alignment

[Order66]

so are you a nuetral evil cleric of Nerull or a lawful good paladin?

[Setherick]

I oscillate between NE and LG depending on the setting and who is running the game. I found I can play both effectively, but you'll have to ask Ross which I play better.

[Dawnsteel]

I loved my 2E druid, but God damn, I can't stand the TN alignment.  (I played him leaning NG, and the DM either consciously let it slide or didn't have the balls to call me on it.)

I'd like to think I can play the other alignments, but I tend toward LG in most cases.  (No, if I were in the Age of Masks campaign, I wouldn't have stolen the book from the library, either.)

[KallMeKip]

I  Play Any alignment Exept for LN and TN.

[Murph]

Help! Witches!

Alignments are silly.  However, I've been on a jerk noble kick, think the Lannisters from Fire and Ice, or Rigel from Farescape.  They allow you a good deal of options on where you can take the character, if its even crazier, or to actual redemption

[Shallazar]

My own characters have too often been killed by wandering paladins for me to play any thing south of LN.

But I haven't played in so long, so the fear might've died down by now.

[Flawless P]

I usually play NG or CG. My only evil characters are NE I had a character that got turned into a Vampire so he went from NG to NE

[Tadanori Oyama]

I like the 4E alignment system. I play the nice straight forward Good most of the time except when I want a shady character and use Unaligned.

In 3rd Edition I played primarily True Neutral with some Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good characters.

[Murph]

I like the 4E alignment system. I play the nice straight forward Good most of the time except when I want a shady character and use Unaligned.

In 3rd Edition I played primarily True Neutral with some Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good characters.

I'd have to disagree with you there.   The 4th ed alignment system is sort of this vestigial tail that should have been left out entirely, or expanded upon greatly.  As is, it doesn't really add anything.   Its one of the things on my short list of complaints with 4th ed.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I like it because it's about as simple as can be. I just don't use it as it exists in the books.

According to the developer's notes they wanted alignment to be something more potent in the new edition. They talk about most of the world being without alignment (unaligned) and those with a true alignment wear it like a shield. Basically, being helps Good protect you from Evil.

So, it would be more accurate for me to say I like my spin on the 4E alignment system.

[clockworkjoe]

I like the 4E alignment system. I play the nice straight forward Good most of the time except when I want a shady character and use Unaligned.

In 3rd Edition I played primarily True Neutral with some Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good characters.

I'd have to disagree with you there.   The 4th ed alignment system is sort of this vestigial tail that should have been left out entirely, or expanded upon greatly.  As is, it doesn't really add anything.   Its one of the things on my short list of complaints with 4th ed.

D&D needs some kind of alignment system because alignments have real, tangible properties in the world. Good and Evil are just as real as fire and water and all kinds of magic shit wouldn't work if good and evil alignments didn't exist. Holy avengers, demons etc.

[Murph]

I'd disagree.  There's no need for an anti-paladin class or dark avenger class, because you can portray evil paladin with normal paladin rules, possibly a tad of flavor rewritting (which should be done for every character, because it's fun), or change the damage types from radient to necrotic.  Also, since PCs arn't made of good or evil, why have alignments for them?  Let the monsters who are made of these things have the quality.  The whole background system, and the upcoming themes from Dark Sun will portray PCs in a much more mechanically satisfying and accurate way

[Boyos]

I like the 4E alignment system. I play the nice straight forward Good most of the time except when I want a shady character and use Unaligned.

In 3rd Edition I played primarily True Neutral with some Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good characters.

I'd have to disagree with you there.   The 4th ed alignment system is sort of this vestigial tail that should have been left out entirely, or expanded upon greatly.  As is, it doesn't really add anything.   Its one of the things on my short list of complaints with 4th ed.

I agree with the other guys it plays well with Avengers and Pallys, outside of there it grays out a bit, but if you have good roll players they will attempt to stay close to there alignment and if they start to stray just let them know more acts like that your gonna change alignment and have posible problems.

[Tadanori Oyama]

The way I looked at alignment for 4E was that it was a visible element of characters. Unaligned people are just blanks but if you have aligned yourself with Good, than people know it just by being around you. Same with Evil. I try to make that a benefit for players and a weakness for enemies where an Evil NPC will have to go through more effort to avoid being clearly seen for what they are (though alot of really Evil individual don't care if other people know).

[Order66]

ST