Chaotic to lawful is just as major a change as evil to good. You just went across an entire spectrum.
Start making her more disciplined. She gets up at the same time and performs the same tasks everyday. She starts following every law. Since she was more chaotic than good, now she'll be more lawful than good, so she pay more attention to the law than whether the law is good or just.
This is a weird moment. You might start to care more where you throw bombs or have trouble with breaking into houses. You might still listen to other players urges to do so however. You will not become a religious Zealot or a crusader, and you don't have to suddenly care what everyone else is doing. You might second guess things that society might be against though. Possibly you may start to care more about appearances and the like, regardless of anyone looking or not. You don't have to listen to laws, but your going to consider it probably. You didn't before, why would you now? Its not like you suddenly learn a code you have to listen to.
You might also want to talk to your DM about this because if your uncomfortable with it you probably need to fix it. I've always thought it was easy to go from lawful to chaotic, and I think its much more personal than good vs. evil.
Alignment is always a sticky issue. You describe your character as one who broke into houses and caused massive property damage, but honestly those aren't things a chaotic good character would do unless it helped some specific goal. Your character as described sounds much more chaotic neutral to me. However, this is all irrelevant since your alignment has been magically changed. You wont be held to the standard, and you wont be accountable to a god like a Paladin is, but that is a very valid way to play a lawful good character. A lawful good character certainly wont break into peoples houses or cause property damage. It is an alignment shift, and choas to law is complete 180 on that axis, and it should manifest itself in your role playing. How exactly is a little difficult to say without having scenarios for actions. Where a choatic neutral character might steal from anyone to help himself, or a choatic good character might steal from the king or rich noble and give it all to the peasants (like Robin Hood), the lawful good character will give to charity whatever he can spare and certainly wont be stealing from anyone.
P.S. The lack of deity is irrelevant, you don't play a class the uses divine power so if you changed alignment the most that could happen is you could worship a different god. In fact, with this alignment change you could roleplay it as finding a god, a lawful good god.
On a unrelated note, is anyone ever confused about the existence of athiests in the context of Pathfinder/D&D? There are very obviously gods in the world, people can talk to them on a daily basis. You can literally ask your local cleric to help you talk to your god. I just find it weird when the existence of gods is certain and obvious in the world, that athiests would exist. To not avidly worship or venerate a specific god is one thing, but to not believe is another.
|
You suddenly had your morals switched from believing in individuality and freedom, to believing in conformity. Unless you had your memory wiped too you are aware of the sudden change in beliefs, you know how you acted before. Maybe now you find yourself doing the "right and honorable" thing, but you hate it and strive to find a way to remove this curse.
Or you could treat is like a midlife crisis, like you gained religion or were reformed from your sinful ways. You used to be capricious and wild but now you've seen the error of your ways. Maybe you should join a church.
Being a crusader type has nothing to do with law or good, it has to do with wanting to force your view upon others. Lawful means you follow a code of behavior (and believe it is right to do so). A lawful person believes in law and order, but not necessarily all the laws of the country. They may in fact be a politician who makes it their lives work to change the laws. Or they could be a freedom fighter seeking to overthrow the current establishment. Consider the american revolution, those were lawful people who wrote up the constitution and they were fighting the (British) law which they did not agree with. You could also think of it as going from being an anarchist to a revolutionary.
I think atheists in pathfinder are not people who say that deities don't exist, since they clearly do. There is a hierarchy of powerful beings in the pathfinder world from mortals to dragons to demon lords. Just because the deities sit at the top doesn't make them worthy of devotion. I think an atheist in this setting is one who believes that the deities should not be worshiped.
How'd she turn lawful anyway? Has the GM given you a chance to turn back?
I think atheists in pathfinder are not people who say that deities don't exist, since they clearly do. There is a hierarchy of powerful beings in the pathfinder world from mortals to dragons to demon lords. Just because the deities sit at the top doesn't make them worthy of devotion. I think an atheist in this setting is one who believes that the deities should not be worshiped.
Atheist literally is defined as not believing in a god/gods. Where as being a theist, is specifically believing that at least one god exists. These characters don't need to believe, they know for a fact that many gods exist.
The whole sacrificial knife and persons soul thing actual sounds like it could be pretty interesting. I would say its an interesting role play opurtunity, especially if you character recognizes the change (or gradually comes to recognize from people's reactions to her actions) and then is allowed to return to her original alignment by seeking a remove curse/quest/whatever is necessary. Or you character could embrace this change despite knowing it was magical, one would presume that while being lawful good and acting in a consistent way it would make someone happy and give them the tingley's by helping people.
|
I think atheists in pathfinder are not people who say that deities don't exist, since they clearly do. There is a hierarchy of powerful beings in the pathfinder world from mortals to dragons to demon lords. Just because the deities sit at the top doesn't make them worthy of devotion. I think an atheist in this setting is one who believes that the deities should not be worshiped.Atheist literally is defined as not believing in a god/gods. Where as being a theist, is specifically believing that at least one god exists. These characters don't need to believe, they know for a fact that many gods exist.
You're conflating "belief" with "faith." Belief is still belief whether or not you have knowledge. You can both know AND believe in the existence of gods. In fact, if you KNOW something, it's a given that you believe it.
In Pathfinder, at least in the standard setting, there probably aren't too many atheists as evidence of the gods is only a spell away. If someone classified themselves as such, it would likely because they don't believe the gods ARE gods, that they are simply extraordinarily powerful outsiders like devils or devas, kinda like Thebethia intimated.
Atheist literally is defined as not believing in a god/gods. Where as being a theist, is specifically believing that at least one god exists. These characters don't need to believe, they know for a fact that many gods exist.You're conflating "belief" with "faith." Belief is still belief whether or not you have knowledge. You can both know AND believe in the existence of gods. In fact, if you KNOW something, it's a given that you believe it.
I'm not combining faith and belief. I'm stating that since people know there are gods, logical individuals don't have a choice not to believe that they exist. That would be like saying you don't believe the sun exists. Not having faith worshiping Torag is fine, not believing that Torag exists is silly (in Golarion). What I'm pointing out is that Atheism (not believing that gods exist) makes no sense when you know that they do. Choosing not to worship any of them because you think they all suck could be valid.
As a follow up - agnosticism is the position that the existence or lack of gods is unknown, perhaps impossible to know. An agnostic claims to have no knowledge on the existence of gods, an atheist claims to have knowledge gods don't exist, while theists claim to have knowledge they do exist.
My last wizard character was an atheist actually. He was raised in part by a church too. Its not impossible, just a lot less likely. This is fantasy anyway...
|
For me, a good example of a Lawful IRL culture is modern Japan.
Respecting tradition is the most important thing. Laws should be respected too. Even a law opposed to tradition should be respected to the letter if possible (of course, the spirit of the law needs not be respected if it is contrary to tradition).
A sense of responsibility is the cardinal virtue. Being unreliable is the greatest sin.
The group is far more important than the individual. in fact, the individual is defined by the groups to which he belongs.
Members of the group are ok. Outsiders are dangerous.
You should know your place in the group, respect those above you and demand respect from those below you.
|
|
Alignment is always a sticky issue. You describe your character as one who broke into houses and caused massive property damage, but honestly those aren't things a chaotic good character would do unless it helped some specific goal. Your character as described sounds much more chaotic neutral to me. However, this is all irrelevant since your alignment has been magically changed. You wont be held to the standard, and you wont be accountable to a god like a Paladin is, but that is a very valid way to play a lawful good character. A lawful good character certainly wont break into peoples houses or cause property damage. It is an alignment shift, and choas to law is complete 180 on that axis, and it should manifest itself in your role playing. How exactly is a little difficult to say without having scenarios for actions. Where a choatic neutral character might steal from anyone to help himself, or a choatic good character might steal from the king or rich noble and give it all to the peasants (like Robin Hood), the lawful good character will give to charity whatever he can spare and certainly wont be stealing from anyone.
P.S. The lack of deity is irrelevant, you don't play a class the uses divine power so if you changed alignment the most that could happen is you could worship a different god. In fact, with this alignment change you could roleplay it as finding a god, a lawful good god.
On a unrelated note, is anyone ever confused about the existence of athiests in the context of Pathfinder/D&D? There are very obviously gods in the world, people can talk to them on a daily basis. You can literally ask your local cleric to help you talk to your god. I just find it weird when the existence of gods is certain and obvious in the world, that athiests would exist. To not avidly worship or venerate a specific god is one thing, but to not believe is another.
My take on atheism in Pathfinder is that one sees the gods as merely powerful supernatural entities, not things worthy of worship...not tied in to the creation of the world, etc.
well since your character hasnt developed a belief system as of yet as a LG character, you should start small.
As a lawful character, you will general be more organized. You will be concerned about society as a whole, how it's function. you will consider how your actions are affecting other individuals.
You will be more willing to sacrafice your own happiness for the happiness of the many.
you will likely be less tolorent of ideas that you find dispruptive, you are more than likley to put the onlus on others to confirm thier behavior to the standards of society rather than asking society to change for the individual.
For me, a good example of a Lawful IRL culture is modern Japan.
The Tian Deities have a slightly different view of morality, something closer to this I think.
you will likely be less tolorent of ideas that you find dispruptive, you are more than likley to put the onlus on others to confirm thier behavior to the standards of society rather than asking society to change for the individual.
Careful with this though, if you decide to take that path in life you may start to disturb group cohesion. You are with friends who know you and are willing to set you back on the track of who you were before... Right? Even if pointed towards a lawful path in life due to a soul and some interference with memories, your actions may still be dictated and partially controlled by the individuals you are with. Perhaps more so as a lawful individual, ironically.
For me, a good example of a Lawful IRL culture is modern Japan.The Tian Deities have a slightly different view of morality, something closer to this I think.
you will likely be less tolorent of ideas that you find dispruptive, you are more than likley to put the onlus on others to confirm thier behavior to the standards of society rather than asking society to change for the individual.Careful with this though, if you decide to take that path in life you may start to disturb group cohesion. You are with friends who know you and are willing to set you back on the track of who you were before... Right? Even if pointed towards a lawful path in life due to a soul and some interference with memories, your actions may still be dictated and partially controlled by the individuals you are with. Perhaps more so as a lawful individual, ironically.
well i wasnt refering to the adventuring party per se, but more about society as a whole. for instance, instead of trying to change society to accept a minority group, you would instead attempt to make that minority group fit into society instead. so to quote a president "its not what your country and can do for you, but instead what you can do for your country" except replace country with society, or villiage, or family et al
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a follow up - agnosticism is the position that the existence or lack of gods is unknown, perhaps impossible to know. An agnostic claims to have no knowledge on the existence of gods, an atheist claims to have knowledge gods don't exist, while theists claim to have knowledge they do exist.
Setting aside the other stuff as it seems like we agree and I just misinterpretted you.
Atheists do NOT claim to have knowledge that gods don't exist. Theism and atheism are BELIEF positions. Gnosticism and agnosticism are KNOWLEDGE positions. Atheism is a pure belief position, if you answer the question "do you believe in a deity or deities" with anything other than some variation of "yes," you are an atheist regardless of your knowledge position.
You can be a gnostic or an agnostic atheist. Most atheists are gnostic toward certain gods (such as Helios, the literal Biblical Yahweh, or other gods we have direct scientific evidence against or are logically inconsistant) and agnostic toward others (the deist non-interventionist god). We generally use short-hand and say "atheist" or "theist," but it's really a two-dimensional position with theist-atheist on one axis and gnostic-agnostic on the other. (for the sake of brevity, we'll leave deism and pantheism aside, as deism is technically a form of theism in the broad sense, and pantheism is it's own beast)
And yes, there are some atheists who claim to know there are no gods just as their are some theists who claim to know that there are. In general when an atheist says "there are no gods," it's a condensation of "there are almost certainly no gods and there is no reasonable evidence to support the opposing claim."