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

[Lurks-no-More]

I prefer more-or-less heroic games, so LG, G and Unaligned. In my personal experience, way too many of the people who want to play evil characters actually want a justification to play annoying bastards.

 

[Steely Dan]

I prefer more-or-less heroic games, so LG, G and Unaligned. In my personal experience, way too many of the people who want to play evil characters actually want a justification to play annoying bastards.

Yeah, CN was a big contender for that role too.

 

[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

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.

Ahh, but I was actually referring to not allowing Evil characters. In which case changing their alignment to Evil contradicts not allowing Evil PC's

While I doubt it that it's true for the most people I can't help but think of homosexuality when I hear people not allowing Evil PC's. A lot of people say that those most offended by homosexuals might harbour homosexual tendencies themselves. While those secure in their sexuality aren't very much offended. I can definitely see a parallel with people not allowing Evil PC's.

In other words "they protest too much".

Still, I don't believe much in either example. You can be offended by gay people for your own reasons (don't go into this, or at least not in this subforum) and DM's can dislike Evil characters because they're often not played well or because they're simply disruptive.

Still, the parallel does amuse me.

 

[Steely Dan]

Still, I don't believe much in either example. You can be offended by gay people for your own reasons (don't go into this, or at least not in this subforum) and DM's can dislike Evil characters because they're often not played well or because they're simply disruptive.

Still, the parallel does amuse me.

I've had evil, homosexual, and evil homosexual character in campaigns I've ran.

It can actually add an interesting dynamic, but of course this is greatly affected by the maturity of the group.

 

[Wepwawet]

I DM'ed once and evil campaign, now I don't want to repeat it.
Mostly because I failed to come up with motivations for the players adventures. And as I didn't had the time to create my own campaign (3.5, remember? ) I tried to use published adventures. Which is complicated because they're mostly created for Good parties.

Also, I simply prefer "heroic" games
(It was the player's idea to play evil, btw)

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Alignment is dead to me.
My players can wright whatever they want in that space on their sheet, but I won't even bother paying attention to it.

 

[delericho]

I was a fan of alignment rules. The 4e alignment rules, however, are truly awful.

My first 4e games will be using the RAW. After that, alignment is gone.

 

[EATherrian]

I never really liked alignment for characters that didn't have a connection beyond the Prime Material Plane, i.e. all but Paladins and Clerics. I'm keeping that going, in that only those who are in close worship or adherence of external alignment need an alignment.