Quote Originally Posted by Marbled_Thief View Post
In one fourth edition campaign I played, all of the party members were unaligned (we played it like Chaotic Neutral) except for one, who was Good (Neutral Good). This definitely showed up in roleplaying, as we tended to be more okay with things like stealing or gambling, and his character was more against that sort of thing. I think it created an interesting party dynamic, more interesting to me at least than just having a party of do-gooders.
Interesting to see a 4th Edition example, since alignment was much less of a deal in that edition, lacking alignment restrictions on character options and alignment-related mechanics for spells and items.

In this example, I wonder if the alignments were picked because of the kinds of characters the players wanted to play, or picked and then played to and those were the personalities that arose. In the former case, it seems like alignment wouldn't really by necessary to bring that about.

Anyway, it's clearly very telling that this thread is so short.

In my 3.5 games, alignment tended not to be an issue, because I tended not to care about it. In one short-lived game, though, some of my players picked evil alignments and it worked surprisingly well. During the first encounter, they slaughtered two mooks in the street. During the second encounter, one character stumbled across a drunk during a chase, and killed him, out of sight of the others (who probably wouldn't have cared anyway). I don't think I had a problem with any of those actions in any case, but it was sort of nice to be able to say, "And hey, that makes sense too, since you're evil." There was no need for the player to say "But I'm evil," in response to me threatening to punish him, and no intra-party strife. So, it's not so much that alignment really enabled this situation, so much as that the usual problems of alignment just didn't come up. I suppose the player's choice to kill the drunk was unexpected, but in the end not all that interesting.