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

[Vanuslux]

I picked "Other". Most players have to stick to LG, Good, or Unaligned but those who I know are mature and experienced enough to run an evil character with depth in a manner not disruptive to the overall game experience for everyone else will be allowed to choose evil alignments. The last real 3.x campaign I ran had all neutral or evil characters and it was great...but I had been playing with those guys off and on for several years so I knew I could count on them.

Unfortunately, most of the time someone wants to play evil it's because they want to be childishly evil.

 

[Byronic]

Let them choose whatever they want, new system or old. As long as it's enjoyable for the group it's FINE.

Of course after that I don't really do anything with alignment, they're a little reminder of a choice you made at character creation, nothing more. I mean, what if someone choose Lawful Good at character creation and then acted Lawful Evil? Are you going to force him to be Good even if he likes his character and nobody else cares?

Nonsense

 

[Vanuslux]

Let them choose whatever they want, new system or old. As long as it's enjoyable for the group it's FINE.

Of course after that I don't really do anything with alignment, they're a little reminder of a choice you made at character creation, nothing more. I mean, what if someone choose Lawful Good at character creation and then acted Lawful Evil? Are you going to force him to be Good even if he likes his character and nobody else cares?

Nonsense

This is what I feel a lot of people really screwed up on...alignment should be a reflection of actions...actions shouldn't be straight-jacketed by alignment. If someone's actions aren't in keeping with their alignment on a consistent basis, I tell them to change their alignment, not their actions.

 

[jinnetics]

I don't need to limit them; the Player's Handbook does that for me!

One minor flavor change I did make, to have a more "old school" and basic D&D feel, is that I will only refer to "Lawful Good" as "Lawful" and "Chaotic Evil" as "Chaotic." But that doesn't actually change anything.

 

[SWBaxter]

I picked "Other". Most players have to stick to LG, Good, or Unaligned but those who I know are mature and experienced enough to run an evil character with depth in a manner not disruptive to the overall game experience for everyone else will be allowed to choose evil alignments. The last real 3.x campaign I ran had all neutral or evil characters and it was great...but I had been playing with those guys off and on for several years so I knew I could count on them.

Unfortunately, most of the time someone wants to play evil it's because they want to be childishly evil.

My impression of the 4e alignments is that running "an evil character with depth in a manner not disruptive to the overall game experience" falls under "unaligned". The Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments are for the firmly villainous, childish or otherwise. So I don't think I'd allow the PCs to take the evil alignments at all, simply because I doubt I'll ever see a group-friendly concept that can't fit into unaligned.

 

[aurance]

I generally prefer not to DM evil characters, simply because it's extra work to motivate them, and I don't want to do this extra work as a DM at this time.

 

[GreatLemur]

If I end up running 4e--and that's a big "if", because I'm interested in a whole lot of different games, lately--I will relish the chance to finally excise aligment from the game cleanly. If there's one thing 4e does right, it's the separation of its terrible freaking alignment system from the actual mechanics.

At the same time, though, I might replace it with something like Spirit of the Century's aspect system. Oh, how I love aspects. Aspects can go ahead and have loads of mechanical impact and it's just fine by me.

 

[LordVyreth]

If I do run the game, I'll probably re-introduce at least a few of the old 9. For starters, the current Good and Evil just strike me as amalgams of the old NG/CG and NE/LE anyway, so I'll probably just rename them Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good. I may also add Lawful (Neutral) and Chaotic (Neutral,) if only to give the Slaad and Modrons deserving homes.

 

[Spinachcat]

Other!

I am big fan of B/X and Moorcock and Warhammer. So I have Law, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaos...and Paladins get to pick any but Unaligned. Warhammer Fantasy does a good job with these alignments.

As for player choices, I do not allow opposing alignments in the party. They have to work out the rest among themselves.

At conventions however, I will make pre-gen parties all Good or Unaligned, depending on the story I want to tell.

 

[mlund]

Most of the time, I'm going to be looking for Good and Unaligned characters. I need to pass a little scrutiny on a Lawful Good concept with my current group to avoid having one character constantly try to control the behavior of the rest of the group. Evil characters aren't allowed in the group without a solid write up that explains to me why this character is evil, what makes him tick, and how he can interact cleanly with the group.

Frankly, the plot angles I was running for this campaign required a certain amount of heroic altruism and a personal sense of duty / loyalty that I could count on from Good and Unaligned characters but not from most of the truly Evil archetypes we'd bring to the table.

From the player side of the equation, I played one Evil character in an ostensibly non-Evil campaign. I played an intelligence officer, ostensibly a ruthless sort of Neutral but in reality a cold-blooded Stalinist butcher. The monarch of the state was Good as were most of my team ("useful idiots"), but in my character's mind the Greater Good of the State made the lives and freedoms of enemies and bystanders alike irrelevant. I just kept up appearances, carried my weight on the team, and handled "what needed to be done" (mostly disposing of witnesses, potential threats, and disloyal types) during down-time scenes.

Chaotic Evil characters aren't typically germane to any sort of heroic plot of long-term campaign goals. Evil characters need special attention to avoid picking archetypes and goals that cause undesirable intra-party conflict, party-splitting, or spoil otherwise viable plot-hooks for other characters. Lawful Good characters can run across the same problems (conflicted loyalties, needing to control the party, spoiling shady plot-hooks) depending on the plot of your campaign and the details of what makes this particular character Lawful flavored Good instead of just Good.

- Marty Lund