Are you going to limit PC alignments in your 4e game?

[Baron Opal]

I use alignment, and the players are welcome to chose any of them. However, I do expect them to keep the intra-party conflict to a minimum and the be able to come to a consensus on a regular basis. Also, I use a variant alignment system. I have Order, Logic, Passion, Ambition and Instinct as alignments with unaligned for the undecided.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Other. All alignments welcomed, nine alignment system, not the axed up and dumbed down 4e one. I've seen too many brilliant evil characters to disallow it, and it fills me with disgust that people would limit others in that way. Players are bad because they're immature and childish, not because their alignment makes them act that way.

 

[Scribble]

Other I guess... I've never really worked to hard at making sure people played their alignment.

if they were a Paladin or soemthing I preffered they stuck to a certain code, rather then just try to think "what would I do if I were roboticaly Lawful and good..."

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'll limit it as much as I did with other editions. Evils are out except for LE (or just Evil in 4E case) and then only if the player gives me a rock solid reason to be hanging around helping a bunch of goody-goodies.

If there is a Paladin int he group Evil is out automatically. I have enough to do without worrying about the PCs killing each other.

 

[Thanee]

No Evil Alignment for PCs. I don't see this as a limit, though. It's just the standard.

Bye
Thanee

 

[GnomeWorks]

I have always had an issue with alignment, and stopped using it per the 3.5 PH about a year ago.

That isn't to say that I stopped using it entirely. Instead, I had each player decide if his/her character had an alignment, and if so, noted it. Then, as the campaign progressed, tracked their alignment - so if someone did something evil or chaotic, they drifted a bit further towards that alignment.

After they told me what alignment they thought their characters were, the players had no idea what their alignments were. They could have found out, but I like the idea of PCs thinking "Hey, I'm CG," when, in fact, they're LN.

Evil folk in parties is something I haven't had a problem with. So long as you can make some sense out of it, go nuts - but don't blame me when you get in trouble for doing something evil. Actions have ramifications.

 

[pallen]

Now that there are no mechanics dependent on alignment, I plan to drop it entirely. Players are free to write whatever they want on their characters, but I'm going to ignore it.

The onus is still on them to create characters that would logically have a reason to stick together, but I'm not going to enforce character traits on them if they're all having fun.

 

[CleverNickName]

I voted a resounding "no."

Not broken, therefore not fixing it.

 

[Shroomy]

I voted "Other," because I didn't see the option that I liked. In my campaign, we will default to lawful good, good, and unaligned players. Evil will be available if my player gets my permission, has a good reason to do so, and promises not to cause too much intra-party discord; I'd also try to steer that player towards a unaligned anti-hero.

Chaotic evil is out right now.

 

[Lanefan]

Were I to run 4e I'd go with the 9-alignment system and do as I've pretty much always done: let players run whatever they want. And if one player brings in a Paladin and another shows up with a Necromancer there might be a PC down before the party even takes to the field! (and I'd quietly be cheering for the Necro.; Paladins - as pointed out upthread - when played welll can be more annoying than any other class)

I don't care if they kill each other. Hell, it makes my job as DM easier if they provide their own opposition for the session and I don't have to do it!

We had a run a few weeks ago where an entire session and part of the next were spent:
1. tracking down and killing one PC who had fled from combat, stolen some of the party's stored treasure, and taken off;
2. introducing another PC and his companion NPC to the party;
3. killing off the newly-introduced PC on discovery of both its race (roughly equivalent to 4e's Tiefling) and class (Assassin);
3a. this turned into an all-out brawl involving all 9 party members;
4. killing off a third also-new PC that had tried to defend the second one.

And great fun was had by all; including but by no means limited to the player to whom *all three!* slain PCs belonged! (same player came right back with two Lawful-Good types; he doesn't always play nasties) But yes, a Paladin trying to join this party would either die or run screaming for the hills...

In case it's not already obvious, characters trying to enter parties in my games don't come with little "PC" stamps on their foreheads...

Lanefan