OK, some of this will sound almost unthinkable to Planescape purists, but bear with me. From the beginning, we've been operating under the assumtion that alignments on Ortho worked the same way they do in Planescape and 3.5 D&D in general, but we don't need to. Ortho is its own setting, and it should be allowed to play by its own rules. We're a Planescape board, so we aren't going to stray too far from PS canon, but there are a few rule schemes in D&D that every new setting should be allowed to twist to their desires. Alignment is one of them. That said, here are some possibilities for different ways alignment could work on Ortho. All we have to do is pick a System and an Effect.
Systems:
System 1: Standard.
Alignments work exactly the way they are described in the Player's Handbook.
Pros: It's a familiar system, and it would require virtually no changes in what we have so far.
Cons: The 3.5 alignment system is needlessly complex and many of the terms are poory defined or downright nonsensical. Especially Law and Chaos. Doesn't really fit Ortho's agressive anti-law world-view.
Possible Effects: The same effects it always has. People pick the alignment they think they want (or think will let them get away with the most) and get into arguments with players who think it means something else. It also restricts the kinds of characters people play to an unnecessary degree.
System 2: Simplified.
The Player's Handbook system only simpler. Lawful means "devoted to the Law," Neutral means "ambivalent to the Law," and Chaotic means "defiant of the law." Good and Evil are defined by putting others above yourself and putting yourself above others, respectively (or whatever pithy definition we come up with).
Pros: It's a simple system, it fits Ortho's black and white world world view, and it's far more straight forward than the standard system.
Cons: It doesn't quite match with the Planescape conception of alignment, people might be thrown by the differing definitions, may require slight revisions to what we have.
Possible Effects: A clear, simple system with only two measures would dramatically reduce arguments over the "correct" way to play a given alignment and would also probably help encourage players to try less cliched takes on the alignments.
System 3: Ambiguous.
Orthorians have a concept of morals and ethics, that has been outlined in the Way of Harmony and elsewhere, but the boundaries between the diffent alignments are often vague or unclear. Sin Hunters and other moral police distribute "justice" based more on prejudice and whim than anything else.
Pros: It makes for interesting interactions and encourages players to try characters they wouldn't ordinarily use, and keeps characters from being defined by their alignments. It also gives everything a nice pulpy air of moral ambiguity.
Cons: It's tricky to impliment, doesn't work well with Planescape, and would require some considerable revision.
Possible Effects: The shades of gray morality could be a fun way to liven up Ortho, but it could also fall flat and cause the setting to lose a lot of what makes it interesting. Players could very well find themselves missing the old alignment system.
System 4: Something New.
Instead of the traditional nine alignments, we'd have a new system created specifically for Ortho. Perhaps they use Harmonious/Neutral/Discordant as a single alignment system. Perhaps they don't have Neutrality and only use the four "corner" alignments. Maybe Lawful and Good are the same thing on Ortho. Whatever this system would be it will have many of the same benefits and drawbacks.
Pros: It's something new for players and DMs to play around with. A good system could breath life into the setting.
Cons: It would involve ripping canon a new one, would take a while for players to learn, and would require revising everything we've done so far.
Possible Effects: It depends on the system, a good one could define the setting and turn it into something great, a really bad one could cause an unbelieveable headache.
Effects:
Effect A: Normal
Alignments work exactly the way they are described in the Player's Handbook, barring specific exceptions (like letting Bards and Barbarians be Lawful). Spells like Detect Chaos work normally
Pros: It's the way alignments have always worked, and it works pretty well.
Cons: Doesn't work as well with more ambiguous alignment standards. Alignment detection totally screws over chaotic PCs.
Possible Effects: It makes alignment really obvious which leaves players wondering how chaotic individuals escape detection at all.
Effect B: Hidden Alignments.
Hidden Alignments work like normal alignments except that spells like Detect Chaos are either don't work at all or are limited in some way. For example, the spells could base their results on the biases of the caster meaning that a Sin Hunter that sees Chaos as Evil would see an Eladrin as strongly evil.
Pros: Detect Alignment spells wouldn't work properly meaning that Chaotic characters could easilly slip by undetected while still retaining their chaoticness. An intriguing air of uncertainty would develop over people's true alignments.
Cons: This would involve some rewriting, could potentially conflict with Planescape, and may not go over very well with all players.
Possible Effects: It would free us to have more whodunits and moral ambiguity among characters and would have a major impact (for good or ill) on the way characters in the setting interacted.
Effect C: Intangible Alignments
The alignments exist as in-character concepts, but they have no real effect on gameplay. Spells and abilities that have to do with alignment don't work or work differently, and you can be any class you want (even ones that normaly require contradictary alignments), provided the DM doesn't object.
Pros: It has nifty ambiguity and could open up whole new realms of characterization. A certain kind of player goes nuts for this kind of thing.
Cons: No rules, no systems, anarchy! A certain type of player goes nuts from this kind of thing. Also, it would mean doing some serious rewriting.
This isn't an all-encompassing list, but I think it just about covers the options that are worth considering. I'm leaning towards a couple, but I think I'll wait to see how other people respond before sharing my thoughts. Please take the oportunity to weigh in and let me know what you think.
And I agree - there should be some spacing between those two. About what level were you thinking of ok'ing the second feat - 6th or so?
Anything that changes the actual game mechanics of D+D I'm not one for, especially since Planescape is so dependent on them. While Ortho is a prime in it's own right, it's part of a larger meta-setting, and that meta-setting happens to have Holy Word (and Holy Avengers) in it.
On the other hand, Law and Chaos are really wonky, and Ortho gives us an opportunity to fix that that makes sense within the prime setting. Since it's got one major government and that government is, ideally, in tune with the Planar concept of 'Law', simplified is just a great idea.
Lawful means 'you actively follow, obey, and aid the law', Neutral means 'you are aware of and respect the law', and Chaotic means "Oh, hey, there's laws here? Ah, oh well. Guess that means I 'found' this wallet."
As for Good and Evil, I actually wouldn't mind a more Gygaxian take on it. Most people are good, Angels are Good, slightly less moral people are neutral, mean people are evil, and you have the occasional nutty Druid who's Neutral and switches sides to screw over the players.
As a matter of fact, I think it would be highly interesting for the setting if the standard "Detects" were actually *more* common than they are in a standard game. If to enter a city, you had to undergo a, say, "Detect Law", this would actually foster characters who were Neutral, but this meant something other than people who "Obey the law, except when there's a really good reward not to."