Chaotic Evil <-> Evil <-> Unaligned <-> Good <-> Lawful Good.
Its simple and makes sense:
Neutral is Unaligned.
Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are now just Good
Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil are now just Evil.
Lawful Neutral is most likely Unaligned, but might fit Good, Evil or Lawful Good.
Chaotic Neutral is most likely Unaligned, but could be Good, Evil or Chaotic Evil.
I may be splitting a hair, but the new alignment system has missed the mark when trying to represent the deity Erathis, God of Civilization. Also, unaligned does not adequately describe what the Slaad represent, when not corrupted by the Abyss.
Under the current rules, Erathis could have followers, even Clerics, of Chaotic Evil alignment. This really doesn't mesh with the portfolio Erathis represents. If anything, Erathis would be more opposed to Chaotic Evil than those of Good alignment. Chaotic Evil is as much of an antithesis to Erathis as it is to Lawful Good. But Erathis is not inherently Good or Lawful Good, nor really Unaligned. Erathis is Lawful. To bring this to the character level, there is no way in the current alignment system to describe someone that is devoted to the ideal of Order. Unaligned is not taking a stand, whereas someone dedicated to the idea of Order, aka Lawful, has very much chosen a side.
Although esoteric, and less relevant to most players, the Slaad are not exactly Unaligned either. They are devotees of Chaos in its pure form and would e diametrically opposed to the things that Lawful Good represent. The new alignment rules do not have a niche for those who pursue Change, aka Chaos, for its own sake.
I think there is room in the new alignment system to add the choices of Chaotic and Lawful to the same linear Axis w/out overcomplicating the system:
Chaotic Evil <-> Evil or Chaotic <-> Unaligned <-> Good or Lawful <-> Lawful Good.
Chaotic Evil would strive against Lawful Good, Lawful and Good.
Evil would strive against Good and Lawful Good.
Chaotic would strive against Lawful and Lawful Good.
Good would strive against Evil or Chaotic Evil.
Lawful would strive against Chaotic or Chaotic Evil
Lawful Good would strive against Chaotic Evil, Evil or Chaotic.
Unaligned, if a matter of principle, might oppose Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good; or might not care a wit.
Chaotic and Good would still be Good.
Lawful and Evil would still be Evil.
Mostly likely Lawful would be one of the default choices for players and Chaotic would require permission from the DM.
Does anyone else feel the current 4E alignment system would be made more comprehensive and interesting by re-introducing Lawful and Chaotic as alignment choices ?
That said, however, I think you should seriously try to work within the system as given.
Remember that alignment is actually a mechanic. Your alignment potentially affects how a creature/character is affected by powers/items etc. With every new book that WotC puts out (not to mention 3rd party stuff by other companies) there will be more and more rules (powers, paragon paths, monsters, etc) that you will potentially have to adapt/interpret in terms of your new alignment system.
If you want a Lawful Neutral deity. List him as unaligned, but discribe the religion in terms that make it clear what is most important to his followers. The RULES for aligment do not have any clear rules on how a character must act. There is no reason that an unaligned character can't be obsessively lawful.
A simpler fix on the deity issue is to make a houserule that characters of alignment X, Y, and Z can worship him, but A, B, C can not. That way you don't have innapropriate worshipers of the deity, while not having to redo the whole alignment system.
[...] Remember that alignment is actually a mechanic. Your alignment potentially affects how a creature/character is affected by powers/items etc. [...]
And that's no longer true in 4E. I've been having the books for quite some time now, but so far I haven't seen a single power or item that only worked when you/the target were/was of a specific alignment. Even the paragon paths of the cleric and paladin class had no alignment restriction or requirement, none of them.
If I've missed something, please correct me.
But until that happens, I'm glad that WotC actually reduced the mechanical impact of alignment, and made it more of a roleplaying thing rather than something that determined (again) if you got smitten down by that evil spell or not.
And that's no longer true in 4E. I've been having the books for quite some time now, but so far I haven't seen a single power or item that only worked when you/the target were/was of a specific alignment. Even the paragon paths of the cleric and paladin class had no alignment restriction or requirement, none of them.
If I've missed something, please correct me.
But until that happens, I'm glad that WotC actually reduced the mechanical impact of alignment, and made it more of a roleplaying thing rather than something that determined (again) if you got smitten down by that evil spell or not.
Page 100, Astral Whirlwind power, Special only applies if the attack kills one or more evil or chaotic evil creatures.
Page 100, Astral Whirlwind power, Special only applies if the attack kills one or more evil or chaotic evil creatures.
Ahh ok. Must have missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, the core of my point still stands: alignment is much less a mechanical aspect of the game (with the exception of one power out of hundreds), but primarily something to flesh out your character with.