I can't do without the 9 alignments

[Cas Liber]

I hate to say it but I really missed the old alignments, and have reintroduced them - I found them really fun when interpreted a bit freely in the old days.

Have we had a straw poll here on who is sticking to 4e canon alignment wise and who is using the old ones?
Cas

 

[Sebastian1992]

I'm letting my player's do whatever they want, because there is no longer any "Protection from Lawful", that I know of. If someone wants to take unaligned and make it more specific by saying Neutral Good, let them. All alignment is in 4th, for me anyway, is to let me get an idea of their reactions to events. An evil person would not help someone for no reward, where as a good person might.

 

[keterys]

Don't really pay attention to or care about alignment - very glad to see Detect/Protect/Smite <alignment> go and from there people can RP however they want.

 

[Stalker0]

yeah alignments in 4e are truly guidelines now, there is no real mechanical need to select one.

 

[Paul Strack]

I pitched alignments in earlier editions. I quite am happy that 4E makes it easy to ignore alignment completely. It makes it much easier to have more complex, nuanced morality.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I found them a bit tacky and cumbersome before.

Now you can write Budhist for alignment, it doesn't matter.

Still, I have to point out that the two 'most missed' alignment seem to be chaotic good and lawful evil. But they were almost impossible to play in a coherant manner.

Lawful Evil : You have an order/oath/law to do something but it goes against your immediate interest.

Common answer was:

A - You deliberately twist the order/oath/law to get your way. How Lawful can you really be?

B - You abide by the order/oath/law even though it costs you personnally. How Evil can you really be?

Same for Chaotic Good.

A just and legitimate government facing a crisis enlist/conscipt/order you to do X action in the interest of the community.

A - You refuse and the community is hurt. How Good can you really be?

B - You Obey. How chaotic can you really be?

Sometime there was

C - You refuse but then proceed to the exact thing you were ordered to. How silly can you get? It's still B, dummy!

Most Chaotic Good were in practice closer to Chaotic Neutral or Neutral good if you scrutinized their actions.

But they felt cool; they had Robin Hood alignement! That's what the manual said! I was always bemused how Robin Hood could be considered CG. In most story he fights for the rightful king! And as soon as Richard is back on the throne he goes back to his farm and quietly pays his taxes. Not that Chaotic, if you ask me. He was NG by the old system and just Good now, IMO.

---

I think the current alignment is cleaner, having gotten to the essentials, and yet it is now irrelevant! So people can put CG on the sheet if it makes them feel good.

 

[Nightson]

I abolished alignment from my 3.5 games when it was a pain because of the five hundred real and concrete mechanical effects and items tied to alignments.

Alignment did not squirm it's way back into my 4th edition game, just now I don't have to remove 101 things alignment related, I can just sit back and relax.

 

[Kinneus]

I actually liked the alignment system. It was one of the few things I was sad to see go. The good news, of course, is that you can painlessly add them back in if you want, since they have absolutely no effect on game mechanics. That was a good decision, I think. I don't see why they had to axe my beloved Chaotic Good, though.

 

[Obryn]

I told my players they could put down whatever they want - I gave them the regular 5, and then basically opened up the floor. Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Republican, Socialist, Whig...

-O

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, we've just been using Good, Unaligned, Evil for 4E.

Thats good enough for me.