recently tussled with a deck of many things and i came out relatively unscathed. I did however get the "Alignment change" card so im going from Chaotic Neutral to Lawful Neutral. And i have no idea what im doing.
Im a Wizard 5/ Incantatrix 3. Im sitting on a rather large stack of moneys (280,000 actually).
I've always thought of the LN as the Judge Dredd kind of personality. The law above everything else whereas CN is all about your whims and impulses. I recently went from a CG character to a CN character (long story) and I'm playing him as pretty reckless, impulsive, uncaring, hot-headed, and looking out for only himself. It's thrown my group for a loop since in-character they don't know the reason behind the alignment shift but out of character everyone witnessed what happened...
|
Why would he/she seek an Atonement spell? He/she should be perfectly happy with the new outlook on life.Atonement.
Also, due to not needing to restore class abilities, there is no additional costs to the spell.
The player is not. Also, the PC might miss the carefree outlook.
This solves everything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much nothing. Actions determine alignment, alignment doesn't determine actions. You'd detect as LN and be affected by spells as if you were LN for a while, until your actions returned you to a CN alignment.
Pretty much nothing. Actions determine alignment, alignment doesn't determine actions. You'd detect as LN and be affected by spells as if you were LN for a while, until your actions returned you to a CN alignment.
This.
Exactly this.SO. MUCH. BLEEPING. THIS.
|
IMO, modern Japan is a very good example of a RL Lawful society and mindset.
Basically, the system makes all things work smoothly and comfortably because the people put so much effort in fulfilling their role and responsibilities. Being reliable is the utmost virtue and peer-pressure is a mighty tool for inciting people to conform.
Of course, this entails that insiders are implicitely trusted while outsiders are implicitely distrusted.
This enables controlling the influence of foreign ideas by subjecting any citizen having heavy contact with the outside to a heavy and lengthy scrutiny from his peers until they are satisfied that said contact did not "contaminate" him and that he can still be relied upon to responsibly fill his appropriate role in society.
Note that tradition in Japan is much more important than what the law actually states and that, while respecting the letter of the law is very important, the spirit of the law has near zero weight if it goes contrary to tradition.
For a Lawful character (especially Lawful Neutral), I would summarize it as follows :
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.
You should always respect the traditions of your group (aka how people have always done things, ie the good old ways) first, the letter of the law a close second (so that you do not shame yourself on trifles) and the spirit of the law a very distant third.
|
|
Pretty much nothing. Actions determine alignment, alignment doesn't determine actions. You'd detect as LN and be affected by spells as if you were LN for a while, until your actions returned you to a CN alignment.This.
Exactly this.
SO. MUCH. BLEEPING. THIS.
I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.
It would make the game poorer IMO to consider a forced alignment change as a mere mechanical effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the presence of alignment makes the game poorer. *shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.
Its a common trope, but in play it takes control out of the hands of the player, which isn't so fun for everyone. It can also lead to being told how to play, which also isn't very fun.
I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.Its a common trope, but in play it takes control out of the hands of the player, which isn't so fun for everyone. It can also lead to being told how to play, which also isn't very fun.
Along with the 'no saving throw, no saving throw later, can't be dispelled, doesn't wear off' nonsense. The Helm of Opposite Alignment still wins my award for dumbest magic item EVER, surpassing the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity by a significant margin.
|
I need more information than just alignment change to give you proper advice, but for now I'd say embrace it. This is roleplaying gold.
You might want to turn yourself/the party in. There's probably one big thing your wizard or the party did that you regret after your change. Go to the authorities and report it. Hell, just use Dimension Door and leave your party behind because "you have other things to do". You just had an epiphany and you need to act on it immediately. Most important, aim to never screw up in combat. Use tactics, act lawful.
Turning the whole party in for crimes, is one of the worst possible decisions you can make. It shatters party cohesion and may as well make you an enemy NPC. That's just bad Mojo there.
I personally love all the different alignments, they add more depth to the game in my opinion. Being forced to switch alignments and play out the new one is role-play gold and it's going great for me and my group right now. It adds so much dynamic to our game and allows the GM to give even more plot hooks, side quests, and stories to the campaign. Things like this make me say, "Challenge Accepted!"
For the OP:
You are fortunate that the alignment change doesn't boot you out of your class. For a paladin the alignment change would be a Huuuuge problem.
For you, ooc, it is a choice. Do you want to return to your "personal freedom takes precedence" self? Or do you want to experiment with a new lawful persona?
If the former... go for the Atonement.
If you want to try on Lawful for size, then think of a well-defined group that your character could belong to-- a race, a government, a religion,a guild, a school-- something that would fit for your character. Now, your character follows the rules of this group to the letter.
Individuals are sacrificed for the good of the whole. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.
If you are a lawful member of Starfleet, you let your friend die, rather than allowing a primitive race to see your advanced technology.
If you are a lawful member of Starfleet, you also let an entire primitive civilization die, rather than allowing it to see your advanced technology.
If you are a lawful member of Starfleet, you try to take a terrorist prisoner for a trial, rather than kill him the minute you see him.
Pretty much nothing. Actions determine alignment, alignment doesn't determine actions. You'd detect as LN and be affected by spells as if you were LN for a while, until your actions returned you to a CN alignment.This.
Exactly this.
SO. MUCH. BLEEPING. THIS.I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.
It would make the game poorer IMO to consider a forced alignment change as a mere mechanical effect.
I agree. In fact, I feel that if the player ignores his mandatory alignment he should be docked xp for terribad roleplaying. The GM probably should be gracious and only dock him xp OR the negative level, though.
Were I the GM, I would insist that the negative level cannot be removed by anything less than a Wish or Miracle (which is normally the only way to undo the Deck's effects). Break Enchantment could give the character temporary freedom to act his prior alignment as s/he wishes, but making the caster level check versus an artifact (the Deck) could be rough.Note, that I personally would NEVER spring the Deck on my players. The risks of destroying a party are much too great.
I actually did quite well with my draws from the Deck.
+2 to one stat
1d4 wishes (I got a 2)
Next enemy you solo kill grants you a level
and Alignment change.
I used one wish to help my party get some gear back after a few unfortunate draws from the Deck.
and the gm didnt know about the "Must be used within 1d4 minutes" clause and when i told him he said my bad and let me bank one of the wishes.
I keep forgetting that people still use XP.
What's an xp? Is this some weird hard to keep track of number we're talking about? I vaguely remember that. I mostly remember how much of a pain it was.
I think the point of the opposite alignment gig was a big roleplaying opportunity or a trap to get players to turn on each other. The important thing is how the player feels about it. Have to be careful when you change the way they role-play, it can take control out of the player's hands. Which is just bad mojo.
XP is pretty meaningless, really. It's just a pacing mechanism. 'You should have X fights before you gain a level'. Why not just award the level after X fights? Or heck, whenever it seems appropriate for the story, after a major milestone event?
Pretty much nothing. Actions determine alignment, alignment doesn't determine actions. You'd detect as LN and be affected by spells as if you were LN for a while, until your actions returned you to a CN alignment.This.
Exactly this.
SO. MUCH. BLEEPING. THIS.I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.
It would make the game poorer IMO to consider a forced alignment change as a mere mechanical effect.
I agree. In fact, I feel that if the player ignores his mandatory alignment he should be docked xp for terribad roleplaying. The GM probably should be gracious and only dock him xp OR the negative level, though.
Were I the GM, I would insist that the negative level cannot be removed by anything less than a Wish or Miracle (which is normally the only way to undo the Deck's effects). Break Enchantment could give the character temporary freedom to act his prior alignment as s/he wishes, but making the caster level check versus an artifact (the Deck) could be rough.Note, that I personally would NEVER spring the Deck on my players. The risks of destroying a party are much too great.
Obviously, I disagree. I would rather the player continue to roleplay his character how he wants. Frankly, if a DM ever inflicted an alignment change on me, and insisted I roleplay the alignment instead of my character, I'd hand him my sheet. It's not my character anymore.
I do not like this. A hero being brainwashed or gaining too much power too quickly and becoming a villain is a very common trope.
It would make the game poorer IMO to consider a forced alignment change as a mere mechanical effect.
Indeed, a hero being brainwashed or slipping into darkness is a common and sometimes interesting trope. Changing someone's alignment mechanically does not in any way simulate or encourage this sort of roleplaying situation- it takes someone's sheet away and forces them to be a different character for no good reason.
Remember that alignment is a mere mechanical effect. Alignment exists in the game world- characters know what alignment is and how it affects things. Alignment is visible through spells, and some effects work differently on you based on your alignment. Characters know how alignment works, how they are metaphysically aligned based on the actions they take.
The appropriate response in character for a good character is probably something along the lines of: "Wow, really? That's an incredibly petty and annoying effect. Ah well, it'll go away in time. Hopefully I don't run into any smite happy inquisitors before then."
I started with the original Red Box, when Elf was a class. It's not a generation thing. Some things just suck, whether they're new or old. This, IMNSHO, is one of them.
And, frankly, I only play good guys. I only WANT to play good guys. I have exactly zero desire to play a villain, and absolutely refuse to do so. So if the DM tells me 'you have to be evil', I have three options:
1. Play stupid-evil and get myself killed.
2. Hand the DM my sheet and let him run the villains, as that's his job,
3. Leave the game.
The point is, you can't make a player play something he doesn't want to play.
Edit: It's also a bad idea to try to. It works against the goal of the game. The meta goal is fun right?
just use the wish you still got. Say something "i dunnow what last caard did, but it wasent good so i wish for it to be reversed" done.
RP-wise? I guess you could just simply get your act together. You used to take things as they came, and handled them individually. As a lawful individual, you are not working under stricter guidelines.
For an example of how this might play out with archetypes in our society, you could be the hippie/party animal that has decided to get a tie and work for 'the man.' You don't have to actually believe the code you follow is the best, but simply that going against it would be troublesome and complicated. You do not need to follow moral or even legal guidelines, just the guidelines of your 'profession.'
|
|
The point is, you can't make a player play something he doesn't want to play.
Edit: It's also a bad idea to try to. It works against the goal of the game. The meta goal is fun right?
Actually, I agree 100% with this.
What irked me in the "game mechanics only, absolutely zero roleplay impact" stance is that it actually prevents a player who would like to roleplay the forced alignment change from doing it.
Also I feel that a player who does not even want to give it the smallest try for no good reason is not really contributing to anything except his own selfish fun. YMMV
I don't think forced alignment changes should be imposed willy-nilly on characters, but if you are going to use it I think there has to be the rider of you must roleplay your new alignment and that you generally don't seek to return to your former alignment because you enjoy your new one.
I would be very annoyed with a player who refused to switch their role play from Lawful Evil to Choatic Good because it's "just a mechanic". That effectively says "Oh, that alignment shift just didn't happen, I'm going to ignore it."
I just asked for how to play it. Lol my guy is very time oriented (profession clock maker) so lawful makes a bit more sense.
As far as the deck goes. Its fits in the campaign. and for every broken thing it tended to balance out.
We used 3 wishes and still have 3 people who got the Rogue. Seriously the odds of 3 people getting the rogue?
That was to get us back to modern time after we screwed something up in the past enough to cause the main Lawful Good deity (Basically replaces Heironeous) to end up evil and a vampire.
Good times.
The point is, you can't make a player play something he doesn't want to play.
Edit: It's also a bad idea to try to. It works against the goal of the game. The meta goal is fun right?
Actually, I agree 100% with this.
What irked me in the "game mechanics only, absolutely zero roleplay impact" stance is that it actually prevents a player who would like to roleplay the forced alignment change from doing it.
Also I feel that a player who does not even want to give it the smallest try for no good reason is not really contributing to anything except his own selfish fun. YMMV
It doesn't force anything. if he WANTS to try it, he can. He just doesn't HAVE to.
If one player at the table isn't having fun, he's likely to disrupt the game and ruin it for everybody else. 'not spoiling everybody else's fun' is not selfish.
The point is, you can't make a player play something he doesn't want to play.
Edit: It's also a bad idea to try to. It works against the goal of the game. The meta goal is fun right?
If there's something in Pathfinder that forces alignment change and the player is expected to roleplay it out... and he doesn't want to do that and refuses to play as a result... he doesn't want to play Pathfinder. This entitled attitude of "It's my character, you can't tell me how to play it" is just a spoiled cop-out.
"It's my character, you can't tell me I miss just because I my attack roll wasn't higher than their AC. Either I hit anyway or I walk."
"It's my character, you can't tell me I'm a different alignment now because I was affected by a forceful alignment change effect. Either I get to play my original alignment anyway or I walk."GM response in each case should be: "Ok. A boulder falls out of the sky and squashes your character dead. You forego your save. *pulls out a big red rubber stamp and slams [CADAVERIFIC] on their sheet* Ciao."
Congratulations, you missed the point entirely.
There's a significant difference between making an attack roll and saying 'I can no longer roleplay my character'. The character is the one thing, the ONLY thing in many cases, that the player gets to say is his own. The DM controls darn near everything else. That character belongs to the player, he crafted its personality, and now you're telling him he can't use it, and every last bit of RP he's done up to that point is now flushed down the toilet.
You call that 'player entitlement'. I call your approach 'tyrant DM'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its times like these I wish I could close/lock my own topics.
|
Warning, you are posting in an alignment thread.
Side question: Why do people always assume these kinds of questions are an appropriate place to discuss house rules?
In my opinion, if it's on your sheet it's in the game. You want to do whatever you want, and not follow any particular belief system? Fine, just don't put an alignment on your sheet. It's a table-matter whether or not this causes a problem. You want to claim that your character adheres to one only when it benefits you? Why not just go without? Lots of people do...
The flip side is tolerance. If someone hates gunslingers and won't play one, do you argue that opinion, too?
The difference between an individual attack roll and the complete destruction of a PC's personality? Kind of a BIG swing there.
Telling someone how to roleplay their character is wrong, PERIOD, whether it's the DM, the rules, or another player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its times like these I wish I could close/lock my own topics.
Lol! Ah, yes, the boards, where we all play 6 degrees of separation between your question and my favorite vent.