Dungeon Mastering

DM Tools - CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT       About Us       Contact Us       Advertise                   Subscribe to Dungeon MasteringSubscribe

Changes to Alignment in 4th Edition D&D

Written by Janna - Published on October 1, 2008

Janna discovered D&D at the age of 16, and she's been rolling the dice for 16 years. (You do the math.) She is fond of intelligent villains, drow society, and campaigns that explore the Dark Side.

So 4e has streamlined a few things. Among them: alignment. Morality, once a nine-course buffet, has been reduced to five offerings: Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Unaligned.

I can’t decide if this is a good thing. My inner dialogue goes something like this:

Good: Alignments have been simplified.
Bad: They took away chaotic neutral.
Good: The roles of good and evil are clearly defined.
Bad: They took away chaotic neutral.
Good: … you said that already.
Bad: Yeah, but—
Good: Do I smell food?
Bad: Where?!

And it just goes downhill from there.

But seriously, 4e is designed in such a way that a D&D newbie could pick up the PHB and jump into the game with a fair turn of speed. The writers pruned a lot of rules that were unnecessarily complicated and replaced them with concepts that cater to a heroic mindset.

That brings us to the biggest difference in 4e PC alignment (besides taking away chaotic neutral): alignments are less about personality and interaction and more about the “cosmic forces” that govern someone’s life.


Your character can hate every single person in the world, but still play on Team Good if he protects the weak because “it’s just the right thing to do”. Goodness, the idea, can surpass simple antisocial tendencies. If your PC also believes in the virtue of order, they should be lawful good.

The loss of neutral good and chaotic good alignments makes me a little sad. What happened to the heroes who were willing to ignore the rules or even defy them for the sake of the greater good? They kept their eyes on the omelet, even if it meant cracking a few eggs. Now they fall under the generic “good” alignment, because goodness, the idea, can surpass simple egg-cracking.


Unaligned, the alignment formerly known as neutral, explores the notion that choosing not to take a side is the same as choosing which side to take. PCs, paladins, and even gods can choose to be unaligned. This is a good choice if your PC thinks that both good and evil have a place in the world; if they’ve got an overriding goal that leaves them little time to bother with moral concepts; or if you just can’t stand the idea of playing a goody-two-shoes.


Evil seems a little underrepresented. I’m sure that’s because 4e is all about promoting a heroic mindset, and heroes should be good guys, etc. But a really well-done evils campaign can be so entertaining. Plus, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve explained that laws can be adhered to and exploited (lawful evil) and that evil PCs can cooperate with good ones as a means to an end (neutral evil), I might even be able to fill up my gas tank. (Then again, maybe not.) Now my futile explanations of those alignments are… even more futile.
But I do love this line from page 20 of the PHB: “Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain.” Yes, it’s finally official: rules lawyers are evil.

How do you feel about alignments in 4e? Does the new system work better than the old, or does it feel a little incomplete? Share your thoughts!

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Janna

GD Star Rating
Changes to Alignment in 4th Edition D&D, 3.0 out of 5 based on 4 ratings

Janna discovered D&D at the age of 16, and she's been rolling the dice for 16 years. (You do the math.) She is fond of intelligent villains, drow society, and campaigns that explore the Dark Side.



50 Responses to “Changes to Alignment in 4th Edition D&D”
  1. Jenn B says:

    I’ll admit – the loss of CG makes me sad. What with all of this simplification, where does the favorite (and well used) “lawful stupid” come in? :(

  2. Yax says:

    I can’t say I’m sad that Chaotic Neutral is gone. For every player who wanted to play chaotic neutral, there was 99 players who wanted a free pass to act like madmen – rarely a great way to move a campaign forward.

  3. erratic_prophet says:

    I haven’t liked alignment since I started playing D&D, so I like that they’ve been paired down. I think it has it’s place for certain things but I think for most people it was just an after thought, what is going to give them the least amount of grief and let their characters be who they are.

    Overall though I think it’s better for the game to have them working this way. Good takes over for Chaotic and Neutral Good and Evil takes over for Lawful and Neutral Evil and then both of them have an extreme. This makes more sense to me because there never really seemed to be much if any difference between Neutral and Chaotic Good and the same for the axed evil alignments. And then Unaligned seems to perfectly sum up Neutral

  4. mike says:

    i still think too much focus is put into it. alignment should merely be a declaration by the player to the dm on the intent of how the player will role play said character. the dm should the inform the player when s/he is not role playing in accordance with their declaration.

    i like how 4e is petty basic, make sence.

  5. Mike Lemmer says:

    It’s not just the trimming of alignments, but the reduced importance of alignments, that’s changed in 4E. No more alignment detection, no more power-loss due to alignment change, and very few alignment-specific spells means you could toss the entire system out without adversely affecting the game. Alignment is now more guidelines than actual rules.

  6. zifnab says:

    While I haven’t actually had the chance to buy a 4e PHB, from what I’ve heard this loss of alignments makes me sad. As Yax pointed out, there are players who misused the 3e alignments, but I feel that for all their cons, they did have a lot of good things going for them.

  7. vdgmprgrmr says:

    I never really saw the point of alignment other than a simple RP guide, and players shouldn’t be restricted to nine basic options when deciding what their character thinks about the world.

    For that reason, I’ve removed all official occurrences of “alignment” from my games. There’s no Chaotic Good, just, “I like good stuff but I don’t think the law can dictate what ‘good’ is.”

    Also, great article. Much better than I was expecting from a third-party writer, or even… Yax… occasionally.


  8. Asmor says:

    They didn’t get rid of lawful evil or chaotic good. They renamed them into evil and good, respectively.

    4th edition good = 3rd edition chaotic good
    4th edition evil = 3rd edition lawful evil

    It’s not 1-dimensional scale (or any kind of scale, for that matter), it’s four distinct alignments and an option not to be strongly swayed by any.

    Oh, and unaligned is the new chaotic neutral, if my players are any indication. Sigh…

  9. st.john says:

    what the hell happened to chaotic good?!?!?!?
    jeeze how can i go and stuff my campaigns full of badass vigilantes for my characters to work with??
    they wont be in any way distinct from that altruistic peasant who is mostly ambivalent about the law.
    i dont care, i’m keeping alignments from 3.5 once we start playing 4.
    cant believe they got rid of chaotic good…
    what the nine hells.

  10. ScottM says:

    I like the pruning and the idea of the alignments as Allegiances. Unaligned is a great place to dump characters who just want to roleplay someone without a higher cause, and the generic good/evil work just fine for motivation and choosing sides.

    Besides, I can’t think of any fiction that tried to use the two axes explicitly. I think law/chaos was strongly borrowed from Moorcock, but even in his novels it was close to good/evil. Anyway, almost vestigial alignment is fine with me.

  11. kaeosdad says:

    Great article! I think the idea behind the new alignment options was to have heroes that were rational and sane, so that adventuring parties could work reasonably well together.

    Heroes are still capable of evil as well as good, but with this new system chaos is more for the baddies. Chaotic heroes never really made good party members. The player’s that chose chaotic usually seemed to fall under lone wolf characters, mysterious ‘I have a secret’ characters, one man band characters, and the guy everybody has either played with or played as, the I have no sense of consequences character.

  12. Cryptohominid says:

    As a DM and a player I am thrilled to see alignment slipping into the background. Alignments reduce realistic character development and role playing and bog down the rules needlessly. I would boot them all together if it weren’t for the clerical class, but I’m much more happy with the new system than the 3.x method. Plus, my players that are atheist or agnostic in their real lives can just go unaligned and ignore the whole issue (probably would work for fundies who are uncomfortable with the concept of all those “gods” running around as well) if they feel like it and get on with the gaming.

    Well, maybe that last point was a little far fetched.

  13. StingRay says:

    Perhaps I just haven’t gotten far enough into the meat of the game, yet, but is there any reason why you can’t just call your PC chaotic good or lawful neutral, provided you have a strong reason for doing so? With the exception of a few spells, those alignments were usually just guidelines for how to think about your actions. Aside from a “This is what the rules say” mentality, I don’t see why they can’t still be included in the game. Seems like the simplest house rule of all.

  14. DnDCorner says:

    I’m just happy that alignment is no longer tied in with the game mechanics. The penalties associated with changing alignment, magic items based on alignment, all that has needed to go for a long time. Some players play the same way regardless of what is written on their character sheets. Others play their characters’ philosophy regardless of what is written on the character sheet.

  15. Gary says:

    I believe that the alignments really make it more difficult to roleplay in D&D. If there is one thing I think should be carried over from Vampire: The Masquerade it is the Personality Archetypes that go into Nature and Demeanors. This gives the characters true ways of roleplaying and deciding what side to be on and doesn’t make them draw a line in the sand. They don’t have to pick good or evil. No one in life is ever totally good or totally evil and this helps make sure that stays true. The demeanors will show how the characters portray themselves to the people and the world and the natures will show how they really are. Just my opinion.

  16. Steve-o says:

    From my own personal experience, most people never really got the alignments quite right in the past. By opening them up like this, there is more room for role play and no DM/Player arguments about what a character would or would not do because of the alignment they chose. there is nothing in the new rules saying I can’t be chaotic or neutral good, chaotic neutral, or any of the other missing alignments. It is up to the player to pick a general alignment and then figure out what that generality means specifically for their character.

  17. Janna says:

    Great comments and good points all around.

    Thanks for the warm reception, everyone! :)

  18. Russell says:

    Its hard to play an alignment in a MMO which is what D&D 4E is.

    I purposely play all my characters as Unaligned and just act like I want.

  19. Russell says:

    Asmor, where’s NG and NE then?

    DNDCorner, if my chaotic evil fighter picks up a +5 holy avenger he should take some serious damage be it physical emotinal, psychological whatever.

    OK here’s a D&D lesson for all you players under the age of 25. Dungeons and Dragons was designed to be a Role Playing game, not an MMO. (See my post above.) Therefore, alignments are in large part of story development. Paladins are LG for a reason. They are supposed to represent goodness, purity and honor. Paladin picks up a powerful CE magic item he could easily lose his free will and do something bad. That’s a story plot.

    From what I’ve seen 4E isn’t about story as much as it is kill the monster/defeat the challenge and get the treasure. Thank god for Paizo who’s making Pathfinder which is based on 3.5

  20. kaeosdad says:

    heh, strong words buddy… well maybe not strong. Hm, flammable may be more like it.

    I don’t get the edition haters or fanboys. Can there be only one? Is the existence of another edition somehow a threat to the purity of your chosen edition? Will I receive self described witty reply, or an angrily typed defense? I probably don’t know. Ah, who cares…

    Condolences over having your game ruined and being told what to do by people you haven’t met.

  21. Roll 3d6 says:

    To paraphrase Capt. Barbossa, “Alignments are more of a set of…guidelines”.

    Sticking to the exact requirements of any alignment is taking an extremist view. One of my players and I had a rousing diatribe on how both extreme Lawfulness (LN) and extreme Chaos (CN) both equal insanity. I revamped the Paladins on my world to be “Holy Warriors” for their respected deity, regardless of alignment. They would take the extreme view of the deity’s faith…in a sense becoming D&D Jihadi.

    What happens if a character doesn’t take the alignment’s details to heart? For instance, what happens if a Lawful Good character slips “from grace”? Consider for a moment the movie “Saving Private Ryan”. One of the unit’s men keeps the others from killing a German soldier that surrendered, a Lawful Good act. He has faith that this act will endear the prisoner to take no hostile action. The former prisoner returns later in the movie as part of the hostile force that nearly wipes out the unit. When the “Lawful Good” soldier discovers that his act of kindness led to the deaths of many of the men in his unit…should he turn the other cheek?

    Whether you use alignments or not is up to the DM and the players. How they are defined is established in several editions of the PHB and supplimental material, but how your group uses them isn’t.

    From personal experience, alignments tend to pidgeon-hole how the world perceives the character, but even the most noble of Lawful Good Paladins can have some unsightly traits. Even the most diabolical Chaotic Evil Sorcerer can have a kind spot in it’s heart for a small trinket it has had since it was a child. Why do this to a character?

    They are guidelines and should be used as such.

    Good Gaming,
    Roll 3d6

  22. Matt says:

    Enough flame.
    I feel that the new system is simply a renaming of N, CE, LE, CG, LG and unaligned but that it does try and emphasise roleplaying. However the old system allowed some interesting conflicts and spells, plus you always knew that you could beat up anyone who registered CE without comeback from your deity. Can’t say I miss the old system.

    However “Chaotic Good doesn’t mean nice” sounds better than “Good doesn’t mean nice”

  23. Nivenus says:

    I will admit, alignment changes in 4e is the one thing about the new edition I genuinely despise. But fortunately, alignment is so easy to houserule out or in. There’s nothing stopping me from using the old alignments. I just wish they were fully supported by the game and I think WOTC’s explanation of “people were too stupid to understand alignment,” is frankly pretty lame.

    Oh, well – my campaign still has CGs and LEs though, with all the variations of neutrals inbetween.

  24. Asmor says:

    @Russell: Sitting in a bar with CN and LN.

  25. Yax says:

    I used to get XP for playing my “alignment” correctly in old White Wolf games. Maybe alignment would be more useful, or players would pay more attention to their actions with a similar system…

  26. barasawa says:

    Most of the campaigns I’ve been in have used an abbreviated alignment system for a couple decades now.
    The Law/Chaos axis was always trouble for players and GMs alike. Especially when someone couldn’t get it through their heads that Chaos did Not mean Random.

    No love lost here for the dismissal of Chaotic Neutral. Often we banned that from players anyhow. There has always been a correlation of trouble with that one. Seems the guy who wanted to be chaotic neutral always wanted to play an elven fighter/magic-user/thief scum that constantly betrayed, backstabbed, poisoned, and otherwise abused the party and basically wrecked the game for everyone.

    On the new versions two extreme alignments, I feel they should have dumped the Lawful and Chaotic parts as those give too many people the idea that they are the same as the old versions of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. Maybe something like Saintly and Abysmal would have been better choices. (I’m sure there are even better ones than these examples.)

  27. barasawa says:

    A small note to Post #12.

    Agnostics and Atheists, at least the many I have played with, have no trouble playing with gods, priests, and religions in a fictional game. It’s when people try to force them to believe in it and worship in real life they get annoyed.

    And just as a side note, Scientists don’t have a problem with magic in games either. It’s just with regards to the Real World that they get snarky when someone tries to use supernatural excuses for events.

    (Few High Fantasy worlds have even one Atheist. It’s kinda hard to not believe in gods when they pop round every other weekend and throw flaming rocks through your windows for laughs… However, refusing to worship the arrogant so-and-sos will result in Agnostics.)

  28. Asmor says:

    @ barasawa: That’s one of the things I really like about Eberron… the gods are distant, and whether they actually exist or not is unclear and a matter for the DM to decide.

    And yeah, speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with exploring religion and morality in an RPG, or in real life for that matter. Actually, I’d probably have more of an issue pretending to worship some fantasy god if I were religious (and assuming I didn’t already worship him… Hey, I should start a church to Bahamut!).

  29. Labareda says:

    I was sad to see it go but feel better that its gone. I have put such a huge personal investment of time in trying to frame a world view through a grid that the thought of it going was difficult to adjust too. It was like quitting Wow and realising that all that time leaves only memories and is otherwise now redundant.

  30. Pil Ambrosio says:

    I don’t know, I feel kinda depressed about these changes. I really liked chaotic neutral, and that, at least for me, is a hell of a great reason to dislike the new alignment rules. I mean, are the old ones really that complex to new players?
    In my view, a perfectly built set of rules was destroyed in order to reach more and more fresh players, but totally ignoring the old players’ opinion.

  31. Av says:

    i always found alignments too restricting… i like PC’s to be like their players.


    the old system is WAY better. if i played 4e w/ alignments, i’d use the old system.

  32. Labareda says:

    I thinks its better, its simpler for NPCs and Mobs which means more time making them more than a stat block. PCs are mostly independent from alignment anyway, and you could always write the following in your character bio.

    This character is chaotic! yet neutral!

  33. Cryptohominid says:

    #27 & 28

    I agree completely, I intended that to be tongue in cheek. I tried to get that across with my last sentence. The kids in the science club were likely to be in the D&D club as well, after all. I think the skeptical and scientificly inclined are one of the most likely groups to enjoy sci-fi and fantasy. My experiences at the Dragon-con skeptics track this year reinforced that opinion :).

    For the 4e haters: I am 40 years old and have been playing D&D since 1980. I skipped 2e in favor of my extensively house ruled AD&D, but I switched when 3e came out. I was never comfortable with that iteration and was constantly running into rules issues and imbalances. I have never played MMORPG’s so I cannot draw comparisons, but 4e feels like coming home in many respects to me. It’s relatively simple and very adaptable to playing style at the table. Me and my players love it and it has probably saved my gaming group from evaporating (we had given up on our last 3.x campaign). If you still love 3e, great, play it. But don’t talk to me like I am some pimply faced kid who can’t ROLE play unless it is spoon fed to me. As an experienced ROLE player I commend the new system for getting out of my way as much as possible. No offense to pimply faced kids or 3e players intended, but please stop telling me what I “can’t” do with the new system or what the new system “is”. You’re wrong. (IMHO)

  34. symatt says:

    Cant realy go with whats said about alignments, having never needed them or used them, just play the game how you want has allways worked for me . Heroes are ment to be the Heroes and the bad guys are Bad what more is needed

  35. Kent says:

    I think the simplified versions of the alignments were a great idea. I have a few new players, and for them to understand the concepts is a must in order to move the game forward.

  36. Xavi says:

    3.5’s alignment was a nice, neat introduction to the psychological aspects of the world. This was an important aspect for me, being totally new to roleplaing games. (Zelda was the closest thing to an rpg I’d played before DnD).

    I don’t mind it being tailored back a bit, but I wonder if newbies that start with 4E might miss out on that kind of insight.

  37. Av says:

    @yax- i think they are missing out if they really like role-playing. with the old system, the heroes weren’t super-archetypes.

    what makes me kinda of angry is that 4e has almost no RPing restrictions. the game mechanics are focused almost completely around combat, yet they decide to completely restrict alignments. I agree w/ #32, just role play whichever way you want to…

  38. Craig says:

    Hey Crypto – You’re wrong. :P
    Hey Asmor – you wouldn’t be playing a Dragonborn would ya? All hail Bahamut! :)

    Since DnD has always been about imagination, the move to allow for more freedom on the players end and for the “guidelines” to be more of just that, rather than hard and fast rules…I think, Is a good one.

  39. Asmor says:

    @Craig: No, I wouldn’t be playing anything. I’m a DM, you insensitive clod!

    I wish I had a chance to play too. :/

  40. zzzdude says:

    You forgot to mention that they took away Chaotic Nuetral.

  41. Dr. Strangelove says:

    I never understood some of the alignments of 3.5 or the usefullness of them. Especially the neutral/ Chaotic branch of the alignment. Neutral good and Chaotic good for example are for the most part role played the same for the most part. Any player i’ve seen with these two alignments are really benevolent (give to beggers, give to charity, share rations.) Both will ignore bad laws, or laws in general, and obey the laws when it suits them, The only difference is that the chaotic good will argue with a magistrate more often then not.

    On the evil side the the lawful evil and neutral evil alignment lacks actual game data to suggest a need for a distiction. Lawful evil people are your evil machinations with an eye for manipulation. Of course if his plans are found out he has no problem killing someone, sometimes without provocation as the PHB states “If he thinks he can get away with it.” Neutral evil is a little more free with their options but are basically played as lawful evil who is less patient. Chaotic evil is only used for evil characters who want an excuse to betray other pc’s and kill villagers and whine all butthurt because you had the town guards gang up and kill them, or the party kills him because he screws over the party.

    In summary 4e is right to use alignment as a team identifier for borad moral compass direction. As previously it was way to define use for cumbersome spells, another mechanic that the dm has to watch to strip away the druid, cleric, paladin, and barbarian if they step out of sterotype, and a pidgeon-hole to force players to role-play too. Good riddance.

  42. Pyrik says:

    I don’t mind the changes. Frankly, it has made little difference in how our group plays. Just because there is no longer an “official” Chaotic Neutral doesn’t mean the rogue isn’t played that way. And yes, it always has and always will cause in-party conflicts. Such a pain in my ass…

    Generally, I just wait till he gets caught by the party, and let them deal with it in-character. Sometimes this leads to the loss of a player, sometimes they get the message.

  43. HerdyGerdyTookARide says:

    I like to think that since chaotic represents a pattern of behavior that is akin to Chaotic Evil, and is ultimately derived from something that shines the brightest when represented by a Chaotic Evil character, that it is as simple as this diagram:

    at the top:
    Good – Lawful Good (i like to think Lawful Neutral and Lawful Stupid fit in here too)

    in the middle:
    Unaligned (Chaotic’s of two kinds fit in here, Chaotic Good only considers whats good to them, and therefore will always end up fighting goodness, whilst they also fight FOR goodness their chaotic nature rules over their good intentions, hence they are quite MALigned, almost evil at times) – Evil

    at the bottom:
    Chaotic Evil (inscribed onto the wall you read the Grafitti [satan wuz ere ’96])

  44. HerdyGerdyTookARide says:

    As a reference for what chaotic’s are like, and i used google books for this, READ THROUGH from page 350 to 377 & onwards if you like Glossaries, from the book the Criminal Behavior: A Process by Pallone & Hennessy, try google books for a preview!

    It helped me see the chaotic good in a less glamorous light and i really do think that’s the truth of the Chaotic Good Character. My own example, John Mclain in Die Hard, how much good does he do? Loads! In the process he costs innocent bystanders, loads of property and probably jobs and definitely homes, whereas ordinarily he’s so difficult his wife and family can’t stand him. Chaotic. Very gritty characters to play, which i like, and very roleplay-material! “P

    Hope that helps Chaotic’s further develop their characters and master the energies of chaos.
    NB> Think Illidan of World of Warcraft too! Not the books or online game version, the Warcraft game series version. Those who grew up playing Warcraft will know what i mean. He’s the Night Elf brother of Malfurion, the one who rescues Tyrande Whisperwind. The one who… Maeiv the Hunter is after him and he is freed from prison by Tyrande. Know what i mean? Yeah, you do. Or you gotta play the series! ~_~

  45. Hellwalker says:

    I thinks this alignment system in a way is laughable
    I mean first they simplify it to extremes of Hero versus Villain(Good vs Evil), and then stereotype everything else under unaligned.
    and after that BLAME unaligned for escaping moral dilemmas.

    I mean what more obvious way is there to escape “moral” dilemmas then to throw away responsibility for your actions and their consequences, and hide from it under so pathetic concept as “The right thing to do”.

    Basically what we get is adventuring system that is designed to be simple and “easy going” morality/personality phylosophywise, good old Buttkicking for goodness. and then game system judges you for not taking this simplified system seriously and blames you of escaping responsibility.

    I just have no idea how to roleplay in a setting like that, all attempts to roleplay deep characters that actually care about the consequences of their actions will lead you outside that alignment system.

    So basically we end up with a system that is designed for typical human behavior, leaving all thinking individuals out of the game world.

    I’m unhappy with other world/lore changes as well. well like videogame RPG-s I guess Tabletop games will suffer from “Laming down everything for masses to gain more profit” trend.

    so I will just ingnore the fact of this new settings existence. I don’t actively play pnp games, and DnD 3.5, VTM: masquerade, Warhammer 40k should be enough for me.
    Since bioware stopped producing dnd based games, I hope I won’t have to suffer through dnd 4.0 VG RPG.

  46. Matt Nynel says:

    So what’s really happened is that they have ditched the neutrals, without of the True one, made 4 alignments of good, evil, chaotic and lawful…and then decided that lawful is good and chaotic is bad….I don’t know but I’ve allways seen lawfully good to the extreme is the most evil alignment in whole: Zevs in the greek pantheon is such, he would do what was neccesery for him, family and the world to keep order to maximum and even punish those who helped him because they broke one of his stupid rules…there really should only be three alignments: lawful, chaotic and neutral. Hence the good vs. evil would be drawn above through your actions, while the three personality streaks would be the guidelines for your characters behavior while doing either bad og good deeds.

  47. FreedomForPriya says:

    hear hear, I’m with Matt Nynel. I <3 chaotic, I don't like neutral, good or evil!

    Dungeons and Dragons is so religiotic… man I remember the old text games, before video games! Using yer brain, imagining it all :-) now THAT's fun! DnD go fuck yerself, make some improvements that count and give us less gods.

  48. Tzenmoroth says:

    I think Wizards of the Coast is Lawful Retarted.

  49. Eladrin Runepriest 1997 says:

    OK, I’ve never played anything but 4e. and only started about two months ago. Therefore I don’t really know the alignments from the past that well. Just some stuff I found online about a couple alignments I looked up. However, I agree with Matt Nynel. Lawful for the clerics and paladins and such; neutral for those that don’t really care and have a specific goal and don’t care otherwise(ie: my eladrin runepriest girl who is focused solely on getting more powerful so that she can rescue her girlfriend.); and Chaotic for those who like to create chaos

  50. Eladrin Runepriest 1997 says:

    i also agree with Tzenmoroth’s last post

 Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!