Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

[Morty]

I was agreeing with you.

GreyBlack was (I believe) making the point that two characters with the same traits, flaws, bonds, class levels, and so on, but different alignments (in this case, LG vs CG). And because of those different alignments, there must be some kind of a difference in those two characters.

You were (I believe) making the point that two otherwise identical characters differing only with regards to where they are on the Law-Chaos axis wouldn't necessarily show much of a difference due to how poorly-defined the Law-Chaos axis is. And I was agreeing with that, on the basis that the L-C axis is a mish-mash of dichotomies that individually hold up but not collectively.

"Individualism opposes collectivism" holds up.

"Individualism equals chaotic. Undisciplined equals chaotic. Collectivism equals lawful. Disciplined equals lawful. Lawful opposes chaos. Therefore, disciplined opposes individualism." does not hold up.

Ah, I see. In this case, yes, I agree with what you've said as well.

What if I said that's okay, that it's not a clear delineation?

Let's be clear, morality is messy, and even the most clear moral systems require interpretation based on your own personal experience.

Let's look at the famous sandal scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Sure, all of the followers of Brian agree on some basic points, namely that he is the Messiah, but disagree on the finer points (i.e. what they're supposed to do with the sandal that came off his foot).

So... how does that apply? In this example, the character's alignment would be Brian. So. How do the characters in this party interpret the will of Brian? Are they supposed to cast off their sandal? Is it just a symbol? Dunno. Same with alignment: is the character's alignment Chaotic Good because they honestly believe that society and laws are bad, and that they should be destroyed for the collective good of the people? Or is it because they just personally want to be free of the mores of society so they can do whatever they think is good?

First of all, Law/Chaos doesn't govern morality. Good/Evil does, and comes with its own problems, whereas Law/Chaos... well, it doesn't really govern anything in particular, which is the whole problem. Second of all, if it's so unclear, what's it even doing in the rules? If saying that someone is Lawful Good can mean different things, it's not a useful descriptor. Because either way, I'll need to examine this person's beliefs to find out what they are. And they're lumped in with some other people who happen to share some, but not all, of those beliefs.

If, instead, we have someone whose principle is "I will not let an injustice stand if I can prevent it" (like an Intimacy in Exalted or a principle in a more narrative game, such as Dungeon World), it tells us something real about how such a person will act, without associating it with some other traits that people apply the "lawful" or "good" labels to.