Alignment
The first section of the new handbook that I reviewed is the section on alingment. What first drew my attention is that the new alignments are a departure from all of the other editions of D&D. Nine has become five. My question is: Does the change make the game work better? As far as I can see, no it doesn't. Nor does it make the game worse. It is a change for the sake of change. That being said, i don't believe that a change from the original structure of the game for only the sake of change is good.
The new alignments are Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, Good, Evil, and Unaligned. Two are the same as before. Good encompasses the old Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Evil encompasses Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil. Unaligned takes the place of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral. From my experience, the problem I see with this new system is for a new player. For them, an alignment is a way to better understand their character's actions and views. If they need to turn to alignment for guidance, how does 'unaligned' help them decide? For an experienced role-player, it is not as big a deal.
One area where I do not like the use of the new alignments is when it comes to the deities. What does it mean when a deity is 'unaligned'? Is the deity not sure of what he/she thinks? With the rare exception of a deity that does not interfere (such as The Oldest Orc in my campaign setting), it does not make sense.