I have not played a DnD 5E game so far, but I like what I see.
Alignment is there, so you can see if your actions are considered good/evil/lawful/chaotic by the game world, but you are not forced to act in a specific way.
I also think this is mostly a problem of computer games.
In PnP you can discuss why you consider an action good or evil.
The computer gives you options a,b and c and tells you a is good, b is evil and c is chaotic.
Sometimes this can produce problems:
- In PK some players complained that their paladin sometimes had to select lawful evil options in order to remain lawful, because selecting a good answer would move you towards neutral good.
I suggested to seperate both axes, so some options influence only the good/evil axis, some options influence only the law/chaos axis and an option influences both only if it absolutely fits to a specific alignment.
- Some players will complain why a specific option is considered good or bad.
I think it is good when players argue if an option is good or evil because it means they actually care about the stuff that happens.
Its just that computer games are not designed to create a philosophic discussion, they simply give you a limited amount of options to chose from.
The options are limited because everything that could happen has to be programmed by someone.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already