. And I also see some overlap between these and the Law-Chaos axis, with Dominion sharing some traits with Lawful and Harmony sharing some traits with Chaotic. So I don't know. One thought is to make Dominion a belief in Inequality, while Harmony is a belief in Equality.

If we go this route, then Dominion might focus on the relationship between rulers and their subjects. Because things are not equal, some are made to rule, and others to be ruled over. Rulers don't just have the ability to rule, but an obligation to subjugate and control those beneath them. Rulers aren't just tyrants, but also caretakers, nurturing and growing those under their command. Being a ruler carries a lot of responsibility, and so it is important to insure that you are worthy of your position of rulership. If something threatens your domain, it should be destroyed with force. If you are in a conflict with another ruler, then you must challenge them and either conquer them or submit to their rule. Obviously, there's going to be a lot of variation depending on the creed; many would at least agree that humanity as a whole has rulership over nature, for example.

Harmony then believes in Equality. Because things are equal, no one has a right to force their will on another, as none are in a higher or lower position. Instead, one should try to accommodate others as much as possible. In the event of a conflict, the parties should negotiate rather than using force, and if a settlement cannot be reached then an outcome that is balanced for each party should be determined. One should always strive to learn from others, and to learn to see from the perspective of others to better understand them. The use of force is generally considered a last resort against those who refuse to deal with you harmoniously.

Some example Dominion creeds:

A golden creed, where your wealth determines your status. Tenets revolve around acquiring wealth through fair business practices, and building your local economy.
A noble creed, where you seek to better yourself in order to become a worthy ruler. Tenets revolve around self-improvement, and helping others and gaining their respect.
A technological creed, where you subjugate nature and elevate humanity to new heights.

Some example Harmony creeds:

A collective creed, where individuals must yield to the community as a whole. Tenets revolve around supporting the community and punishing those who harm it.
An ecological creed, where you learn to be one with nature. Tenets generally revolve around understanding and preserving nature.
A charitable creed, where you always seek to benefit those around you, and in so doing make the world a better place for everyone. Even enemies can be redeemed.

Then you'd have hybrid alignments, e.g. Lawful Dominion or Chaotic Harmonious. This is getting long winded, so I won't go over those individually, but they would basically combine both beliefs together to arrive at something new. Some of the example creeds above already suggest a hybrid alignment rather than a pure alignment, so some work would need to be done making up creeds that better exemplify each alignment.

Something else I'd like to explore in this thread is figuring out where various Good and Evil creatures (and planes) would fit on the Dominion-Harmony axis. I'm curious what an evil Harmonious creature would look like (perhaps yugoloths?). But again, this post is already too long, and I really should be getting to bed.

One last thing I'll note before I go is that this system with a Law-Chaos axis and a Dominion-Harmony axis basically has a 1-to-1 relationship with the Four Temperaments (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourTemperamentEnsemble), where Lawful is Melancholic, Chaotic is Sanguine, Dominion is Choleric, and Harmony is Phlegmatic. While the four temperaments are... somewhat inaccurate for real life applications, I find them useful for fictional characters. So this gives me some hope that this alignment system might be a solid one if each alignment has a corresponding temperament. (Do note this doesn't mean that adherents of a particular alignment would have the corresponding temperament, but you might see certain temperaments being naturally drawn toward certain alignments.)

[Cheesegear]

Part of the problem, at least for me, is that in D&D alignments have a definitive meaning, but that meaning is communicated in a rather vague way, so many players don't have a good grasp on what each alignment represents according to D&D.

I think one of the main problems with alignments, is that it has no bearing on how your character plays.
Your characters' actions are whatever it is that you - and the dice - say they are.

I can count on one hand the amount of times that your alignment is mechanically relevant:
- Rakshasas get hurt more by Good creatures.
- That's all I can think of. The End.

What else?
...uhhh...
Okay, if I'm not using Rakshasas in my campaign, does it matter what my players' alignment is?
What does it do?
I don't think alignment does anything.


So basically, I want to make alignment something definitive, rather than vague.

I'm pretty sure they write entire young adult novels about how you can't put people in definitive boxes.
It's the same with alignment. It's nice to have, but if it gets in the way, ignore it.

Fine. Alignment doesn't mean anything anyway.

Finally, we have Backgrounds, and the four major food groups:
- Personality
- Ideal
- Bond
- Flaw
Of those four, your Ideal determines your Alignment (if you want it to). And you drop it (or more accurately, forget it) as soon as you want.

I genuinely can't think of that many times in the entire game where your alignment matters.
The only time I've ever seen alignment ever come up, is when a DM tries to force a player to not take a Chaotic and/or Evil action, and the response is inevitably,
'But I want to perform the Chaotic and/or Evil action, so I will, and if that changes my alignment...It doesn't do anything anyway.'

Tell your players to think about their Ideals, and how their character works, roleplaying-wise.
Have them write those Ideals down, and do their best to stick to them.
That's all.
When their character chooses to abandon their existing ideals...Have them write down new ones. Character development.

You don't need alignment.
Alignment used to be tied to mechanics (Paladins must be Lawful Good)...As those restrictions go away, so too, does Alignment's relevance.

Detect Good and Evil, doesn't. That's the joke.

[Greywander]

You're not wrong, but... that's kind of the point of this thread. Alignment doesn't really mean much, so I'm trying to turn it into something more interesting. You could argue it's redundant with the ideals/bonds/flaws system, but some people might like it better as an alternative option.

Also, sometimes you have an idea bouncing around in your head, and the only way to get rid of it is to write it down. Hence, this thread. If nothing else, I (or someone else) might be able to reuse this idea in an original system, so hopefully something useful will come of this.

[Cheesegear]

You're not wrong, but... that's kind of the point of this thread. Alignment doesn't really mean much, so I'm trying to turn it into something more interesting.

It's the same as making an INT-based Battle Master. It sounds like it's supposed to work. That's what the (sub)class is about, right?
But, no Fighter abilities are even tied to Intelligence, so what's the point?


You could argue it's redundant with the ideals/bonds/flaws system, but some people might like it better as an alternative option.

Well, yeah. Ideals are already in the game. Your 'creeds' simply read like Ideals, which are already in the game. If you read Ideals, you'll also notice that they're already tied to alignment.

Yeah. I really think you're reinventing the wheel.
Creeds Ideals already exist.

[AdAstra]

One thing that could result in tonal dissonance with this system is the fact that having alignment be "definitive" makes it absolute for the most part. But part of the whole axis of alignment (in your system), is based around absolutism vs. relativism. Rigid vs. blurry lines. An entire third of alignments in this system would likely chafe at the very idea of treating alignment as a box rather than a rough description. Perhaps this might work as a wholly meta-level device, but as an in-universe system of how said universe works, a lot of people, as described by the system, would find the system to be absurd at best, actively detrimental at worst.

Perhaps, like how you frame the Dominion vs. Harmony axis, the framing of the Law vs. Chaos axis should be framed in those respective side's perspectives. The closer you are to Law, the more prescriptive and fixed alignment should be treated. Chaos, the opposite. Chaotic alignments should be more fluid, more broad, imperfect descriptors for useful discussion rather than sets of fixed values. Lawful alignments should be fixed. If you are this alignment, you do these things, you believe these things, and if you don't? Not that alignment. Neutral presumably involves some degree of wiggle room. Definitive statements, but with the understanding that the world is not conducive to true absolutes.

This gives the chance to make alignments evoke not merely teams or even ideals, but fundamental differences in perception. Different axioms of reality entirely. This in turn makes the alignments feel more distinct in thought process, and makes it work better as an in-universe, tangible aspect of the world.

Personally, I'm not a fan of alignments. The new way of doing things is much preferable. But I think someone could enjoy it, and they should get a product that's enjoyable.

[tokek]

Whenever we have a discussion about alignment its worth trying to tie it in with how this is going to work in the game, how it is going to affect the game.

A very long time ago a very good DM described to me how they were using alignment.

* It is a measure of the reputation you would have if people knew what you had done
* It influences the behavior of NPCs if they have the means to know it
* Evil NPCs don't care - they are as happy to corrupt the good as they are to exploit those who are evil. They will always demand a high price anyway
* Good NPCs may give help freely to those who are good and completely withhold it from those who are evil
* Law/Chaos tends to work similarly. Lawful NPCs will fail to trust chaotic PCs enough to want to deal with them.

So Good alignment or Lawful alignment had in-game rewards and the DM made sure there were lots of opportunities to slip away from those by taking the easy way out, grabbing what's not yours etc. In the short term being chaotic or evil would often seem easier but in the long term you would find the pool of potential allies getting smaller and the only ones you can deal with are greedy, selfish and untrustworthy. Just like the PCs!

But also its a sliding scale. If you measured "Goodness" on a 0-10 scale almost no mortal would ever be a 10. A lot of the discussions about alignment go wrong because people discuss these extremes of perfection. Nobody is perfect, anything 7+ counts as "Good" and most good characters would struggle to have a score more than 7 or 8 when constantly faced by challenging ethical situations.

At tier-4 the allies you need are extra-planar beings of great power and knowledge. As a tier-4 character your reputation (and alignment) precede you. Quite probably with the souls of those you have killed along the way - so eliminating witnesses if anything makes things worse once you reach this level. Getting to tier-4 with a Good alignment was hard in this game but the rewards were very real, deities of good would lend serious aid to the very few heroes of this power who had avoided slipping into the ways of evil. Evil characters meanwhile had no option but to bargain with demon lords and arch devils for help - who usually started with your eternal soul as the starting point for the price they would demand for help (so no resurrection for you if you die).

Given all that I would say the good/evil and law/chaos work well enough if you regard them as sliding scales and not simplistic absolutes.

[Unoriginal]

Alignments in 5e are a shorthand for an one-two sentence description of the character's typical behavior.

It works alongside the character's Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw to give an idea of who the character is.


Trying to make it less "vague" means you'll make it more constrictive, and as such even more likely to be ignored or straight out cast aside. If a DM told me "you can't do that, your character is a Dominion Relativist", I would ask them if they're serious, and if they say yes I would likely take my stuff and leave the table.

[Cheesegear]

Alignments in 5e are a shorthand for an one-two sentence description of the character's typical behavior.

...Sounds like a combination of Personality and Ideals.
Again, I want to stress that when you look at a Background's Ideals, it has alignment baked into it.

Your Ideals and Alignment should already be interconnected.


If a DM told me "you can't do that, your character is a Dominion Relativist", I would ask them if they're serious, and if they say yes I would likely take my stuff and leave the table.

Which is what happened in previous editions. "If you perform certain actions, you'll ruin your abilities." In that case, people just wont use the restrictive abilities. This also led into DMs forcing their PCs into situations that conflicted with their alignment, and telling them to suck eggs. But that's a DM-problem of the past that doesn't exist today...Or does it? How are DMs these days on forcing Paladin-PCs to their Oaths?

And it happens, now. When PCs get turned into Lycanthropes, and their alignment is forcibly/magically changed. The DM is literally allowed to tell them what to do, to the point where it's advised that a PC who gets turned Lycan may as well just be removed from play and be under the DM's control, since they quite literally lose agency since their alignment (and their actions) are forced upon them.

This is why you can't (read; Shouldn't) use Geas on a player character.

PCs have agency. Restricting their agency - especially through a system with no actual mechanics, like alignment - isn't something a DM should be doing.

[MoiMagnus]

This is why you can't (read; Shouldn't) use Geas on a player character.


I'd weaken this statement into "you shouldn't assume that the players will enjoy a session in which this happen".
Because at the good table (including the one I usually play at), abilities like that can leads to some of the most interesting sessions.

But you need the kind of players that are excited out of the opportunity to RP a personality shift when they receive a private message from the GM essentially saying "you are under influence, your new personal goal is X" and fully embrace the "temporary a traitor" trope.

The most important point is that a RPG is a collaborative game, including between the player and the GM. Usually, the responsibilities are split with "player = their PC" and "GM = everything else", but that's not written in stone. And similarly to how a GM can let their player RP some NPCs (like we once RP the bad guy crafting their big plan to destroyed our PCs, and latter hand to counter the plan we crafted), the player can also temporary let go part of their control of their PC. It just need to remain a collaboration, not a dictatorial takeover.

[Morty]

As is typically the case, by creating the Law/Chaos and Dominion/Harmony axes with creeds tied to them, you've rendered the former redundant. If we can say that someone is a rebel who wants to tear down power structures, what do we care that they also belong to some larger "chaotic" category? Their belief in opposing authority already tells us what we need to know. Which is basically the same problem as alignment already has.

Saying someone is Lawful Neutral doesn't tell us anything. Saying that someone considers their duty more important than their own morals does. But it also renders the "Lawful Neutral" label pretty useless, especially since it lumps them together with others who might not actually be similar to them in any meaningful way. What actually happens during the game is far more important than trying to wrap it all up in a pithy-sounding ribbon.

Trying to create an all-encompassing system for people's behavior isn't going to work, because people don't work that way. They're chaotic and inconsistent. Trying to analyze and categorize them is the subject of entire branches of science; a subsystem in an RPG isn't going to cut it. Doubly so for morality.

[ventoAureo]

Make Alignment refer to one's position in a cosmic war against the orderly, but restrictive forces of Law and the ever-changing, but volatile forces of Chaos. Strip away the Good - Evil axis and let players decide what kind of "good" or "evil" character they're playing by describing said character through their actions or bonds/flaws/desires/etc.

Neutral-aligned characters either have no say or involvement in the conflict OR are actively balancing both forces and intentionally keeping things at a stalemate so one side doesn't overpower the other.

[CapnWildefyr]

Part of the problem, at least for me, is that in D&D alignments have a definitive meaning, but that meaning is communicated in a rather vague way, so many players don't have a good grasp on what each alignment represents according to D&D. You might have your own idea of what an alignment means, but there's a good chance that it doesn't line up exactly with what that alignment actually is in D&D, and this is probably the root of all those alignment debates.


Pretty much.


Alignments in 5e are a shorthand for an one-two sentence description of the character's typical behavior.

It works alongside the character's Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw to give an idea of who the character is.


Trying to make it less "vague" means you'll make it more constrictive, and as such even more likely to be ignored or straight out cast aside. If a DM told me "you can't do that, your character is a Dominion Relativist", I would ask them if they're serious, and if they say yes I would likely take my stuff and leave the table.

Again, pretty much.

---

It's dawned on me that, from the beginning, alignment is NOT about the players at all. It's about the DM. As a DM, you see a new monster in the monster manual. You think, 'Hey, that's cool! I need to use this!' So, how does this monster integrate into my campaign? You look at... what? The alignment block. It says "Chaotic evil" or "Neutral good." So you now have an idea of how to integrate that monster.

Chaos ==> will not be orderly in combat, except tactically. Less formations, more focus on individual prowess and coordination in small groups. Will be more likely to respect individual prowess/power. (Not that chaotics can't lead armies, just that chaotic critters are more likely to be light infantry than blocks of swiss pikemen.)
Law ==> will be more likely to respect titles and names, rather than individual power. More likely to be able to apply broad strategies in combat, beyond small group tactics.
Good ==> Won't mess with the characters for fun, or because they appear weak, won't try to kill them unless threatened, or it's a territorial creature, etc. Needs a reason in its own mind before attacking. Won't twist laws to their advantage if it hurts others.
Evil ==> Might enjoy killing. Might attack the characters just because. Will twist laws to their advantage regardless of consequences to anyone else. Chaotics will suck up to powerful people they can get something from, attack those who are threats.

This sort of thing. And for characters, having an absolute moral axis of the campaign lets the DM place the characters in the cosmos relative to all those high-CR extraplanars and all that.

So I agree that if used, it needs to be clearly defined. It probably means little to most players, although you could treat it like a trait or guidepost for roleplaying, or just change it as your character changes. But the real use is for DMs -- you can replace alignment but then you have to write a paragraph or more for every monster entry, a lot of which will be repeat stuff.

[Wrote too much, got to run, sorry.]

[Unoriginal]

And it happens, now. When PCs get turned into Lycanthropes, and their alignment is forcibly/magically changed. The DM is literally allowed to tell them what to do, to the point where it's advised that a PC who gets turned Lycan may as well just be removed from play and be under the DM's control, since they quite literally lose agency since their alignment (and their actions) are forced upon them.

This is why you can't (read; Shouldn't) use Geas on a player character.

That's a completely different debate. There is nothing wrong with curses or spells forcing a PC to act a certain way, because the whole point of those things is that they're bad for the PC and should be sought to be removed ASAP.

Saying "you shouldn't use Geas on a player character" is like saying "you shouldn't use handcuffs on a player character" or "you shouldn't have a NPC capable of arresting the PC if they threaten the Duke in the middle of the court".

[Ettina]

That's a completely different debate. There is nothing wrong with curses or spells forcing a PC to act a certain way, because the whole point of those things is that they're bad for the PC and should be sought to be removed ASAP.

Saying "you shouldn't use Geas on a player character" is like saying "you shouldn't use handcuffs on a player character" or "you shouldn't have a NPC capable of arresting the PC if they threaten the Duke in the middle of the court".

Honestly, those are more restrictive than geas. Geas is "you can do what you want, but if it's not what I want, you'll take psychic damage". And unless the PCs are fairly low-level, they can probably put up with the geas damage.

There's a reason I houseruled the spell to lower max hp for each day of disobedience. It has barely any teeth as-is.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's a reason I houseruled the spell to lower max hp for each day of disobedience. It has barely any teeth as-is. Yeah, once you get to a decent level it's an annoyance but it can be dealt with. I like your house rule.

For the OP: I disagree that alignment needs to be rebuilt. I think it probably needs to be deconstructed a bit, back to Law/Neutrality/Chaos ... if anything. But the problem is that the two axis system was an attempt to mechanize and gamify a combination of ideology and philosophy, or general world view because the original three were a bit broad brush and soft around the edges (which IMO allowed for a lot more creativity).

The use of traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws as a way to get an idea of 'who this character is' was a good step in a direction I prefer to take for character creation, since a person's or a character's world view can change (mildly or radically) over time.

The Big wheel was a second order effect (well, the original sketch (AD&D 1e PHB) was a rectangle, but the two overlap well enough) of both "what do I do with this axis now" and "how many pantheons can I ram into one cosmology?" It was, conceptually, (from a game design perspective) an enormous mistake in terms of adding complexity without adding value. (On the other hand, it did allow some players to become expert at this strange blend of things, GiTP contributor Naanomi being one such expert in this brand of arcana)

I want any and every mythology and every or any pantheon to fit into every game. That's what the pantheons and their relationships to alignment have turned into. It's a case of stuffing eleven pounds of manure into a five pound bag. Even with spaghetti sauce, or a pizza, or chili, or stew, there is still a limited number of ingredients that make them good. Many of the deities in the various pantheons in D&D and AD&D were and are overlapping in domain, redundant, copies of each other, and so on.

While over time (Planescape was somewhat helpful) and with a great deal of effort a bit of organization went into this, cosmology in D&D at this point is a complete mess, and part of the reason for that is (what I deem to be) a foolish pursuit of canon or continuity.

One of the few things that makes good sense to me, alignment wise, in D&D 5e is that Celestials and Demons are made of the stuff of their plane/Plane Alignment combo. They don't have to be that way (they could just as easily be, and more simply be, creatures of Light and Darkness, or any other Force or Philosophy (see DMG pages 10-13) but given the baggage and the unfortunate adherence to great wheel where they sit "your planar base/alignment defines what you are" works: these are NPCs, not PCs.

Who and what the PCs are emerges during play.

Less is more.

Alignment was overthought when EGG made the axis, and it's only gotten worse since then.

[Unoriginal]

...Sounds like a combination of Personality and Ideals.
Again, I want to stress that when you look at a Background's Ideals, it has alignment baked into it.

Your Ideals and Alignment should already be interconnected.

Re-thinking about this, I'll add:

Your Ideal gives you one of the two components for your alignment. They are interconnected, yes, since they're parts of the same character, but one isn't entirely contained in the other.

[Sorinth]

Whenever we have a discussion about alignment its worth trying to tie it in with how this is going to work in the game, how it is going to affect the game.

A very long time ago a very good DM described to me how they were using alignment.

* It is a measure of the reputation you would have if people knew what you had done
* It influences the behavior of NPCs if they have the means to know it
* Evil NPCs don't care - they are as happy to corrupt the good as they are to exploit those who are evil. They will always demand a high price anyway
* Good NPCs may give help freely to those who are good and completely withhold it from those who are evil
* Law/Chaos tends to work similarly. Lawful NPCs will fail to trust chaotic PCs enough to want to deal with them.

So Good alignment or Lawful alignment had in-game rewards and the DM made sure there were lots of opportunities to slip away from those by taking the easy way out, grabbing what's not yours etc. In the short term being chaotic or evil would often seem easier but in the long term you would find the pool of potential allies getting smaller and the only ones you can deal with are greedy, selfish and untrustworthy. Just like the PCs!

But also its a sliding scale. If you measured "Goodness" on a 0-10 scale almost no mortal would ever be a 10. A lot of the discussions about alignment go wrong because people discuss these extremes of perfection. Nobody is perfect, anything 7+ counts as "Good" and most good characters would struggle to have a score more than 7 or 8 when constantly faced by challenging ethical situations.

At tier-4 the allies you need are extra-planar beings of great power and knowledge. As a tier-4 character your reputation (and alignment) precede you. Quite probably with the souls of those you have killed along the way - so eliminating witnesses if anything makes things worse once you reach this level. Getting to tier-4 with a Good alignment was hard in this game but the rewards were very real, deities of good would lend serious aid to the very few heroes of this power who had avoided slipping into the ways of evil. Evil characters meanwhile had no option but to bargain with demon lords and arch devils for help - who usually started with your eternal soul as the starting point for the price they would demand for help (so no resurrection for you if you die).

Given all that I would say the good/evil and law/chaos work well enough if you regard them as sliding scales and not simplistic absolutes.

This definitely sounds like a cool way of handling it. You could for instance be Good 5, Lawful 3, Chaotic 2, Evil 1 but have a Reputation of Good 4, Lawful 3, Chaotic 0, Evil 0 (I'd probably go with a much larger scale then 0-10). So NPCs would naturally consider you lawful good because but with an Insight check they might discover that you do have that 1 point in Evil.

I suppose the main problem is codifying the actual rules so that they are simple to use since the downside is that this sounds like a lot more work for the DM when building NPCs. One NPC might care about the relative Good vs Evil whereas another would only care if you have any Evil, and another just cares about following orders so is focused on Lawful vs Chaos, etc... Some NPCs might only give you the time of day if your reputation is Good 2+, whereas others would rely on insight checks instead of reputation. I think you also don't want to make it easy on the PCs to max Insight and come away with being able to read any/everybody and thereby prevent the surprise villain who seems good but is really evil.

[Naanomi]

Because I'm a big fan of existing and historic lore, but also see that the game has (for the better) moved away from alignment mattering much... I think that alignment should be a thing of the Outer Planes exclusively, the afterlives located there, the denizens thereof, and their Magic... Emphasize the alien and incomprehensible nature of it all from a mortal perspective and leave it primarily as a background piece when not dealing with Outsiders.

Leave it off character sheets and most monster descriptions. Keep it off of spell and ability descriptions except perhaps summoning magic tied to outsiders. Keep it off magic item effects except magic items tied directly to the Outer Planes... A sword from Elysium may only be used by a Good Character (GMs can adjudicate that) as part of what makes it explicitly tied to that origin.

We'd need to find a different way to describe traditional alignment changing effects (deck of many things, the one ring, Vecna's various bits, lycanthrope, etc) but that isn't impossible (just likely more wordy)

[Morty]

Because I'm a big fan of existing and historic lore, but also see that the game has (for the better) moved away from alignment mattering much... I think that alignment should be a thing of the Outer Planes exclusively, the afterlives located there, the denizens thereof, and their Magic... Emphasize the alien and incomprehensible nature of it all from a mortal perspective and leave it primarily as a background piece when not dealing with Outsiders.

Leave it off character sheets and most monster descriptions. Keep it off of spell and ability descriptions except perhaps summoning magic tied to outsiders. Keep it off magic item effects except magic items tied directly to the Outer Planes... A sword from Elysium may only be used by a Good Character (GMs can adjudicate that) as part of what makes it explicitly tied to that origin.

We'd need to find a different way to describe traditional alignment changing effects (deck of many things, the one ring, Vecna's various bits, lycanthrope, etc) but that isn't impossible (just likely more wordy)

I've come to the opposite conclusion myself. Alignment can stay as an optional framework for players to define their characters - since helping people with that is the one thing it's ever been good for. But don't use it to define or describe anything about the world, the people or the universe.

[Man_Over_Game]

The only reason the current alignment system doesn't work is just because it doesn't describe boring, normal, self-centered people very well.

80% of the world doesn't really care, while the other 20% are willing to sacrifice something for their ideals. It seems rather silly trying to figure out how a title system that applies to 20% of all people is supposed to also work for the 80% who don't care.

So my suggestion is just put the 80% it's own separate entity, as The "Unaligned" or whatever, and the problem fixes itself.

Fact is, if you're not doing bad things, that doesn't inherently make you a good guy. Being selfish or killing for your country doesn't make you a bad guy. When you're putting yourself at risk to further not agendas but ideals, then you deserve an alignment.

Coincidentally, once you've hit that point, figuring out what your alignment is comes really friggin' easy.

[Unoriginal]

The only reason the current alignment system doesn't work is just because it doesn't describe boring, normal, self-centered people very well.

It's called neutral.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's called neutral.

Even that doesn't usually work, because folks screw it up by either:
Assuming the average person is Neutral Good
Treating Neutral as another ideal

People don't want to be neutral. It implies they don't fight for anything, or they're contrary, or selfish, or nihilistic. In the most extreme example, they associate it with some "balance in all things" philosophy.

So they jot down that they're Neutral Good.

Problem is, that basically waters down exactly what "Good" means. Now there's not much difference between "Average Joe" and "Paragon of Society" in terms of alignment.

I can't actually remember the last time I actually had a player who's alignment was just Neutral, thinking about it.

So I think it'd just be better overall to have an unaligned type to represent those that just don't care enough to actually fight for those causes. Keeps the alignment system from having to fit in a lot of grey to an otherwise vibrant system.

[Morty]

I can't actually remember the last time I actually had a player who's alignment was just Neutral, thinking about it.

The one time I played in a 5E game where alignment was acknowledged, I wrote down Neutral and stopped thinking about it. It worked quite well.

[Millstone85]

I wager that even the Great Wheel could be reimagined for an alignment-less/lite game.

Its axes become Permanence/Genesis and Concord/Opposition.

Limbo is the original outer plane, filled with the primordial essence of potentiality. It is a place where all things spawn only to vanish in an instant. After strange eons, the essence created its own opposite: a rythm that would echo through the plane and give the gift of permanence to anything that resonated with it. This event made Limbo slightly more stable, and soon the first outsiders were born.

Mechanus was the first plane to separate from Limbo. It is a clockwork orchestra where the rythm of permanence is sublimed and amplified. Immediately after came the Concordant Opposition, embodying all the shades of interaction between the previous two planes. From its reaches would grow the other 14 planes of the wheel, half of them realms of peace and harmony and the other half eternal battlefields.

While many faiths would develop around the worship of the planes, associating them with orderly societies, free-spirited individuals, heroes and villains, it is not a wholly accurate interpretation of the forces that shape and drive outsiders. A celestial could be villainous in its pursuit of an utopia, while a fiend could be a hero of the Blood War.

The rebirth of a deceased person on an outer plane is a complicated process. Most often, it is the purview of a god of death or other psychopomp. Elsewhere, the very power of prayer, for blessing or curse, will direct a soul to a plane of comfort or strife.

[Morty]

If anything, I'd say the Outer Planes would work better as representing different ideals and philosophies without having to be squeezed into the alignment framework.

[EggKookoo]

In my games I define "good" as being, essentially, anti-pain, and evil is the flipside.

If you're good, you believe pain is an obstacle to avoid or remove. Overcoming pain is good, but alleviating it is better. Pain is the opposite of happiness, and is what keeps you from being fully happy. You can cause some pain in order to alleviate a larger amount of pain. The notion of pain being part of the learning process is either nonsense spouted by those who want to justify their suffering, or a misunderstanding about the nature of overcoming pain (once you're free of the pain, you can benefit from your experiences).

If you're evil, you see pain as the source of all power. You weather pain in order to gain access to truth. Power that comes painlessly is only the illusion of power, and any use of it will cause a sort of "pain debt" that will need to be paid eventually. Causing pain in another is in and of itself morally neutral. Causing pain for your own pleasure is good, as is causing pain to spur growth and wisdom. Alleviating pain in another is acceptable if the creature appears to have learned from the pain, but ideally you should let all pain run its course (healing for basic functionality is kind of separate from this). You find the idea of a prosperous and valuable world without any pain to be laughable.

Unless they actively choose otherwise, PCs are neutral on the good/evil spectrum.

Law/chaos is easier to explain to my players, I don't have to deviate much from the existing definitions.