The Legendary Pixel Crew

works for me.

Main thing that concerns me is the claim of being bias free; if you're alive, you're biased. It comes with the territory. Otherwise, that is probably what game designers intended, but like most alignments, I never really "got" Neutral either.

The only easy to understand alignment in my opinion is chaotic evil. I.E., the "I only give a s**t if it's good for me, to h*ll with other people's wants, needs, and/or happiness". Also known as the d*ck side.

I'd consider that neutral evil. CE is more "evil is fun, just try and stop me".

I really hated the 4e alignments. They started by removing 4 alignments then made neutral into unaligned to finish pissing me off. I might consider a 10 alignment system but that 5 piece bastard system was horrible.
The 10 alignment system would split true neutral into neutral and unaligned. Neutral would be those who fight against extreme alignments and unaligned would be those who don't care and those who can't comprehend.

Myself, and most of the people I play with that have looked at 4e agree on that 5-part alignment crap. My current GM agrees that unaligned was the only good alignment to come out of 4e's change, a lot like what you describe.

Honestly, when it comes to alignment, on a lot of characters, I have a REALLY hard time placing them within a single alignment. Some characters are just really ALL over the place. Quite willing to perform evil actions without remorse, but a generally nice person who will help out others, extremely loyal to friends and seeing a job through, but a flagrant disregard for the law when it gets in the way. Placing a character into a single alignment is one of the hardest parts of character creation.

My NG cleric of Mielikki is the sort who is comfortable with infiltrating evil groups while planning to kill them all in their sleep. It has to do with her being apprenticed to a trapper as a child.

A sorcerer I'm making has the urchin background and views the keeping of wealth and goods for the purpose of status and ostentation as evil and feels justified in picking the pockets of every noble he encounters.

Alignments strike me as something that needs to be abandoned; it was an unrefined tool for role-playing that works a lot better now with just having restrictive traits that are either required or that give back something to the player (such as build points in a points based system).

Of course, because D&D style games have magic systems that incorporate alignments, at the same time that idea doesn't seem to work. I just know I like having the option of having the choice to play someone largely undefined (or defined as we game) or to carefully craft my characters' responses so that they feel as "real" as possible.

Alignments don't really do that for me because it forces conformity of worldview not only between GM and players but even between them and the designers. I'm the type to believe in things like absolute good and evil but I know plenty of people are the exact opposite and there are those that can't be described as either... but the alignment system basically clubs everyone over the head with someone else's views.

I have no strong feelings on this subject.

My version of neutral is "whatever is most beneficial at the time" Its really nice when my summoner isint limited on what outsiders he can summon,.

True Neutral, or as I like to call it, the "piss off, I don't give a crap" alignment.

The way I had always heard neutral described was that they believed innocent life should be protected. They just didn't care enough to do it themselves.