Alignment of Choice!

[Dice4Hire]

I am rather strict about alignments in 3.x as there are lot of spells and abilities that key off them.

But in 4E, I really do not care.

But if I ahd to choose one, it would be good. I have never liked selfish neutral much.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm curious about how alignments play out in 4th edition. Has there been a shift from trends in earlier editions?

So, yeah, answer the poll. While a lot of us play in multiple campaigns, or have played multiple PCs, or have only GMed 4e, I would say "Answer as if you were in an open campaign, with evil alignments allowed, what your ideal alignment choice/playing style would be".

The answer is "Whatever I feel like playing at the time," which usually means something different from what I played last time. I don't play the same character over and over. I don't play the same alignment over and over, either.

Generally, when making a poll, it's a good idea to include an "Other/No Preference" option.

 

[Holy Bovine]

In 3e, alignment is somewhat important in our games and is usually (for good or ill) taken into consideration. In our 4e games, alignment has been non-existent. Everyone is unaligned and we don't bother. How alignment was altered from 3e to 4e was just odd.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

So how do you actually play your characters then? Do they learn towards good or evil, law or chaos? Are they full-fledged card carrying Heroes who save villages and damsels in distress? That is what is important not a couple of words on a page.

 

[Umbran]

So how do you actually play your characters then? Do they learn towards good or evil, law or chaos? Are they full-fledged card carrying Heroes who save villages and damsels in distress? That is what is important not a couple of words on a page.

We have always played that alignment was the result of actions, not the cause of them. So, whatever the player might put on the sheet, the DM is watching what they do, and adjusting alignment to suit. In 4e, my players act as before, but there is no reason to bother with the bookeeping, as the PC's alignment is not meaningful.

The difference has not had any noticeable impact on the PC's behavior - They still hang to the heroic side of the scale.

 

[Mallus]

My entire 4e party is Unaligned, with the exception of my Dragonborn paladin, who is Good. Of course, he might be the only being in that particular Creation who believes he's Good, but that's a another story...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm not currently in a game, but I chose "Good" because I usually roll somewhere on that side of the spectrum. For real preference, though, I prefer games where alignment isn't a concern. The notion that the world divides up into gangs like that is a touch simplistic for my tastes. Plus, most times I've seen it actually applied, it's been a tool for the GM to screw with his players, rather than a value add.

 

[keterys]

I picked that we don't use it, though I do actually use it for games like LFR and I imagine most people still pick an alignment. It just doesn't matter. 4E did this one way right...

Characters should not be summed up by two arbitrary letters, slapped together in a grid, as if desires, conflicts, and history could fit on a postage stamp.

...

I wish I could find something I wrote back when we first found out the 4e alignments, to rationalize them for those who miss the old CG / LE. I remember it as being totally awesome. But, something not as awesome then:

Basically, I think everyone 'gets' Good, Unaligned, and Evil. So why not Lawful and Chaotic versions of them (if you have Law and Chaos at all, it's easy to drop them)?

Lawful Good has a notable difference from Good in that it is _constrained_ by law in the way it does good. A person restricted by laws may be better for society as a whole, but they can be called upon much more easily to do something evil or refrain from something good.

Chaotic Evil has a notable difference from Evil in that it has no restrictions on its actions, and often no justifications. While a rational being may logically weigh options and commit Evil as necessary or most appropriate, Chaotic Evil has no such redeeming characteristic.

That said, it is my personal opinion that alignment is just a seed to create arguments and serves no useful function anymore. It'd be best stripped from the system entirely.

 

[Nai_Calus]

What? WotC wrote third edition, by the way, which had chaotic good in it. If you mean you don't like that that alignment choice was taken out, I think "Good" was meant to encompass both "Chaotic Good" and "Neutral Good." Maybe there is a huge distinction between the two, but I'm not seeing it. Maybe ideally, but not in play at my table.

What? WotC wrote 3e? I had no idea. </sarcasm>

Yes, they wrote it, and re-used the 9-point alignment system from AD&D.

The new crappy 5-point system is their own creation. Hence.

And there is quite a bit of difference between the two, just as much as there is between NG and LG.. If you don't see it, oh well. You're the kind of person the new lame alignment system works for. I'm not.

 

[TerraDave]

4E basically aimed to make alingment optional. And succeded, based on the pole.



Haven't really decided if this is a good thing or not.

 

[Chainsaw]

I play in a 4E game. Our DM said, "Everyone's got to be good - no evil characters," but that's about as detailed as it gets for him or any of us. No one haggles with him over what he means - we know he means no killing innocents or raping or stealing and that we need to follow town rules wherever we are.

Separate from his game, I probably wouldn't consider playing an evil character. Here comes my generalization (I know we all have different opinions as to what "evil" is): I'm just not that comfortable role-playing the bits of an evil character that would really give it teeth (killing/torturing innocents and rape) and differentiate it from good. I'm more about killing the guys that are doing the evil and taking their stuff.