As it is now, it is perfectly adequate for me. If an additional system were introduced now, it would be very subjective and would certainly have the annoying consequences mentioned above. I always hated in the prequels having a fallen Pala or Ranger whose status (loss of all class abilities) could not be restored, even if he got a better reputation.... Alignment should be left to our subjective imagination with the options currently available. That is the greatest freedom right now, and it should not be lost by trying to squeeze it into a template imposed by an additional alignment system.
As indicated, I think the current options with [Druid], [Intimitade], [Baldurian], [Tiefling], etc. are well thought out by Larian and very flexible. Further complicating this system with an "artifact" of game mechanic that results in "shifting alignment" or the like will only lead to further delays, complications, and in the worst case, "degradation of improvements". Don't forget about the promised multiclassing. If I later create a universal caster (LVL 1 Druid + LVL 1 Bard +++++), then I have more dialogue options (representing my alignment). For example, I can give a typical [Paladin]-like answer for good alignment, or just choose one of the other remaining answers, which can also be the complete opposite of good. Right now, I'm overcome with the urge to give a somewhat nasty answer
Larian better hurry up and release the game before we post more threads out of sheer boredom that can (but don't have to) be "game-delaying", because I want to play this game and not wait forever by only being able to participate in the forums or a non-playable patch version. I can feel myself getting salty. Best I end my statement and let Edwin speak for me with the words he once said, mutatis mutandis:
"Stupid Sim****! If I have to stand around here any longer, BOOOM Fireball!"
