A couple of issues first. D&D has alignment, but it's pretty routinely ignored, so changing it is not necessarily un-D&D.
I would wager to say it is not so "routinely" ignored as you suggest. Whether or not it came into play, it was a part of the characters and system...even 4e, in a limited fashion.
And yes, for a game that has always had an Alignment system, "changing it" IS "un-D&D."
Second, I'm advocating expanding it, not taking away. All the original alignments remain possible allegiances.
Then why are they not "alignments"...How is this any different? Other than some arbitrary semantic difference?
Third, the detect alignment spells and their ilk cause all kinds of balance and plausibility issues and have started many arguments and I think making them officially optional would make plenty of long-time D&D-ers happy.
You realize you're talking to the guy that suggested/posted a whole buncha different alignment-in-game "options", right?
As for the Detect alignment spells...who said anything about them? I have never, in my years of playing run into "balance and plausibility issues" because of Detect Evil...or Protection from Evil...or whatever.
The rules are not responsibile for making the game idiot, powergamer, min-maxer, unimaginative, rules lawyer, bad-sport, immature or just plain stupid proof. That's the DM's job.
Fourth, if I were stuck with alignment, I would advocate the nine alignments and just go back to ignoring them most of the time and referring to alignment subtypes, the way I have been.
Orrrr, preferably, with the new system, you could just "opt out" of alignment in your games from the get go. While others could use as many as they like. Poh-tay-to, poh-tah-toe.
Why not build this approach into the rules, since people are doing it anyway. In essence, D&D as it's played has a lot more in common with the "other system" then you seem to be suggesting it.
I honestly, and respectfully, disagree.
"as it's played" by you, perhaps.
Would an XP-less option be similarly a misguided attempt to bring in elements of another un-D&D game?
Yes. Unequivocally. Yes, it would.
Lots of people play D&D without experience points, but it's presented as dogma in the rules.
Because, the D&D game, from the dawn of its incarnation, has had XP. And, again, I question your assertion/definition of "lots of people".
I don't think an allegiance system would unreasonably change the fundamentals of the game.
Probably wouldn't. But that does not negate the fact that doing so is
not D&D. It is not necessary for a game that has "alignment" incorporated from its inception.
Call it "allegiance" and everyone will feel all warm and fuzzy and not put upon by the ever-so constricting shackles of the wicked, nasssty, false "alignmentsssessss"?
Nonsense. Nonsense, I say.
--SD
