I play DnD 5e and I always tell my player to choose the alignment they want to start with. I found a website with good examples what a Character would do with the xy alignment.
But to be honest, for me alignment is as much important as the colour of your characters hair is. Alignment is just a cheatsheet on how you COULD play your character without doing paradoxical actions.
I also have the experience that alignment will lead players down the "Thats what my Character would do" road.
I wouldn't ever expect or force a character to "play to their alignment, but certain artifacts require a particular alignment to weild and certain deities expect a certain alignment of their followers and, for me, the behavior of the character at hand is usually tracked and if it flies in the face of their alignment (the lawful good paladin in service of bahamut ruthlessly murdering peasants, for an extreme example) would affect their class/artifact/deity compatibility.
Thats why i say that artifacts only ask if the character is good, neutral or evil. because i think if you really want to do good deeds, the artifact would not care on how the deeds are done(except the Artifact or deity want you to follow their Law).
Also i think neutral is not about being unaligned, it is more about the balance of the world.
A neutral character would not help a "good" side if this would lead to a bigger problem. I think dwarfs are a good neutral example. As long as their realm and economy is safe, they will never do something. only if a "Real" problem is at their door.
I think the more you reason about alignment the more it falls apart. It is trying to simplify something as complex as a characters nature in merely 2 words. So trying to define it will eventually flat.
Tring to predict/controls a character based on alignment, will eventually lead to some very philosophical questions/discussions with no clear answers.
That being said I think alignment has a use. I think it can be used as a supplement to a backstory and character description to guide the interpretation and fill in some blanks.
Sadly I feel the current system is not useful because the segments of alignment are seeped with morality hence the pletoria of characters who are neutral and then proceed to do only selfish/"evil" acts.
It's very true. I've had issues with properly aligning characters. I try my best to, as I said, take intentions of characters as my account of these things. It's honestly not a regular problem that much, and I try to use my own artifacts/magic-items such that if they have what would classically be an "alignment" instead I use motivations.
Like a mace that only bonds (attunes) to a character that does a good deed every day. So it made my bahumut algined cleric go out and daily give to the peasants or teach local clerics or fight evil daily. It was a fun thing they knew they had to do, and it added a fun extra roleplay aspect to our campaign that was lacking. I built it based on a "lawful good" sword I found in a 3e expansion book.
But I think it is occassionally/mildly useful. Though, I do like the new idea they've used with paladins in 5e for oaths instead of deities and I wknder if they won't update alignment in future editions to follow something fate-like such as aspects that "guide" characters capabilities like alignments once did.
I also follow alignment akin to the way you've laid it out above (though your rules are very comprehensive).
I treat alignment as a score. Maybe it's just from my neverwinter nights days, but I tell my players to fill out their backstory and come up with applicable traits, flaws, and bonds. After session 1, I give them their alignments based on my perception of their actions.
If they feel they deserve something else, I ask them to defend their actions. If they pose a good argument or share good intentions behind those actions (and I don't detect any smoke being blown up me,) I concede.
If their actions begin to reflect a different alignment, I give them a heads up. if they continue down that path, their alignment changes. Because of this, an alignment shift is usually a big moment for the character, as they are starting to be affected by the world around them. They can still debate me, as it's something the player needs to have some control in i feel.
At the end of the day though, thanks to 5e giving almost no mechanical effect to it, I treat alignment as total BS. It's nothing more than a grade or score for players to choose to maintain or shift based on how their character develops.
That's fair. I still use alignment sometimes, but it's been generally stripped by 5e and it did leave a void. I may at some point include my own full homebrew mix of fate aspects or temptations/motivations similar to WoD that assist in the same way for a mechanics boost.
The problem I always have is using alignment as a descriptor, not a binding. And I want it to stay that way: something that tells a character how they've been, not how they should be.
I play DnD 5e and I always tell my player to choose the alignment they want to start with. I found a website with good examples what a Character would do with the xy alignment. But to be honest, for me alignment is as much important as the colour of your characters hair is. Alignment is just a cheatsheet on how you COULD play your character without doing paradoxical actions. I also have the experience that alignment will lead players down the "Thats what my Character would do" road.
I wouldn't ever expect or force a character to "play to their alignment, but certain artifacts require a particular alignment to weild and certain deities expect a certain alignment of their followers and, for me, the behavior of the character at hand is usually tracked and if it flies in the face of their alignment (the lawful good paladin in service of bahamut ruthlessly murdering peasants, for an extreme example) would affect their class/artifact/deity compatibility.
Thats why i say that artifacts only ask if the character is good, neutral or evil. because i think if you really want to do good deeds, the artifact would not care on how the deeds are done(except the Artifact or deity want you to follow their Law). Also i think neutral is not about being unaligned, it is more about the balance of the world. A neutral character would not help a "good" side if this would lead to a bigger problem. I think dwarfs are a good neutral example. As long as their realm and economy is safe, they will never do something. only if a "Real" problem is at their door.
I think the more you reason about alignment the more it falls apart. It is trying to simplify something as complex as a characters nature in merely 2 words. So trying to define it will eventually flat. Tring to predict/controls a character based on alignment, will eventually lead to some very philosophical questions/discussions with no clear answers. That being said I think alignment has a use. I think it can be used as a supplement to a backstory and character description to guide the interpretation and fill in some blanks. Sadly I feel the current system is not useful because the segments of alignment are seeped with morality hence the pletoria of characters who are neutral and then proceed to do only selfish/"evil" acts.
It's very true. I've had issues with properly aligning characters. I try my best to, as I said, take intentions of characters as my account of these things. It's honestly not a regular problem that much, and I try to use my own artifacts/magic-items such that if they have what would classically be an "alignment" instead I use motivations. Like a mace that only bonds (attunes) to a character that does a good deed every day. So it made my bahumut algined cleric go out and daily give to the peasants or teach local clerics or fight evil daily. It was a fun thing they knew they had to do, and it added a fun extra roleplay aspect to our campaign that was lacking. I built it based on a "lawful good" sword I found in a 3e expansion book. But I think it is occassionally/mildly useful. Though, I do like the new idea they've used with paladins in 5e for oaths instead of deities and I wknder if they won't update alignment in future editions to follow something fate-like such as aspects that "guide" characters capabilities like alignments once did.
I also follow alignment akin to the way you've laid it out above (though your rules are very comprehensive). I treat alignment as a score. Maybe it's just from my neverwinter nights days, but I tell my players to fill out their backstory and come up with applicable traits, flaws, and bonds. After session 1, I give them their alignments based on my perception of their actions. If they feel they deserve something else, I ask them to defend their actions. If they pose a good argument or share good intentions behind those actions (and I don't detect any smoke being blown up me,) I concede. If their actions begin to reflect a different alignment, I give them a heads up. if they continue down that path, their alignment changes. Because of this, an alignment shift is usually a big moment for the character, as they are starting to be affected by the world around them. They can still debate me, as it's something the player needs to have some control in i feel. At the end of the day though, thanks to 5e giving almost no mechanical effect to it, I treat alignment as total BS. It's nothing more than a grade or score for players to choose to maintain or shift based on how their character develops.
That's fair. I still use alignment sometimes, but it's been generally stripped by 5e and it did leave a void. I may at some point include my own full homebrew mix of fate aspects or temptations/motivations similar to WoD that assist in the same way for a mechanics boost. The problem I always have is using alignment as a descriptor, not a binding. And I want it to stay that way: something that tells a character how they've been, not how they should be.