Are you going to limit PC alignments in your 4e game?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
fiddlerjones
First Post
I do not limit alignment for the same reason I don't limit most of the other choices players make. If players want to make evil characters, more power to them. My last campaign was one of the best I've ever run, and the party consisted of a NE fighter, a CN warlock who later became CE, and a N druid who became NG. The campaign had a wonderful simmering tension within the party as their cross purposes slowly came to light. The final session was the final conflict between party members. There was no clear victor, and my first 4E campaign will be the sequel.
That said, I marked "Other." I've decided to go with the True20 "Virtue and Vice" method. Basically, players choose one Virtue, or more generally a strength for their character and one Vice, a shortcoming for the character (kinda like a job interview). They're rewarded with Action Points for roleplaying exceptionally well according to their chosen traits.
That said, I marked "Other." I've decided to go with the True20 "Virtue and Vice" method. Basically, players choose one Virtue, or more generally a strength for their character and one Vice, a shortcoming for the character (kinda like a job interview). They're rewarded with Action Points for roleplaying exceptionally well according to their chosen traits.
I may limit the alignment system to just good - unaligned - evil in order to avoid discussions about what is or is not lawful good or chaotic evil.
other than that, I tend to ask for hero's , if that means that you are evil or good that's fine but you are going to be helping those damn peasents, even if it is by torching kobolds and dancing in their blood until the stars align and dread whatshisname comes down to do you bidding.
Logos
other than that, I tend to ask for hero's , if that means that you are evil or good that's fine but you are going to be helping those damn peasents, even if it is by torching kobolds and dancing in their blood until the stars align and dread whatshisname comes down to do you bidding.
Logos
Serendipity
Explorer
I don't really understand why anyone still uses Alignment - D&D is pretty much the only RPG out there that still bothers. In game, it's all contextual - it has to be. Depending on the kind of game you're running, the presence of and possible inclination towards alignment changes.
Generally, I let the players do what they want. If one of the characters doesn't fit, they make a new one. It's just that simple.
Generally, I let the players do what they want. If one of the characters doesn't fit, they make a new one. It's just that simple.
Last edited:
I plan on replacing the alignment system with a Political Compass model wherein characters are ranked on the 50 point axises of Authoritarian - Libertarian and Economic Left to Right. Our first campaign is going to be focused on a group of characters that are Chaotic Gandhi.
(Just kidding.)
I really don't care what someone thinks they're portraying or writes on a character sheet. Their actions in game are what I'm concerned with. For me, having a character/player sweat a Detect Evil spell because they really didn't know what the result was going to be was the only interesting part of the alignment system.
(Slightly less kidding.)
Without any mechanical purpose for alignment, I don't see the point. All alignment is good for now is fodder for flame wars and pointless arguments because everyone is going to have a slightly different interpretation. I wish they had had the balls to do away with it completely instead of the half-cocked system they have now.
(And that was the completely serious bit.)
I prefer no alignment system, but I won't enforce a no alignment system if the players wants to write "good" on their character sheet. I'll just pretend to be really disappointed in them when they wind up kicking a puppy.
(Just kidding.)
I really don't care what someone thinks they're portraying or writes on a character sheet. Their actions in game are what I'm concerned with. For me, having a character/player sweat a Detect Evil spell because they really didn't know what the result was going to be was the only interesting part of the alignment system.
(Slightly less kidding.)
Without any mechanical purpose for alignment, I don't see the point. All alignment is good for now is fodder for flame wars and pointless arguments because everyone is going to have a slightly different interpretation. I wish they had had the balls to do away with it completely instead of the half-cocked system they have now.
(And that was the completely serious bit.)
I prefer no alignment system, but I won't enforce a no alignment system if the players wants to write "good" on their character sheet. I'll just pretend to be really disappointed in them when they wind up kicking a puppy.
Last edited:
The Human Target
Adventurer
So far I've only allowed LG, G and U.
I'm not a fan of 3E or 4E alignments, but I'm playing by the RAW right now.
I don't see that changing unless everyone in the group (myself included) wants to play an evil campaign and works at it maturely.
I've already ran into some problems with new players being used to playing "evil" in their other games not DMed by me, and they whined as is about being Unaligned.
Their concepts of evil in the game are not only wrong, but even had they been right the basic tenants of evil make group gaming impossible.
Punching a bartender in the face for no reason is Unaligned.
Stabbing the bartender in the face for no reason, sexually violating his wife and daughter, and mutilating his sons is evil.
One is annoying but tolerable.
The other isn't going to fly, nor would it be fun for me.
I'm not a fan of 3E or 4E alignments, but I'm playing by the RAW right now.
I don't see that changing unless everyone in the group (myself included) wants to play an evil campaign and works at it maturely.
I've already ran into some problems with new players being used to playing "evil" in their other games not DMed by me, and they whined as is about being Unaligned.
Their concepts of evil in the game are not only wrong, but even had they been right the basic tenants of evil make group gaming impossible.
Punching a bartender in the face for no reason is Unaligned.
Stabbing the bartender in the face for no reason, sexually violating his wife and daughter, and mutilating his sons is evil.
One is annoying but tolerable.
The other isn't going to fly, nor would it be fun for me.
The Human Target said:
I'd argue that it's also pointless. And more on the psychotic side than the evil side. Or inhumanly twisted. What's the percentage in stabbing a bartender in the face? That's not evil per se, it's a bad parody of the hockey masked villain or the striped shirted janitor with claws in a slasher flick. It's completely pointless and doesn't serve any motivation other than "let's derail the plot." Evil is about "Me, me, me!" not "Let's see how many people I can stab in the face before the DM sets an angry mob on me." Maybe the bartender can be bribed or intimidated into telling you something you could profit from. Maybe you blackmail him, or threaten his family if he doesn't comply. That would be evil. If I was interested in such a campaign (and I'm not.)
That would be a "turn in your character sheet" moment for me. Whether it was a good, evil, or neutral campaign, that's more like plot derailment than any kind of constructive roleplaying.
That's the whole problem with the alignment system, IMHO. It's people acting on what they think is good or evil in the spur of the moment, without actually considering motivations and consequences, long term goals, and so forth. Instead of putting yourself into the head of the character, you put yourself into a box, then either completely ignore the box or try to do stupid and annoying things all the time to say "look, I'm roleplaying!"
Want to convince me you're good? Tell me, Mr. Cleric, why did you just spend six days in that village without once bothering to see if there was anyone there that might have benefited from your cure disease spell? Hmm? Guess you're not all that good. Want to convince me that you're evil? While you were busy doing totally random and pointless things to sheep, puppies and barmaids there was a perfect opportunity for you to advance your plans just around the corner.
Better to leave out alignment so that people actually have to think about their roleplaying choices.
You know, evil isn't just "HAHA, I ASK FOR A REWARD FOR OUR HEROIC DEEDS! AND THEN I KILL SOME PEASANTS BECAUSE I ARE EVIL!" irregardless of what many vidya games would have you believe 
Some of my favorite characters that I've seen have been evil. Sneaky, manipulative bastards whom the good guys never saw coming, or perhaps heroes who had seen too much of the world to believe in the powers of good and righteousness, and instead firmly place their beliefs on the ends justifying the means. An NPC who's incredibly evil and has no problems in lying, murdering, stealing, assassination (both of the mortal and the character variety), blackmail, and forgery. All so she could become queen and, in doing so, stabilize the kingdom and lead it to an era of prosperity. Had she been one of those "mindless do-gooders," she never would've gotten close to her ultimate goal.
Some of the more glorious moments in games have been sparked by evil characters, and MUCH of the great roleplaying as well. It's very easy to have a party of everyone good frolicking through their rainbows and meadows on the way to the Big Bad. Very, very easy. And very boring, too. What's EXCITING is seeing two players push their stark differences to the side to work on a common goal.
Ultimately, players being mass murdering screw-heads isn't a problem with the alignment system, because irregardless of their alignment, they're still going to be jerks. It's a problem with the players.
Some of my favorite characters that I've seen have been evil. Sneaky, manipulative bastards whom the good guys never saw coming, or perhaps heroes who had seen too much of the world to believe in the powers of good and righteousness, and instead firmly place their beliefs on the ends justifying the means. An NPC who's incredibly evil and has no problems in lying, murdering, stealing, assassination (both of the mortal and the character variety), blackmail, and forgery. All so she could become queen and, in doing so, stabilize the kingdom and lead it to an era of prosperity. Had she been one of those "mindless do-gooders," she never would've gotten close to her ultimate goal.
Some of the more glorious moments in games have been sparked by evil characters, and MUCH of the great roleplaying as well. It's very easy to have a party of everyone good frolicking through their rainbows and meadows on the way to the Big Bad. Very, very easy. And very boring, too. What's EXCITING is seeing two players push their stark differences to the side to work on a common goal.
Ultimately, players being mass murdering screw-heads isn't a problem with the alignment system, because irregardless of their alignment, they're still going to be jerks. It's a problem with the players.
Other - Depends on the campaign.
-Planescape = Any
-Dark Sun = No LG
-Dragonlance = No Evil
And so on.
-Planescape = Any
-Dark Sun = No LG
-Dragonlance = No Evil
And so on.
CountPopeula
First Post
I've never used alignments, I don't see any reason to start. If someone wanted one, i'd let them have it, though, I don't see the harm.
Similar Threads
