Poll: Allignment effect on intended game play actions

[Umbran]

In 4e, why on Earth would you care? Alignment has no mechanical impact to speak of for PCs in 4e. It is a quick guide for DMs on how monsters might behave, but for PCs, it's pretty much irrelevant.

When I run a game with stronger alignment impact: actions dictate alignment, not the other way around. So, you don't reconsider an action because you are a given alignment, but because you want to be a given alignment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the "I do an action" -> "DM tells me my alignment" pattern, personally.

People should play the character they want. It's up to the Universe to place them in perspective. Not every person is going to care if it says "Good" or "Evil" on their Afterlife Pass. In fact, most won't (which is why most are neutral/unaligned). If someone does (like if they are a chivalrous paladin), then the character has Wisdom (and the player has the ability to ask a DM) to know how a course of action will look to the powers that be.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Death to alignment.

Once it's gone we can make characters rather then crude cut outs.

Also, as I recall, the vast majority of everythings, be they NPCs or monsters or what have you, are unaligned. That doesn't make it "good" to kill them and take their stuff. It means you can finally introduce some moral ambiguity.

 

[Dedekind]

I do use alignment to double check my actions. Sometimes my first idea is what I want to do and not so much what the character would have done. For example, I like lots of activity and will do chaotic things when things get slow. Obviously, that wouldn't apply to a more orderly-minded character.

 

[pemerton]

As a 4e GM, I use monster alignment as a rough guide to behaviour (like Umbran said upthread).

The PCs in my games have alignments written on their character sheets, but they don't come into play. Religous affiliation, on the other hand, is an important part of the game.

When my players have their PCs do particularly outrageous or morally striking things I tend to egg them on with the offer of minor quest XP rather than cautioning them on alignment grounds. I find the game is a lot more interesting when the players drive the action than when the GM does.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I like the "I do an action" -> "DM tells me my alignment" pattern, personally.

People should play the character they want. It's up to the Universe to place them in perspective. Not every person is going to care if it says "Good" or "Evil" on their Afterlife Pass. In fact, most won't (which is why most are neutral/unaligned). If someone does (like if they are a chivalrous paladin), then the character has Wisdom (and the player has the ability to ask a DM) to know how a course of action will look to the powers that be.

+1.

If the devs keep alignment in 5e and make it relevant (and I hope they do), I don't think PCs should have alignments at character creation. If a player wants to be a paladin or whatever, he can tell the DM that he wants to be Good and then act accordingly during play. After a few adventures, the DM decides what alignment a character actually is, thereby opening the door for a character to take the paladin path or whatever, assuming the PC has acted Good for the most part.

I think this'll go a long way toward dispelling the persistent "alignment determines actions" misconception.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I voted YES.

Not all actions, but killing an opponent vs. knocking them unconcious would be dependant on my alignment.