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.
"You missed"
"You can't tell me how to RP. My character does not "miss". He's perfectly accurate and that's how I choose to RP him. He has a long history of always hitting his target."
"Ok, well, yeah, your to-hit is very high, but you happened to miss this time."
"You're ruining my character's story! His name is Deadeye because he ALWAYS HITS."
"You rolled a nat 1; that's a miss regardless of how much to-hit you have."
"ALL MY CHARACTER'S BACKSTORY IS DOWN THE TOILET NOW!!! DON'T TELL ME HOW TO ROLEPLAY!!!"
Except your taking an extreme Kazaan. That's a far fetched example. In the meantime the guy wanting to play the CG character being told he has to play LE character is in a very different situation. He sat down to play a CG character after all.
I should also note dice rolls and how you play your character in actual role play are probably very different things. One of them is a dice roll. The other is how your character acts and speaks.
I think most people in this thread are overlooking one thing: The character already decided to draw cards from a Deck of Many Things and accept the consequences -- he was not the recipient of an arbitrarily imposed alignment change from his DM. Anyone who is willing to draw cards from a Deck of Many Things has to accept that his character will be messed with in some manner, and if he has a copy of the appropriate rulebook he can actually get a look at the range of possibilities. He always has the option to refuse to draw any cards from the deck. But once he agrees to draw the cards, there is no out -- he has to take the good with the bad for each card drawn.
Still -- in the case of a character changing alignment from CN to LN, the player has the advantage that, while his character must undergo a radical personality change, it remains equally playable in most campaigns. The best option is to go with it -- he just has to be more orderly in his actions, doing things according to a code instead of on whim. If he finds the new alignment to be unplayable, retirement (and consequent replacement of the character) is always an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
"You missed"
"You can't tell me how to RP. My character does not "miss". He's perfectly accurate and that's how I choose to RP him. He has a long history of always hitting his target."
"Ok, well, yeah, your to-hit is very high, but you happened to miss this time."
"You're ruining my character's story! His name is Deadeye because he ALWAYS HITS."
"You rolled a nat 1; that's a miss regardless of how much to-hit you have."
"ALL MY CHARACTER'S BACKSTORY IS DOWN THE TOILET NOW!!! DON'T TELL ME HOW TO ROLEPLAY!!!"
You confuse mechanics and roleplay.
Also, Reductio Ad Absurdum, 15 yard penalty, loss of credibility.
Think of it this way. You have created an awesome character. You love the background, you love the personality, you love everything about it. Halfway through the campaign, the GM hands you a completely different sheet, with your least favorite class and race, and says "You're playing this from now on. Suck it up, 'cause I'm god."
Would you stand for that?
The best option is to go with it
Or you could get an atonement and go back to the old alignment for 500 gold. Pretty cheap and the balance card doesn't say you enjoy your new alignment. That was among the first suggestions.
The problem with going for atonement is that the affected character (not player) does not want to change back. However, if the other player characters decide that they like the old personality better than the new one, they could certainly arrange to have Atonement cast on him to bring back his old alignment (or do it themselves, if one of them can cast that spell).
I am assuming that the requirement for the target of the spell to be truly repentant of his "misdeeds" only applies if the intent of the spell is to undo the taint of deeds that grossly violate the target's alignment rather than undo a magical alignment change -- of course, to rule otherwise would generally make undoing a magical alignment change impossible, wouldn't it?
Why do you say that? The balance card says nothing about not wanting to change back. The helmet of opposite alignment has that in its wording, deck of many things does not.
Now I see -- but wanting to change your alignment back would definitely be a case of not acting in accordance with your new alignment, so you would have to take that negative level until you get Atonement cast -- definitely far less onerous that I originally thought.
Of course you could get your alignment changed back in a lawful manner. In a calm businesslike manner. I don't think changing back would be an act going directly against your alignment, but that's more GM/table stuff than anything.
Who's to say a lawful person can't want to be chaotic or an evil person can't strive for good? That's all part of characterization.
Depends on how it goes down. I don't see people saying flipping the table is a great reaction though. Telling them you have a problem with it and being told "Guess you don't want to play" is aggravating however. You cannot make someone play something they don't want to, everyone came to the table for fun.
Also, Reductio Ad Absurdum, 15 yard penalty, loss of credibility.Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical process that was used extensively by Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. It isn't a type of fallacy. Do your research... do you think this is a game? A Deck of Many Things is mechanics. The card changed the guy's alignment.
Balance: The character must change to a radically different alignment. If the character fails to act according to the new alignment, she gains a negative level.That's mechanics. You react to events in game in a roleplaying manner; that includes reacting to mechanical events such as missing a target or scoring a kill. This is an entirely valid position; hence it is Reducto ad Absurdum and not the Straw Man Fallacy. Mechanics and roleplay aren't as starkly divided as you put forth.
At this point, we must simply agree to disagree, as it's obvious we have entirely different and incompatible opinions on this subject, as I do not feel that any mechanic that says 'you can no longer play your character' is valid.
And yes, I do think this is a game. And games are supposed to be fun. Telling me how to play my character? Not fun.
Now, this is a silly question, but why are we talking about someone who holds up a line to get a big mac at taco bell?
Its much different to order something at taco bell that isn't on the menu, than to come to play pathfinder and expect fun. A better analogy might be if I came to taco bell and got a big mac. If I liked or was okay with big mac this is weird but okay, if I hate big macs then I probably have a problem. In any case I certainly wasn't expecting a big mac, I was expecting and wanting a crunchwrap.
So why is it that every time somebody gets pissy over perceived "Player Entitlement" the best argument they can ever come up with is "All players who don't bend exactly to my will are ENTITLED BABY MEN, and my proof is right here <Insert other person's argument taken to its illogical extreme and bent into a shape that would make a pretzel wince>"?
How about everybody f#*!ing stays on topic so they stop embarrassing themselves with ridiculous arguments and we can all browse in peace, eh?
Its much different to order something at taco bell that isn't on the menu, than to come to play pathfinder and expect fun. A better analogy might be if I came to taco bell and got a big mac. If I liked or was okay with big mac this is weird but okay, if I hate big macs then I probably have a problem. In any case I certainly wasn't expecting a big mac, I was expecting and wanting a crunchwrap.
Now im hungry =(
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.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.
That's just being a bad player imo. Might as well flip the table while your at it. They pt these items in the game for a reason. Its fun, part of the game. Lets talk about magic the gathering. Now thats a game worth raging over.
CN to LN? Seems like you got the lucky alignment shift. but that might just be a combat tactic change and you know have guidelines now. Might be better now for your wizard won't be bough by a evil guy th benefits you know maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey the OP has said a few times that he was just looking for advice on how to play a LN character.
Everything else on this thread is just people tilting at their own favorite most-hated windmills.
I had this happen to my character. I loved it. My elf went from Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil (and then I pulled amnesia). I knew that I didn't design my character to be evil or lawful (and it hurt when I picked up my holy sword) but I embraced the new "emotions" and shift of conscious. My DM knew I would role-play it out and after a while he had it wear off because he wasn't into an evil game. Having an alignment shift is a unique opportunity to show off your role-playing skills and is not all that different than losing a hand. Eventually you may realize that you aren't the same and that you need to seek help (intervention of friends). Just like needing to seek regeneration for the lost hand, you will need atonement for the lost alignment. Have fun with it. Lawful doesn't mean you have to start policing yourself. Imagine if Jack Sparrow suddenly developed obsessive compulsiveness!
The main issue is: This is my first DnD Character. But my character used to apprentice under a Clock maker so that would fit a new lawful outlook on life.
I was thinking along the lines of OCD.
Lawful personalities can show themselves in a lot of ways. Adhering to social laws, preservation, and tradition. Perfectionism. You could also take it as a form of temporary insanity in the form of OCD or such. You could also just be extra tidy and neat and business like in conduct, showing proper care for social rules. A thing about alignment is it doesn't always fit well with characters because there are a variety of aspects to a person.
I don't know your character well enough, nor your group to know how you would or should react. I've had groups that would tell me constantly how to play my character in this situation even if I entirely disagree about their ethics, and I've had others that would let me play the same character and didn't care how I took it.
Personally I appreciate Zhayne's fervor, and feel that more players should 'engage' with their characters as real people with real personalities. A violation of somebody's alignment should be just as shocking to a PC's allies as it would be for us if one of our friends was forcibly lobotomized or brainwashed into converting to [name of famous profit-oriented cult deleted by advice of my lawyer]: and I don't blame a player whose gentle, temperate, contemplative monk just tore off his robes, shouted "Vegas here I come!" and ran off in the buff from wanting to change his character back to the way he used to be. I just feel that quitting over a forced alignment shift is nearly as extreme as quitting the campaign after failing a Will save against a domination effect. (Not quite the same situation, I know, but vaguely similar.)Not liking what happened is one thing. Insisting that the consequence shouldn't apply to you is something completely different. Zhayne puts it forward as if a forced alignment change renders the character unplayable; that's a cop out stemming from a sense of self-entitlement and no different from throwing a fit over succumbing to a domination effect, performing poorly in combat, or getting killed. To use the example of the Monk losing his alignment, I've actually seen that in a game before. A monk of what was largely a LN/LG order started drinking, gambling, and sleeping around, much to the dismay of his brethren. When they went to confront him about his immoral behavior, they found him torturing information out of monks from an opposed martial arts temple that was more LE. When they called him out on his actions, he said that "someone" needed to learn how to beat the enemy at their own game and that he would take it upon himself to dive into the throes of corruption so that his brethren wouldn't have to. That is how you roleplay a forced alignment change; you come up with how your character would justify his new alignment and reconcile...
I suppose it never did occur to you that players ARE entitled to certain rights, one of which is roleplaying their damn character? You must be one of the most tyrannical DMs ever. Sorry, you ain't god, hate to break it to you.
There is a big different between a forced alignment effect and a charm/domination effect, and that is the permanence. It can't be dispelled, undone, 'I know you're in there somewhere' speeched.
On the upside, this thread has reminded me why I will never use alignment in a game.
Edit:
Okay, let's try this. I'm playing a Ninja in a game right now. I haven't wasted pencil lead on putting an alignment on his sheet, but I'd probably consider him Lawful Good if it came up.
Now considering that I do not find playing evil characters appropriate in a heroic RPG, do not find evil characters fun, and cannot and will not play an evil character, what, precisely, are my options?