Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

It seems like a nightmare.

the book of vile darkness and non retarded sections of the book of exalted deeds are your friend

in general though its not hard at the moment i have a player who is dangerously close to going evil but its a new player and a cleric so im giving it a chance to see how it turns out

in general though its pretty easy there are some acts that if you do to often you might go evil and others that are instant evil

bear in mind that if they can find a good reason for it a good character is allowed to cast [evil] spells its only clerics that are outright banned but even then there are few opportunity where its not evil

a lot of people try and look at it as where in that alignment are you and work from there this is a mistake

dont be mistaken though do look at how strongly somebody adheres to an alignment especially on the law chaos axis its important in determining which afterlife a soul goes to.

however you run the risk of then turning it into a videogame morality system where you have a balancing act of good vs evil and chaos vs law which is just not the way to go

and remember a single act rarely changes a creatures alignment so if you cant decide if something's lawful or chaotic but it does not fit in neutral dont worry about it if its a large issue it will be obvious where it fits

In my OD&D games, you are expected to play your alignment, because you chose it, but I only use Lawful vs. Neutral vs. Chaotic so there is a lot of room BUT if an experienced player chooses an action that's clearly out of line with their alignment, they will move one step away. AKA, Lawful to Neutral, Neutral to Chaos, vice versa, etc. But its a big deal because in my OD&D games, your alignment is where you stand in the universe.

Pivotal moment choices are the big moments of change. AKA, do you adhere to your alignment or do you choose to act against your own place in the universe? For clerics, this can be a very big deal.

But day-to-day tracking? Nope.

Also, my experience as an adult gamer has only been positive with alignments, but maybe its because I only use 3. My players have enjoyed the challenge of adhering to their alignment much more than breaking it.

I think tracking is the wrong tack to take. They are binary conditions, really.

Do you commit something against the law? Then you aren't lawful.

Do you commit an evil act? Then you aren't good, and are probably evil, depending on the nature of the act. Murdering someone? Evil. Robbing them, probably neutral, since it's a lesser evil, but it depends on how much you harmed them.

i have to disagree on the probably neutral bit myself

Alignment is the single most common source for game-disrupting arguments and silly petty grudges. If your players are likely to start arguing about stuff like "What do you do with an Orcish infant?", the alignment system is a lot more detrimental than constructive for the game, and completely dismissing it is neither difficult nor has it any truly bad consequences on the world-building aspect (you don't need the evil and/or chaotic lable for your players to think that raping and pillaging marauders are a bunch of assholes).
Otherwise, the simpler, three alignment system of older D&D is more robust than the 9 alignment system and therefore offer lesser opportunities to end friendships with stupid bickering. This is an aspect of the game where simplicity is clearly advantageous for actual gameplay, because you can still have ambiguity, shifty alliances between people who cannot stand each other but are forced into a pact of sorts to stop a greater threat (enter Tehran Conference reference here), an so on. Ambiguity is your friend when it comes to develop settings, and the clear good vs. evil categories make that a bit harder than it would be strictly necessary.

However, I personally think that if you use alignments, dealing with the specific alignment of each PC and how it develops over time should be the exclusive responsibility of each player, not the gamemaster. The moral disposition of each character can easily be treated as a completely internal issue and don't need much interference from the GM's site; I believe that telling people how they are supposed to feel is usually more annoying than anything else.

theres a reason the gm is meant to dictate alignments and thats that its not about intent for the most part

and its sure as hell not the dm dictating how players act its the gm categorising how players have already acted

Dragonlance introduced the alignment track and a simple system for alignment slide.

But it is really not necessary unless you are enforcing alignment. And even when enforcing it usually boils down to the PC doing something obviously counter.

The paladin wants to slay the prisoners that surrendered? Thats likely to hit his or her alignment if they are good aligned. The evil thief helped a little old lady across the street and didnt mug her? Thus starts the horrible slide into goodness.

As a DM I only worry about alignment if a player does something blatantly counter to what they selected at chargen without good reason.

Like Spinachcat, I've been liking the Law to Chaos axis only.  It short circuits a whole lot of corner case debates.

Like tuypo1 (maybe), I've recently been edging up to declaring that brand new characters don't get alignments.  You can declare one in play, or the GM can assign one based on actions, but there's more trouble than payoff in deciding alignment for a brand new first level character before you know how you're playing them.

while i am quite intrigued by that idea what i really meant was that the player was unfamiliar with the alignment system and incorporated a lot of questionable things into his background and a few of his inital actions he should have gone evil right out the gate with what he did but as it was a new player i let it slide a little (i did make sure to make him understand it was bad though)

I literally drew up the grid years ago, gave the players a starting place based on their stated align, and plotted after every session.

fascinating, actually.

that sounds quite interesting actually.

i cant do quite that of course playing by post but i can do similar.

I've moved through different alignment systems, but I had to clarify what it really meant to me and what utility I expected before I decided to keep it.

I've decided that alignment is an objective religiosity. There is a real, but mystical, tie to supernatural powers and power sources. For most people, this tie isn't strong enough to matter; they are "Neutral". For the others, alignment depends on what metaphysical side they choose. This choice informs, but not necessitates, certain behaviors and creeds. The closer that people hew to specific ideals, the more true they are to their alignment.

What does it matter? There are benefits and vulnerabilities dependant on your alignment, mostly magical in nature. I have five different alignments; Order (Lawful Christian), Insight (Neutral Zen), Logic (True Mentat), Passion (Chaotic Asatru), Ambition (True Randian). These are aligned with 5 different planes and their respective empyrians.

I've tried to give alignments that might trend towards Good or Evil but still could reasonably have either. There is an assumption that the higher level the character, the stronger the alignment has on the character's personality.

Another thing that informed this scheme is the concept that with the 9 alignment system they were 9 distinct alignments, not gradiations along two axes. (axese? axis's?)

How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

more then prehapes any other point this is the one where the dms word goes im willing to discus any other things with my players but my word is law on alignments.

that said there welcome to try and convince me otherwise but unlike most things where i will comprimise to find something that makes everything happy with alignments they will have to actually convince me.