Yeah I guess maybe I was lucky in that Alignment was never really presented to me as a hard restriction, but rather as a tool to explain the cosmology, or to understand a given character's place within it. Often alignment was hidden anyway, except from the DM. Paladin's were always a special case and a special class I suppose, since you knew where they stood (with high rolls! lol), but I think they ended up kind of overshadowing and dumbing down the whole alignment construct by making it overly litigious. Other classes had Alignment restrictions too, but they were usually more amorphous and easier to work within or to rationalize for characterization. The generalized "Good" for Rangers say, or the "Neutrality" of Druids etc. Paladin was never a class I really wanted to play, so maybe the DMs got off easy there hehe. But it seems Alignment has since turned into something more vague, like a personal Ethos, rather than a scheme for explaining the cosmic forces that are actually supposed to be governing the game-world and the planes of existence.
I guess I should clarify, I know Alignment hasn't disappeared from D&D altogether, but it does seem to be getting nixed from the Computer/Videogame adaptations. I think what we get in its absence is a flattening down into a much more simplistic Heroic vs Villainous concept. Perhaps that's all most people really need, and they should just make it a binary choice? But there's something charming about the older scheme which had some obliques to it.
Not that Pathfinder is doing anything particularly brilliant with Alignment there, usually its just another dialog option in the multiple choice spread, but I like that they still made it a part of character creation.
Oh I recall hearing that too, that the Law and Chaos Axis was the earlier development conceptually. I thought that was interesting! Curious as well that there was some resistance to including the second Axis as "Good vs Evil" initially, for fear it would overshadow or subsume the Alignment system completely, which I suppose it sort of did. Once they included Good and Evil, Alignment quickly blinks into a Gods vs Devils thing, cause the Celestial/Infernal angle is so readily adapted into a medieval-like setting. Its hard for Law vs Chaos to compete conceptually with like Angels and Demons swooping in swinging flaming swords, so Law/Chaos was basically subordinated and became the secondary Axis I think, at least in most people's heads. Except maybe for explaining the Dragons, or the Gnomes, or why stealing is ok in this particular instance lol.
Alignment choices and concepts are only interesting in so far as the Game/DM actually makes them relevant to the gameplay, so the Good vs Evil Axis was bound to take over there probably, just cause its more familiar like from christian mythology or whatever. Law vs Chaos is somewhat less flashy by comparison.
I can also see why the Law vs Chaos Axis is a bit problematic in itself, just from the language chosen. For starters Chaos is kind of a pejorative. Not as pejorative as Evil, sure, but it comes close. In Ancient Greek the word meant void or abyss, but the game presents it more like randomness or caprice. What we get there in D&D might have been better framed as Chance, like the randomness of the ancient atomists, instead of Chaos. Similarly Order, like the logos of the stoics, might have been a better word choice than Law. Law makes it sound rather mundane like "who's law?" as opposed to an overarching cosmic principle.
It's easy to predict where the hangups might occur when trying to parse things out that way. I mean it still needs to be a game right, not a philosophy class hehe. But maybe that's another approach, like separating off Good and Evil into its own thing, then create an alternative Axis with new terms that connects to the game world in novel ways. The game frequently traffics in ideas of Will vs Fatalism, so that might have been another way to frame out an Axis for character development. Or perhaps something like an Individualism vs Communitarian Axis or Ego vs Other Axis. Like how acquisitive a character is, or for what ends? Obviously that doesn't sound as cool as Good vs Evil lol. But Good vs Evil often just devolves into Angels vs Demons, like what we saw in ToB or which we definitely see in WotR, without really showcasing the equivalent extremes along the Law vs Chaos divide. Like maybe it would be more interesting if the main plot choices we were given wasn't between supporting the Good Dragon people vs the Evil Bug Demon people, but rather between two competing Demonic factions, one Lawful and one Chaotic. Or two Angels, one lawful and one chaotic. Or just do it like that with the various colored Dragons, since there's plenty of lore there to build on.
I think BG3 could do one better, especially with the tadpole thing, but I worry they'll just do the usual, Good vs Bad with not much between. In games like that you lose a bit in party diversity, because it's hard to justify characters with opposing alignments grouping together. Instead you get a Good Guys party or a Bad Guys party, or a Heroic path vs Villainous path without much crossover, which would be too bad.
