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

[Emirikol]

After running a couple pick-up games with the kids on the WotC boards, I quickly tired of the childish-cheeze-weasels who are evil because..well because it makes me feel powerful (like some kind of criminal fantasy..and of the worst kind) and much like CN was in the old game, it seems that E will take up the reins of that one..and the cheezeballs will definately like that

jh

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Option #1, but this is hardly different from what I preferred in 3rd edition. In truth, I'll largely be ignoring alignment, but I want to give my players a general idea of what I expect. Evil behavior from PCs is neither fun nor appropriate, unless otherwise agreed upon by everyone.

 

[Mallus]

After running a couple pick-up games with the kids on the WotC boards, I quickly tired of the childish-cheeze-weasels who are evil because..well because it makes me feel powerful (like some kind of criminal fantasy..and of the worst kind) and much like CN was in the old game

Hate on the player, not the alignment he writes on his character sheet.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

After running a couple pick-up games with the kids on the WotC boards, I quickly tired of the childish-cheeze-weasels who are evil because..well because it makes me feel powerful (like some kind of criminal fantasy..and of the worst kind) and much like CN was in the old game, it seems that E will take up the reins of that one..and the cheezeballs will definately like that

jh

The problem is the player not the alignment.

Not sure how this is a hard concept. 4E's definition of CE pretty much ensures that it's going to create a problem in almost any group, eventually, even a largely E one, but E most certainly does not.

If you're playing with remotely mature adults, you shouldn't need to limit your alignments by DM fiat. The players will self-limit to playable concepts (as long as you've presented them with some vague idea of your expectations of the campaign). Of course, not all of us are lucky enough to play with a group of mature adults, and I can understand limiting alignments when playing with strangers. I just don't think it'll save you from idiocy and juvenile behaviour, merely delay it somewhat.

Of course, if I was playing with strangers, I'd probably ban LG as well as CE, because in my experience, the disruptiveness of LG in a mostly N or CG/NG group (or any group w/o a significant L component) is very close to that of CE. They're more cooperative in a lot of ways, and don't usually stab people in their sleep (though I count 1 LG "Orc babies must die!"-type for every 1 CE/CN "I'M CRAZY MURDEROUS YO"-type in the groups I've encountered), but the amount of heel-digging and plan-veto'ing I've seen from LG players is far in excess of any other alignment. Of course, one sees more LG than CE/CN, but it's certainly an alignment taken by people who think "being a total blocker" is an acceptable method of D&D play, and just like the CE-types, justify extreme dick-ery by saying "But it's my ALIGNMENT!".

Players are the problem, particularly socially immature players, though, not alignments. Players and sometimes DMs, because I've seen DMs before who wanted to enforce alignments and had some quite specific and loopy ideas of what each alignment constituted (thank god 4E largely removed "True Neutral"!).

I won't hard-limit the alignments on my campaign (indeed I've not, and we've got only G and U), but I would be surprised if CE fitted any acceptable character concept.

 

[kenmarable]

The 6 non-evil alignments.* None of the arguments for only going with LG-G-U-E-CE have convinced me that it would be a useful change in my campaigns.

I'm tempted to have people choose a "motivation" alignment and an "in action" alignment to capture how someone may be motivated one way, but act in a different way to carry out those goals. But we'll see. The 9 alignments have worked for us for decades without complaint, so I might just leave well enough alone.

Plus, I'm hoping to run a 4e Planescape campaign sometime, and without the chaos vs law conflict, the setting loses a fair amount of charm and fun.


* That's our general rule, but we have allowed an evil PC a couple times, but only if it's a non-disruptive evil and people are comfortable with it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not planning on running 4Ed anytime soon, but if I ever do, I'll use the same rule I always do: be whatever alignment you want, but be prepared for the consequences. Barring some serious campaign induced force majeure, an obviously evil PC isn't going to survive long in a party with a Paladin.

Oh yeah, and I'd either be using the classic 9-point alignment system or a 3-point G-U-E system. The hybrid system of 4Ed is simply nonsense.

 

[Nyaricus]

OTHER: I am adding back in all of the nine alignments, and switching True Neutral" to Unaligned. Players may choose alignments as normal, which in general means I will discourage LE, E and CE due to the likely themes of the campaign.

cheers,
--N

 

[Ruslanchik]

I chose Other.

I have a problem with the 4E alignment system. Instead of reducing the alignments to the ones they liked they should have just given the option to only take one radius of the alignment chart. So a character could be Lawful or Chaotic or Good or Evil, but could also be any combination of those.

Reducing good possible alignments to Good and Lawful Good doesn't make any sense. If Good covers a range of alignments, doesn't it also cover Lawful Good? Doesn't Evil cover Chaotic Evil? Seems like they are just trying to promote certain archetypes, which isn't really helpful. The game should be there to provide options not restrict them.

Also, as a huge Druid fan, I have a fundamental problem with Unaligned standing in for neutral. I understand how Unaligned can be meaningful, but having played actively Neutral characters I can tell you that that is different from not being aligned with anything.

But that is just my opinion. Whenever I get around to DMing 4E, I won't be using the presented alignment system.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I seriously dislike 4e's take on alignment and much prefer the 9 point alignment system if alignment must be present. Instead, I'll probably just do away with alignment in general.

 

[Friadoc]

I use to never limit the players, in the past, as I would tell them that playing evil can and most likely will result in unexpected, yet severe results.

However, I grew more and more tired of such things, especially since some folk could never do it right, anyhow, and the resulting consequences would lead to hours and hours of whining.

So, now, I generally aim players toward goodly and neutralish alignments, ala Lawful Good, Good, and Unaliagned. While I know it limits their options and choices, it does make some of my day easier.