With regards to characters, I doubt the updated PHB will address alignment much differently than the current version
5e has the best presentation of the Alignment system, relative to all of the editions before it.
OneD&D wont look much different from 5e.
The only cautions are:
Aggressively remove any Chaotic=random. This "Chaotic Stupid" randomness causes bad behavior of many reallife players, who use it as pretext for jackassery toward other reallife players. Randomosity isnt part of an ethical system anyway. Chaotic is about prioritizing individuals over groups.
In the expression, a "personal code of conduct", the word "personal" is doing the heavy lifting. A character with a personal, individualistic, value system that is at odds with the expectations of other groups, has the Chaotic Alignment.
, except for to emphasize that it is optional.
Yes, to strictly remove any Alignment mechanics solves almost all historical problematics with Alignment.
On my character sheets, Alignment is strictly narrative and is part of the Biography section in the same section as Ideal, Flaw, and Quirk. Alignment relates to all three. There is a field for the two-word Alignment itself, plus an additional field that allows one or two sentences for one specific example of a behavior that the character does frequently to express this Alignment. For example, a particular Chaotic Good character might hate bullies, and normally step in when seeing strangers pick on someone. There are many possibilities for Chaotic Good, or for any other Alignment, but the one example helps flavor the character.
I suspect the brief part about "Alignment in the Multiverse" will be cut completely or made an optional rule. It seems like something that is better served in setting book than the base game.
The Alignment system is now a recognizable D&D-ism in popculture. In this era of corporate "monetizing", I expect it impossible for WotC to remove Alignment. The hope is, Alignment in OneD&D will be as nondisruptive as possible.
And I wouldn't be surprised to see the few spells that rely on alignment reworked.
Yeah, spells like "
Protection from Evil/Good" need to rename to "
Planar Protection", as the mechanics instead defend against immaterial planar Creature Types.
But I'm also biased because I detest the alignment system and always have. I also don't think the D&D alignment system has much to do with any coherent ethical system.
I sympathize with the frustrations with the alignment system, and the need for many players to easily opt out of it.
Personally, I find the alignment system useful as part of the Ideal, Flaw, and Quirk of the Personality Section.
I also employ it as a coherent ethical system. The terms mean EXACTLY the following:
• Good = altruism (compassion, fairness, especially helping others become able to help even more others)
• Evil = predatorialism (either Lawful merciless judgmentalism or Chaotic letting predators have free reign)
• Lawful = group priority
• Chaotic = individual priority
• Neutral = self-preservation (tending Good respects self-preservation of others, but Evil saves self at expense of others)
It is even a somewhat coherent political compass.
• Good = noncoercion, liberty
• Evil = coercion, tyranny
• Lawful = collectivism (such as socialism)
• Chaotic = individualism (such as capitalism)
In political contexts, one is always referring to shades of gray, since absolutes have never existed historically.
Anyway, I use the Alignment terms in these ways, and in my experience these definitions prove to be robustly self consistent: group versus individual, altruism versus predatorialism