Poll: Allignment effect on intended game play actions

[Lord Ernie]

Similarly, I keep my character's personality in mind, more than his alignment, when making decisions. Sometimes, that means the character's central alignment can shift due to in-game actions, even though his central morality system hasn't changed much. Circumstances can change a lot about what someone might or might not do, after all.

To give an example: I'm playing a rather insane elf cleric of the Raven Queen (started out Unaligned), who protects the party at all costs, because he believes they are destined for great things, and he wants to shield them from anything that might stop them from reaching that destiny (if that doesn't sound 100% logical, remember, he's insane). At this point, this has resulted in him killing several people (without real consent of the party), just because he saw them as a threat to their wellbeing; along with this came warnings of the DM he might very well end up Evil if he continues this way. That works perfectly fine for me, though... won't stop me from playing the character as I envision it (and yes, this is one of the reasons I do not like alignment restrictions on character abilities).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

From my 4E experience (which is hundreds of sessions with over a half dozen different groups), the game has boiled down a lot to "breaking and entering", "murder", and "theft". The game was always that way, but alignment used to be a bit of a brake on the more egregious offenses. As can be seen by the number of people here who totally ignore alignment now, the game has evolved into more of a hack and slash video game than it ever was before. Not that players cannot play their good characters as good, but there used to be some in game mechanics reasons to do so and those are now gone, opening the floodgates to whatever haphazard behavior any given player wants to do, regardless of alignment.

I too miss the existence of an all-seeing objective judge of morality. I miss the word 'Good' actually meaning something.

But I don't remember alignment curbing any rampant greed or wanton violence back in the day, and I haven't found that my group acts 'video-gamey' just because alignment is gone. IME, hack 'n' slash gamers will hack 'n' slash and do-gooders will do good, regardless of morality labels.

(In fact, the serious do-gooder in my group wouldn't even equip himself properly if I didn't drop the +X items he needs.)

 

[kinjiru]

I definitely take alignment into account in my characters's decisions, and if I think of a conflict after I've made a decision, if I am in a position where changing that decision is reasonable, fair and non-obstructive to the game, I typically will do so.

But, I think it's important to clarify one's personality and personal code of ethics for a character from alignment as a broad rule. If these things matter at all to you, you should know what sorts of things your character would endorse or object to beforehand in most cases, and be prepared for them when the come up.

 

[The Little Raven]

From my 4E experience (which is hundreds of sessions with over a half dozen different groups), the game has boiled down a lot to "breaking and entering", "murder", and "theft".

From my two decades of D&D experience over multiple editions, this is normally what the game boils down to most people.

You break into the orcs' stronghold, murder them, and steal their pies.

The fact that one of the party was a Lawful Good paladin never changed that, since orcs are evil.

 

[KarinsDad]

From my two decades of D&D experience over multiple editions, this is normally what the game boils down to most people.

You break into the orcs' stronghold, murder them, and steal their pies.

The fact that one of the party was a Lawful Good paladin never changed that, since orcs are evil.

Yes, but Dragons are no longer good, so any PC can go in and steal their pies.

In fact, there are very few good creatures in the game system so that all PCs can go steal all of the pies.

 

[Aegeri]

Alignment really means very little to me except for creatures that are paragons of a particular alignment: Like Daemons being chaotic evil monstrous destructive deviants for example. Otherwise I pay it no attention whatsoever. PCs, NPCs and even monsters actions dictate what they are and their alignment reflects their actions. Not their actions reflect an entirely arbitrary and completely debatable alignment.

 

[Shin Okada]

I too miss "against evil/holy" items and spells as a flavor, in some degree.

But strict alignment has been causing more (not-so-fan) debates during game-play than to add good gaming experiences (especially, chaos/law axis). So I prefer today's "simpler and loose" alignment guideline. For me, that is good enough to use as a base flavor for my PCs.

And, regarding "against evil/holy" items and spells, those were rarely "good only" already by 3.Xe. Yes, Holy Avenger was LG paladin only in 3.Xe. But true neutral PCs could enjoy wielding Holy and Axiomatic magic weapon which is often more cost-effective and powerful against evil or chaotic creatures. So could characters with high enough UMD skill. There were almost no game-ruling-wise merit on being good or lawful.

 

[Hussar]

I've found that good players will come up with characters who have their own codes of conduct based on their history and how the player wants to portray the character. The presence or lack thereof of alignment has never changed that.

At least now I no longer get players coming to me with CN characters because they're so paranoid that that DM will force them to be "good" if they write an actual alignment on their sheet.

 

[666Sinner666]

I usually just choose Unaligned since the actions my characters take could be construed as good or evil depending on the situation and what other people think.

 

[OnlineDM]

I've never re-considered an action based on alignment, but I frequently consider it in the first place. I've never thought, "Okay, I'm going to break into the shop after the evil proprietor leaves... oh wait, I'm lawful, so I guess I won't do that after all." Instead, I've thought, "Okay, I could either break into the shop or I could go to the authorities to see if they will grant me access to search the place. Well, since I'm lawful I guess I'm going to the cops."

For what it's worth, I would consider it in the other direction, too. Even though 4e doesn't specifically have alignments like Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, I sometimes think of a character as having that alignment. In such a case (or even in the case of Unaligned) I would choose to have the character do the breaking and entering in the name of good or in the name of simplicity, even if going to the authorities would work just fine. If I'm not lawful, I'm probably not going to the authorities unless I absolutely have to.

To answer the poll question directly, no, I've never decided on one course of action and then later changed it after considering alignment. I bake alignment into the decision-making process in the first place.