ok i can somewhat see your view to a degree.
and if it were implimented then it could also be an additional choice in character creation that people choose.. that way everyone knows what their character is alignment wise.
and you only become an oathbreaker if you play as a paladin or cleric so i will politely and nicely say this. the thing you say about becoming an oathbreaker is kind of mute. as what you said only applies to them.
now obviously if you choose to play as a cleric oathbreaker or paladin oathbreaker. then yes it is simple just dont choose any of the options i listed. but and i say this again
the alignments are a huge part of D&D. to not include them does not in any way or form make sense just because of those that choose to play oath takers etc.
Paladin was just a really good example of how people flounder when it comes to interpreting their own actions. The fact is 5E has backed away from alignments in general and de-emphasized them.
But this is all moot, we have had these discussions before on the board. The-red-Queen nailed it by pointing that out.
Now reputation DOES make more sense to me. It also wouldn't be that hard to implement. If you steal, attack sentient creatures without provocation, lie, cheat and murder people for their gear and gold that should reflect in a repution. if the system is already basically there with the Oathbreaker thing why not get that in place.
My problem is the EXPECTATION that X alignment MUST have Y reputation which is something the original games did and it was a crap system that made zero sense.
