How about alignment?

[Andor]

What do you guys think should happen with Alignment?

Personally I'd like to see the d20 Modern Allegience system. So your Paladin can be loyal to Good and Law but the rogue might be loyal to Himself and Money.

 

[Yora]

Yay! Allegiance!

While I think it's a great way to summarize chaeacters quick and easy, it has the downside of not being relevant in respect to cosmic forces of good and evil, which is the other thing alignment does in D&D.
Also allegiance is very setting specific and only really works if everyone in the group is familiar with the setting, while alignment is completely independent of setting. At least in the case that the setting has cosmic forces of good and evil.

If it doesn't, which frankly, is the case with lots of settings not specifically created for D&D, then the mechanical aspect of alignment becomes a burden and it has to be removed from the rules with some obstacles involved. Alignment has always been part of D&D and should also be in 5th Edition. However, it would be really great if alignment is an optional rules module that you can add if you want to play a campaign about cosmic forces. But I would really like to not have detect evil as a standard spells and creatures that can cast blasphemy or holy word as spell-like abilities by default.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

9 alignments, with "unaligned" replacing "True Neutral".

Alignment mechanically de-emphasized so those who choose to play without it can.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Two axes--Law/Chaos/Balance and Good/Unaligned/Evil--that can be combined, used independently, or jettisoned altogether. If you keep the mechanical effects boxed off or flagged as 'alignment system', it shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

[enigma5915]

I would prefer a good, neutral, and evil alignment system. I've never dug the law vs chaos dichotomy. Good vs evil is apropos considering individuals lawfulness vs chaos may fluctuate way to frequent with regard to different situations.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like the traditional 9 alignments, but prefer them to be mostly flavor.

 

[The Shadow]

I could live with Allegiances. But really, I don't see any need for alignment at all.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd like a bunch of alternative systems to be presented as examples. If you summarize them, 2 pages should be enough.

If there has to be only one, it must be the classic 3x3 alignment system. Some people hate it, but any other system will certainly have more people hating it, so it's still the safest choice.

 

[Mattachine]

I would like alignments to presented as optional, and that most beings/PCs aren't strongly aligned anyway.
Alignment based effects should be an add-on to standard rules.

 

[am181d]

Given the mission statement of 5e, there's no way that we won't see the "classic" 9 alignments. Again, given the spirit of the edition, I'd guess that there will be rules to (a) ignore or (b) downplay the role of alignments.

I'm sure there'll be optional rules to micromanage Paladins' alignment.