-snip-
If the alignment system was unclear, then it could have been made more clear instead of simply being removed. A world where the Good and Evil are explicitly associated with certain planes of existence/gods, defines certain creatures (e.g., devils and demons are by definition evil), and can be used to cover the majority of certain creatures' tendencies (mind flayers and goblins are *generally evil, gnomes and halflings are *generally good, githyanki are *generally lawful, etc) can be both useful and interesting. I think D&D will be lesser for their removal, if simply because we've lost word defintion that isn't, afaik, being replaced with anything.
I see your point. In my opinion the characterization of creatures, gods or even planes of existence do not need good or evil. There are plenty other ways to make it more interesting and nuanced. Does, for example, a god of fire or love or secrecy need to be categorized as evil or good? Fire can harm but also nurture, love is beautiful but if unrequited it just hurts, secrecy can destroy trust and alienate but also protect. So instead of limiting ourselves to using the old alignment i'd say using broader concepts as characterizations is way more compelling.
I hope that made sense, english is not my native language and trying to write about philosophical stuff like this is really hard
