When I run games, I'll do what I've always done.

The players will right down their alignment (I'll use the 5 alignment in 4E, but it really doesn't matter to me) on the character sheet and once the game has started, I'll forget its even there. Fortunately, 4E supports this type of play more then ever and got rid of most of the annoying alignment spells.

Divine_Hammer wrote:

My house rule is that players decide who the guy they're playing is, and then they act it out. No labels, no blunt, inadequate classifications of philosophy. They do stuff, and then the game world reacts to their behavior and attitude.

Ingenious! Playing the role you choose for yourself in the game! I must make that part of my game instantly! If only there was an easy to remember, shorthand term for it...

calronmoonflower wrote:

Yes, as admitted in the 4th alignment preview.

I know. Which is interesting considering that alignment wasn't going to be a chokechain in 3.5 until the playtesters demanded roleplaying be sacrificed for tradition.

I generally just ignore alignment.

I might do something with it, if I can think of a way to make it interesting. But I don't really believe in cosmic battles between good and evil. I believe in cosmic battles between good/evil and evil/good.

I did have this one idea -- what if you could use a skill (maybe Religion or Insight) to determine another person's alignment? Only if it's a trained skill, though. So it's like Detect Magic is for Arcana, only it's Detect Alignment.

I think I might make it a Religion check to determine someone's moral axis (good/evil) and an Insight check to determine their ethical axis (order/chaos).

That might be kind of interesting. You make your skill checks and determine (as best you can tell) that one shopkeeper is Chaotic Good, and the other is Lawful Evil. Where do you shop?

Or, to inject a little DragonLance into it, say you're a Half-Elf caught between two loves, one good but kind of dull, one brilliant but quite evil? It helps if the good one turns out to not be so dull (not quite a spoiler). But it's a good character question.

That's really all I can think of to use alignment for, that would be interesting.

Vaalingrade Ashland wrote:

A choice that you are openly aware will be soundly and brutally punished is not a viable choice.

That's like saying I have the choice to stick my tongue in the electrical socket. Sure, it's technically on the menu, but it's a stupid thing to do. The mechanical alignment system worked the same way. Sure, you can roleplay your character -- but only if you want your character to become useless.

Hey, blew you back 15 feet didn't it? *Cracks beer and poors it on you* Stop being a wussy!












*Disclaimer: God I hope someone gets that.

I'm not house-ruling anything for the following reasons:

• I tried my damnedest to ignore alignment in 3.5
• Alignment in 4E has no mechanical relevance, so why bother houseruling anything?
• Alignment as a system is not, and never has been, conductive to role-playing (I contend that the fewer rules surrounding role-playing, the better)

In other people's games, my opinion is thus:

• I'm glad I don't have to bother with Law/Chaos (holy hell what a headache)
• 95% of my characters will be unaligned, just because I don't want to feel like I'm forced to act a certain way when the DM's interpretation of an alignment differs from mine
• My character doesn't think about alignment, and neither do I