i think it's a real shame there are so many people saying things to the effect of '5e does it best by not doing anything with it'
I would vote 3E as I liked various spells and items that keyed of alignment, but I have PTSD from various people playing Lawful Stupid paladins, so vote goes to 5E for ability to ignore it 100%.
i also think that alignment and it's mechanics are very interesting and have a long history of being integral to many of the kinds of stories that DnD tries to embody, the kinds of ideas like 'the blade only a hero pure of heart can wield'
I think there are plenty of gamers who saw powerful game arcs with qualities of those stories that DnD (sometimes*) embodies. I think there are also plenty of gamers who saw lawful stupid paladins or incredibly vicious playgroup arguments over whether an specific fictional act was good, evil, not-ungood**, or the like. I think which of these people saw (or saw more of) probably strongly influences how much use they think DnD alignments have.
*DnD also being an amoral-treasure-hunting game alongside an epic-tales-of-yore-emulator being a confounding factor
**for characters with various must-not-violate rules
I suspect that's the real crux of alignments -- not any specific edition's rule set, but that it shined a spotlight on different ideas about ethics, people's individual (often still developing, given the age many of us first started gaming) moral reasoning. Plus some rather thorny questions the game's setting give rise to that are otherwise pretty theoretical to many of us like just war, use of force, redemption, surrender (under hostile conditions), and so on. We can go about our lives vaguely aware that all our friends don't share our positions on whether a murderer can find redemption or the like, but rarely is the situation pushed to the forefront, and even more rarely does one said friend get to critique out reasoning and impose (even in-a-game) mechanical consequences.
Not to mention how many debates on morals and ethics it sprung during the years. It becomes specially grating when player and DM have different opinions on borders between alignments (or morals in general).
Which is weird since D&D describes how each alignment functions.
i think alignment definitions are actually really quite clear in the modern definitions(although i recognize they have not always been quite so), i find the issue was always more that people were trying to 'interpret' the meanings, one way or another.
I feel like there's plenty of space for disagreement in most, if not all, of the different alignment rules. Certainly when looking at an individual action a character might take and deciding if it supports their stated alignment or might be seen as contrary to it, I think two people might come to different positions. Honestly it'd be kinda surprising if there wasn't, given the amount of debate that existing IRL moral frameworks can engender.
i think there is alot of fun to be gained from having strong alignment mechanics, it's just a matter of not also tying them to a bunch of unfun things too, like penalties for drifting across the grid.
Yes, I think that's the part that put a lot of people off.
And that's my point.
Alignment is too basic for in depth personality roleplay.
"Only good" for your table. Many of us use RAW alignment just fine
I think it is clear to most people reading the thread that people are expressing their personal positions or opinions.
Oh wow. The edition that is both current and popular among users of this forum is the one folks think did it best.
I am shocked. Shocked! ...well, not that shocked.
FWIW, the people that have been commenting on what they like about that edition have been referencing a quality (includes but does very little with) that it mostly shares with your own oft-attested personal fave.