Alignment is a curious thing in D&D with a lot of different interpretations and versions. I want to look at it, so I may or may not implement alignment into my system.
The three point alignment system
Chainmail, OD&D, BX and BECMI use a singular axis:
Law—Neutrality—Chaos
As Dan "Delta" Collins descripes it: "When Cthulhu comes, do you fight against him? Than you are lawful. You run away? Than you're neutral. Do you help him destroy the world? Than you're chaotic."
Basically the question is: with whom would you align when all out war happends? Human civilization or the ones that want to destroy it.
I think a wargame could use this to great effect.
The nine point alignment system
AD&D introduced a second axis into alignment: Good—Neutral—Evil
The result is a gird of nine alignments. There are countless interpretations on this and non of them make sense to me. It feels like medieval monks arguing about the trinity — it's not that important to me.
Unusual five point alignment systems
Holmes Basic is in general an often forgotten link between OD&D and AD&D.
It uses the lawful—neutral—chaotic axis but adds good and evil for the poles. Resulting in an interesting grid of five fields, which also shows the alignment as a spectrum.
For more on Holmes alignment see Zenopus Archives or Mythopoeic Rambelings.
D&D 4e uses a five point linear system:
lawful good—good—neutral—evil—chaotic evil
It is an interesting choice, but one I don't understand except for the memes (see further down).
Elder Goblin Games uses a five point alignment system I quite like. It uses neither axis nor a spectrum only five destinct categories: Good, Neutral, Chaotic, Evil, Lawful
But wait! Is it a circle?
So what now?
I think the last one is the best system, especially for inventing NPCs like Jorbin uses it.
But for my own campaign world I want to go back to the early idea of factions.
Matt Colville distinguishes between lawful and chaotic societies and that kind of makes sense to me, especially in the context of sword & sorcery. The Alexandrian has understood the genre best: the chaotic person is the nobel one, civilization is run by evil. So rather than lawful good and chaotic evil — which are THE memeable D&D alignments and probably why they are showing up in 4e — sword and sorcery should use chaotic good and lawful evil.
Yet, I still struggle with the concept of good in D&D. PCs kill and steal
all the time I don't think good is the word I would use even for a
paladin. Murder and thievery are arguably a neutral act in the world,
mechanically it is mostly good! So villans need to be even worse than
PCs. They need to be slavers or torturous rulers and genocidal warlords.
I think you need evil as villianous enemies. You also need beasts, monsters and barbarians, who are just wild. And you need civilization, which builds cities and uphelds laws.
So for now I think my alignment has no axis and consists of Evil, Wild and Civil.