Issues with alignment (a minor ramble by Owler)

It has been brought up a lot recently especially with the news of D&D Next being prominent news in the community and it had already been confirmed through leaks but officially said in today's Rule of Three article by Rodney Thompson that the next edition will have the original 9 alignments (Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil & Chaotic Evil for those who didn't know them)  in the 4th edition it was scaled down to 5 getting rid off all the neutral alignments (good being a mixture of neutral and chaotic and evil becoming a mixture of lawful and neutral)  and introduced the Unaligned option which would mean they have no Alignment if the word was used properly.

It makes me wonder why they couldn't use the word Neutral well the same reason people would interpret it differently many people interpret it to mean do what they want which isn't right same goes for the classic Chaotic Neutral. many people see it as just acting crazy and doing what ever the hell they want...

 the second part is admittedly true but the first part isn't always true not all chaotic neutral characters do completely random things because they can, some characters of this alignment could even have very complex motives and drives and also be quite cunning in their methods and plans...

What many people think when they here Chaotic Neutral.

A much better way to play Chaotic Neutral in my book.

so where am I going with this...um wait I had a point to make somewhere...
Oh right yes alignments personally it can be very very difficult to make a campaign that doesn't focus on good vs evil with out it becoming difficult. if the party know they are the good guys then the villain hasn't got much going for them if they have to be evil. also doesn't it really depend on perspective for instance the Drow are considered to be mostly Chaotic Evil (originally) then Neutral evil now in a standard setting where they are constantly back stabbing (literally in many cases) there isn't an issue. but say you want to do a campaign based on political intrigue or exploration of different cultures views of good vs evil where do you start with out making certain things completely evil or completely good it gets to point where you have to step back and make certain races designated bad guys.

Well with my personal idea of just 3 alignments it becomes less of a difficulty these 3 alignments are simply Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic with good and evil being objective on the scale it doesn't prevent Chaotic Good nor does it prevent Lawful Evil with it just being those 3 you are less bound as a DM and a Player in some circumstances. with the old alignment system Paladins had to be Lawful Good in my idea they would just be Lawful and couldn't act in a Chaotic act or ally with people who acted in an opposite manner to their leanings (Lawful leaning towards evil couldn't hang around Chaotic leaning towards good and vice versa).
it allows for more complexity in the way you portray villains, this is admittedly if you want this complexity if you are happy to run it with Good vs Evil then by all means do it this is just my opinion.
That's really all I have to say on the subject really tell me what you guys think Comment is free and it's fun to debate certain things (providing it doesn't turn into a flame war), Until next time this is, Owler signing off for now.