Quote Originally Posted by Carry2 View Post
I'll try to address a few other points in the thread later, but that isn't exactly my suggestion. I am suggesting that either (A) making the characters' alignments unambiguous OR (B) avoid insisting, explicitly or implicitly that they do have a certain alignment, would probably help to avoid acrimony and confusion on this point.
No. No, it would not.

We cannot even agree whether vigilantism is Lawful or Chaotic or neither, or whether prosecuting thought crimes is Evil or just sensible policy. I do not see how it is possible to make alignments unambiguous without reducing characters to paper-thin stereotypes. To avoid ambiguity, all gray areas must be avoided lest some special snowflake break his widdle bwain.

In any case, I see no problem with alignment ambiguity and declaring alignments, as Rich has done. Alignment isn't a straitjacket. If you have a problem with that, it's a problem that is baked into D&D in this edition. The problem of morality is one that philosophers have wrestled with since the word philosophy was invented. Good luck trying to write an unambiguously aligned Good character.