it is great we get rid of dnd's alignment system, because it is bad.
Like it is really really bad, one axis is an absolute morality that is not only boring to play with but is also kinda fucked up what is considered good! And the other Axis is nonsense too! Law and Chaos are not even close to opposites, and saying "lawful means order actually" than it should be called order, since law and order aren't even that closely related.
So, either a massive overhaul what the alignment system is, or just remove it, like any other ttrpg.
The problem with getting rid of alignment is not that DnD's alignment system was some sort of accurate or insightful portrayal of values or morality. It is that taking away in-game systems with dynamic rules and responses to your character's nature or their decisions is a bad idea. It oversimplifies the experience of the game for the sake of accessibility and inclusivity. I couldn't give less of a shit about the bathwater being thrown out, but I'm pretty sure there was a baby in there.
I have to disagree with you here as I feel the old alignment system itself was guilty of oversimplification, and did not help with storytelling on a deeper level. Especially in pc games where the "DM" can't ask for a motive behind your action and solely has to deem it based on set prereqs. I also feel the whole cosmology being built on Good VS Evil is, a bit childish to be honest. Truth is that, in most situations, who's good and whos evil is based on which side is telling the story.
I also agree with Mechfried about Law VS Chaotic. If I have to break a law to save someone's life, can that really be considered chaotic? Or, unorderly? Aren't there laws that can chaotic by themselves?
No, I can agree with hidden alignment systems or approvement systems in a game that will keep track on when your party member will leave you based on your actions etc but the tags and visual charts needed to go imo
I fundamentally disagree with your philosophical positions, but won't get into it because I think it will derail the purpose of the thread.
Additionally, it seems that people are fixating on the actual quality of the alignment system, which is not the point of my post. I agreed with both you and Mechfried on the quality of DnD's actual, explicit moral positions when I said that, "The problem with getting rid of alignment is not that DnD's alignment system was some sort of accurate or insightful portrayal of values or morality." My complaint is that morality and social/value positioning in characterization and decision-making should adhere to a set of rules, rather than being arbitrarily imagined by the player. It's like combat: the rolls can be pesky and unreasonable, and sometimes a roll will happen that makes certain things not make sense (how could someone so powerful miss? How can you harm something in that particular way? Why can't I just describe how the things I am doing will damage the enemy?) Worlds have rules, whether we want to acknowledge them or not. And worlds with internally consistent rules are more convincing than those that leave the consistency of rules to the imagination. Sure, completely revamp alignment if you need to, but getting rid of it without a viable (and hopefully BETTER) replacement in the name of leaving morality and value-orientation/social-positioning up to roleplaying takes away from the world because you are subtracting from the depth and consistency of perceptions which are INTERNAL to the world (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle ). Your DM can say there is a ledge and you climb it, or you can be moving around, something like a ledge is described by the DM, and you roll to understand/climb/destroy it, sometimes in that order, with rolls for each, and specific mechanical consequences for each. And you can succeed or fail in that endeavor. Your equipment and attributes change how you perform in combat and in dialogue. To divorce the roleplaying aspect of the game from the systems-based aspect of the game is a mistake. Otherwise you could just sit in a circle with a group of friends and play make-believe, forgetting the dice entirely. The systems underlying an RPG are what make it convincing outside of just being told a collaborative story.
So yes, the DnD alignment system is deeply flawed. That does not mean there should not be rules for morality, social positioning, and values that interface with the PC at the level of gameplay, beyond just pure roleplaying.
Edit: DnD's explicit alignment system is the bathwater. Internally consistent rules and dynamic responses for morals/socials/values at the level of gameplay beyond pure PC imagination or roleplaying is the baby.
