Not sure where you get the impression that ghouls prefer to eat the dead?
The bestiary? "Though they prefer rotting bodies and often bury their victims for a while to improve their taste, they eat fresh kills if they are hungry enough." That's why the dwell in places like graveyards and battlefields, so they can dig up corpses and eat them.
Maybe for a day or two. But if you then do good actions and commit no evil then you'll be back to good in no time.
What reason other than metagaming as a pc would undead hungry for the living have to commit no evil and do good actions?
I'm pretty sure this is what you're talking about, Milo. I can see how this can read that way.
The back and forth was about whether you turn evil when turned undead. Ryan said your alignment flips when you turn. You said just don't be evil and you'll stop being evilly aligned. Ryan said give a reason why you aren't acting your new alignment (because forced alignment change is shorthand for a forced new perspective).
He wasn't saying that you never have reason to change. He was saying that rejecting a forced alignment change should have better justification than "Nah" which is available only because the core decider isn't an actual in-world brain, it's a real world person whose outlook didn't change. It may have been your intent that *after you decide to be good again* you can just stop being evil, but in context it read to me as it not meaning anything that you changed alignments.
Now, as for what reasons, here are a few:
1.) After you turn you don't act differently because your good behavior isn't really a result of a good heart, it's because you have a strict code. You continue to follow that code. If you found excuses to break the code in the past, though, this doesn't bear as much weight.
2.) You were cast out from your group for a mistake. You see goodly people rehabilitate instead of exile and have a change of heart.
3.) One of your captives is a good worker who talks about the woman he left behind, so although you tell him you'll most likely kill him in the morning each night, he eventually melts your cold, unbeating heart. You turn over your evil enterprise to him and he turns it to saving his long-lost love.
Ryan didn't say such reasons don't exist, I can see how it could read that way (and he might have meant that, although I doubt it), but tone is hard on the internet.
They would continue acting like a Neutral Good person, and their alignment would eventually change to reflect that again. Because alignment doesn't affect how you act- how you act affects your alignment.So what happens to a Neutral Good character that gets turned into a Neutral Evil Vampire Spawn?
Why wouldn't my new alignment change how the character is played in game?
Okay then explain the Mace of Blood.I'm playing a Neutral Good Character and i pick up the mace and fail my save. It changes my alignment to Chaotic Evil.
Using your logic the cursed item does nothing.
Edit:
I just want to clarify that I'm not suggesting that the forced alignment can never change back to the players original.I'm just saying that forced alignment change should change how the character is played until its fixed.
According to DMG, "If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player,"
So, if you get changed evil than you aren't accurately summarizing your player if you act the new alignment. So act the old way till the DM accepts you are the old alignment and then you are.
It is clear that some players aren't capable of roleplaying the kind of cursed item that is being discussed (mace of blood/ helm of opposite alignment/undead state). Instead of remonstrating with the player it is better to recognise this in them and present the ordinary challenges of people trying to kill them.
Roleplay isn't for everyone - some would enjoy this complex problem and the excitement of the rest of the party trying to save them from themselves. Others will struggle with it. Know your players.
If a player turns out to be unwilling/unable to roleplay the forced alignment change in the game then remove it as soon as possible with a break enchantment/raised dead or whatever, then neither the player or the DM has a problem. Learn for next time.
The problem is, you're still making up rules. You're making up rules about changing alignment that don't exist. The only thing that forces alignment and specifically affects the way your character acts is the cursed helm of opposite alignment.
Literally everything else you said is fabricated.
, Arueshalae didn't just decide to switch sides. I recommend reading Demon's Heresy. Are there any other good demons or devils in Pathfinder canon?Ragathiel?
Not good, but there is a LN Oni in the new NPC section for AP #100, who basically became "less evil" after absorbing the wandering spirit of a human father who lost his children. Although Oni are sort of weird in that they are not tied to a specific plane of alignment, and are basically fallen Kami. So I would imagine that becoming neutral or even good is a bit easier for them than say a daemon or demon.
You are making up rules as well. Calling a DMG set of suggestions as a rule when clearly they are not.The problem is, you're still making up rules. You're making up rules about changing alignment that don't exist. The only thing that forces alignment and specifically affects the way your character acts is the cursed helm of opposite alignment.
Literally everything else you said is fabricated.
I said nothing about the Gamemastering Guide.
I said a lot about the actual alignment rules and I'll do it again.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
...
Nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
...
CHANGING ALIGNMENTS
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
So at worst, atonement, done. Those are RULES.
You are also ignoring the input of the Paizo creative director and are ignoring common sense.
I don't care about his house rules. Also, I think you're ignoring basic reasoning skills and I also don't think it's common sense at all. I could say the same for you, but I don't, because there is no standard on common sense beyond "don't stick your **** in the toaster oven" type stuff.
This is because you want to be a good undead and, in Pathfinder, it simply doesn't happen.
Yeah, it actually does happen and has happened in Paizo produces, and I couldn't care less about wanting to play anything. If I want to play an undead character, I will play an undead character, because the GMs that I hang out with would trust me to make it enjoyable for everyone.
Forced Alignment Change
When a forced alignment change is purely arbitrary (such as from a curse or magic item), some players look upon this change as a chance explore the character acting in a different way, but most players prefer the character's original concept and want it to return to normal as soon as possible. GMs should avoid overusing forced alignment changes or make them only temporary (such as a scenario where the characters are dominated by an evil entity and are freed once the entity has accomplished a particular goal). Remember that if players wanted to play characters of other alignments, they would have asked to play them, and radical shifts ruin many character concepts.
This is written assuming that forced alignment change changes how the character is played. The players can embrace this new alignment or they seek redemption. Either way it does affect them more than just for Smites and Alignment spells.
Ashiel, I'm not saying that the player can't return to original alignment. I'm just saying it does effect them in the case of forced alignment change (curse, magical change, certain undead).
The characters outlook can drastically change just like a characters actions can be forced through compulsions.
If a character is cursed to be CE when they are normally LG it will affect them. It represents;
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment:
The Alignment rules even provide a base-line for what Alignment stands for. If my alignment is changed to CE i can go look and see what that means.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
I have an effect (Mace of Blood) cursing me to be Chaotic Evil (Which i quoted above.) This is a rule element in the Core Book. It should affect the character since its a forced alignment effect from a curse.
Why ignore it? I can't ignore other rules so why should this be ignored?
Once again I'm not saying they can't seek redemption or atonement. But it should affect how the character is played, particularly when its from a mechanical curse, magic item, ect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are also ignoring common sense.
I'm also ignoring the notion of a Flat Earth, claims that the world is only 6000 years old, Dianetics, and claims that the British royal family are reptilian aliens from another dimension. And I'm ignoring all of them for the same reason.
Ashiel, while I agree with a lot of what you say about alignment being a choice your take on alignment based curses is odd to say the least. I think this is one you should probably step back from the question, speak to some mates about what you are actually arguing.
The suggestion that a player could ignore a cursed item that changes alignment is a bit bizarre.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty poorly crafted strawman you got there, The Sword.
It is also either a prime example of you not actually reading what the person you're debating with has been posting - OR it's the thinnestly veiled, most transparent attempt at discrediting the person you're debating with. Neither or these options are particularly positive, but I hope that you've merely failed to properly read and absorb what's been written, rather than the other, much less sympathetic alternative.
-Nearyn
Sorry Naeryn but quoting a section on character creation to justify nullifying the effect of a cursed magic item is what this discussion turned into. That was the point to which I was referring, it has been discussed in several posts further up and is not a straw man.
Before that it was about whether turning to undead was a forced alignment change. The reality is that undead are not a player race so if you want to play one it is stepping off the reservation rules wise. Ashiel has GMs that will let him play that, so it's not a problem. Period.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Sword.
Ashiel has never contested that a cursed item (like helm of opposite alignment) can tempoarily force a change in the alignment of a character. Your claim, that the quotes from the CRB are being used as a tool, to try to justify nullifying such an effect, is false. This may be because you have failed to properly grasp what is being written, making it a simple matter of misunderstood intent, or it may be that you already know, and have elected to make yourself a strawman.
I am not discussing this with you, I am telling you. Accept or do not, you have been informed, and I have no intention of turning this assertion of plain fact, into a discussion.
-Nearyn
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on guys I'm over here now.
The reality is that undead are not a player race so if you want to play one it is stepping off the reservation rules wise.
This is false, if it were true then there wouldn't be undead in the Race Builder (you cannot even make a non-native outsider with those rules) and even then there are rules for playing monsters so you aren't stepping off the rules at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Naeryn but quoting a section on character creation to justify nullifying the effect of a cursed magic item is what this discussion turned into. That was the point to which I was referring, it has been discussed in several posts further up and is not a straw man.
Before that it was about whether turning to undead was a forced alignment change. The reality is that undead are not a player race so if you want to play one it is stepping off the reservation rules wise. Ashiel has GMs that will let him play that, so it's not a problem. Period.
Lo, the Divine will of Lord Ashiel is hard to discern, perchance I shall strive to enunciate it for thee. When thee, The Sword, hast thine alignment warped unto Evil, the holy Smiting of Lady Ashiel shall harm thee moreso than one of Neutrality. Thy actions shalt not be warped, so hast Lord Ashiel specified. Until thou hast had thy alignment change back, thou shall suffer the game effects of an Evil alignment. There ith no negation of effects, merely an alignment altering Curse shall have only those effects proscribed unto the change by the rules.
Mayhaps I hath spake falsely, for true prophecy of the Will of our monarch is uncertain and not for those of minds, but methinks mine words shall ease thine Understanding.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, while I agree with a lot of what you say about alignment being a choice your take on alignment based curses is odd to say the least. I think this is one you should probably step back from the question, speak to some mates about what you are actually arguing.
The suggestion that a player could ignore a cursed item that changes alignment is a bit bizarre.
As Nearyn has correctly pointed out, I never once suggested that a player can ignore a cursed magic item. What I'm saying is that having your alignment changed does not change the way the character acts unless it explicitly says so (like with the helm of opposite alignment).
The mace of blood is quite clear. It forces a DC 13 Will save each day or the wearer becomes Chaotic Evil. Unlike the helm of opposite alignment it affects them in no other way. Essentially it has tainted them in a terrible way. Until their alignment changes back naturally or otherwise, they are chaotic evil.
How their alignment will change after that is dependent upon the method. If they're not acting chaotic evil as a norm, their alignment will shift at the same rate as the GM would shift anyone normally. Alternatively, they could have the alignment changed back immediately with an atonement spell.
Until their alignment changed back through either method, they would be effectively evil for all mechanical purposes. If they died, their soul would get tossed into the abyss. If they were affected by holy smite, it's gonna be ugly. They're going to make Paladins very uncomfortable. Because their current alignment is chaotic evil.
But since it doesn't do anything beyond what it says it does, it doesn't force the character to act in any particular way (unlike the helm of opposite alignment), which is the issue I'm taking with a lot of this argument.
I never said it doesn't change your alignment. But it doesn't do anything except what it actually says it does. It changes your alignment to X. The alignment rules say that your alignment affects game mechanics. Alignment doesn't determine action, and so it doesn't change the way your character acts unless your character wants to act differently. So your alignment change is temporary.
No one has been able to refute this. At best they have...
1. Whined about how it should be so obvious that they are right because common sense ("It's so obvious I'm right, I shouldn't have to prove it to you").
2. Tried an appeal to authority ("But one of the staff members runs it like this! Even if it's not the rules!") which failed because it still isn't supported by the rules.
3. Tried to make up rules that don't exist, repeatedly, over and over again ("Being this alignment means you act this way!").
4. Resorted to ad hominem attacks on myself and others ("Bad roleplayers the all of you, get off my lawn!").
Meanwhile
Our argument is...
1. 100% supported by the rules.
2. Accounts and has an answer for every question posed against it.
3. Doesn't make any rules up to do it.
It makes you wonder why we would ever make this argument. Hmmm...
Sorry Naeryn but quoting a section on character creation to justify nullifying the effect of a cursed magic item is what this discussion turned into. That was the point to which I was referring, it has been discussed in several posts further up and is not a straw man.
Before that it was about whether turning to undead was a forced alignment change. The reality is that undead are not a player race so if you want to play one it is stepping off the reservation rules wise. Ashiel has GMs that will let him play that, so it's not a problem. Period.
Lo, the Divine will of Lord Ashiel is hard to discern, perchance I shall strive to enunciate it for thee. When thee, The Sword, hast thine alignment warped unto Evil, the holy Smiting of Lady Ashiel shall harm thee moreso than one of Neutrality. Thy actions shalt not be warped, so hast Lord Ashiel specified. Until thou hast had thy alignment change back, thou shall suffer the game effects of an Evil alignment. There ith no negation of effects, merely an alignment altering Curse shall have only those effects proscribed unto the change by the rules.
Mayhaps I hath spake falsely, for true prophecy of the Will of our monarch is uncertain and not for those of minds, but methinks mine words shall ease thine Understanding.
...and saw that it was good.
^-^
I can't wait until post-modern nonsense goes the way of the dodo.
Agreed, postmodernism is pretty much the worst, and creates the worst kind of people.
I can't wait until post-modern nonsense goes the way of the dodo.Agreed, postmodernism is pretty much the worst, and creates the worst kind of people.
What kinds are those? :D
The Sword.
Ashiel has never contested that a cursed item (like helm of opposite alignment) can tempoarily force a change in the alignment of a character. Your claim, that the quotes from the CRB are being used as a tool, to try to justify nullifying such an effect, is false. This may be because you have failed to properly grasp what is being written, making it a simple matter of misunderstood intent, or it may be that you already know, and have elected to make yourself a strawman.
I am not discussing this with you, I am telling you. Accept or do not, you have been informed, and I have no intention of turning this assertion of plain fact, into a discussion.
-Nearyn
You have an interesting discussion style Nearyn - as much as I would like to take your word as the gospel you make it difficult. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am talking about the whole impact not just the mechanical descriptors.
You and Ashiel are of the opinion that alignment change is nothing more than a tag to determine whether key spells and abilities effect a person. I and many others think it is a method of determining how a character should roleplay their character. that debate can go on until eternity.
Ashiel has absolutely said that curses that change alignment should have no effect on determining a characters actions. He has kindly repeated it above. Curses and forced alignment change obviously doesn't follow the normal guidelines for alignment otherwise it wouldn't be a curse or forced change.
if you believe a character using a cursed mace and suffering alignment change to chaotic evil who spends his time healing the sick and feeding the hungry in order to change back is good roleplaying then you are playing a very different game to me. That's your call. You are being just as holier than thou by claiming you are playing the one true pathfinder. I have repeatedly said it is a matter of choice per game group as to how this issue is resolved.
You can repeat your assertion that people who disagree with you are wrong or you can agree to disagree. I suggest you keep to your word and not discuss it any further.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless an effect explicitly states that it forces a change in behavior (like charm person, dominate or unnatural lust), then it doesn't.
At best, the effect can influence.
Consider a spell like Sow Thought. One could use that spell to make a paladin think it would be a really good idea to burn down an orphanage. More than one casting could even convince the paladin that all the orphans were actually evil Shapeshifters. It could even give the paladin the sensation of being ordered by their god to do it.
It absolutely cannot force the paladin to light the orphanage on fire. No matter what manufactured reasons or justifications exist, there is nothing in that effect that forces action.
A forced alignment change is the same way.
The influence is there, and should be role played, but the actions are still entirely up to the player.
Further, enough actions contrary to alignment changes alignment. That's how it works.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what the initial goal or justfication may be... you simply can't exist beyond your alotted span without a price. And frequently much of that price is paid by the innocent.The price of becoming a Mummy, which is a popular lich alternative for clerics and such, is holy oils, blessed linens, fragrant flowers, and so forth. In fact, it's very holy, sacred, and noble.
And then "Evil" is slapped on you because screw everyone.
Adding to this, Wizards who reach level 20 and take the Immortality Arcane Discovery don't get slapped with a "you must be Evil now" sticker.
So... the "skirting life span" theory just doesn't hold any weight.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are enough examples of things not explicitly stated in the rules where the answer is to think it through and enough magic items that are similar in function but differ in wording that including that wording in the helm isn't definitive. At this point and for a few hundred posts, I'm willing to grant that the rules can be read to say that most forced alignment shifts only affect magic or metaphysical effects and not attitude. I don't agree with that reading (which is why I prefer my reading that the alignment shift is shorthand for a change in perspective), but I think it's consistent.
Would you do me the same courtesy or show me where my reading is inconsistent? Because it's possible to have two contradictory interpretations of the rules each be consistent with the rules out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll ignore the rules for a second here, since I don't think this thread needs another person arguing for "The One True Way Supported By The Rules, God Emperor, My Grandmother And Geneva Convention", and make a meta commentary on the different ways allignment can be treated.
1) Allignment=purely mechanical attribute
Every sentient creature has an attribute called allignment, composed of two parts-chaotic/lawful and evil/good. Some spells that affect the creature act differently based on this attribute-Smite, Protection From, etc. This attribute can be changed by the actions of the creature, as per allignment rules-for example, killing innocent people for no reason shifts it closer to Evil. Since this can lead to ethical disputes, only the most direct consequences affect it-e.g. killing 10 innocent people in a ritual is Evil, even if that ritual saves 100 000 people down the road. Imagine a very naive 10y old child judging your actions.
Various creatures in the world have different allignments, for example, most undead are Evil. This is partially due to some kinds of creatures having an inherrent allignment, and partially due to them living for long enough that their allignment is stabilised in accordance with their personality-on average, they commit as many actions that shift their allignment closer to Evil as those actions that shift it closer to Good(I use Evil and Good to refer to the ends of the scale in this sentence. Even an Evil creature can get more Evil.).
In this case, if an adventurer was Good and became a lich, they would turn Evil, and then would have to do enough Good actions to shift their allignment back, or would have to constantly keep doing Good actions to keep their allignment Good because the very state of being undead slowly shifts it to Evil, or would just be Evil because no matter what undead do, they can't turn Good. Unless, of course, they invert their allignment somehow, like with that helmet you keep mentioning.
This is what Ashiel is arguing for, if I understand her correctly.
2) Allignment=shorthand for personality
Same thing-every creature has allignment, spells act differently, etc. But this time, allignment doesn't depend on actions, but rather on personality. This means that it shifts abruptly with personality changes-for example, if an adventurer got hit in the head and suffered brain damage, they might go from Good to Evil in 2 seconds flat without doing any allignment-oriented actions. This also means that someone might support 50 charities, cure kids from cancer and look like the most altruistic person in the world, but still be Evil because they are doing that to avoid taxes and are slightly selfish(they aren't actually doing any Evil actions, mind you).
Allignment can change in the same way that the personality of a person IRL can change-as in it's possible, but quite hard, and would involve some very memorable experiences. Like brain damage.
In this case, if an adventurer was Good, they probably wouldn't want to become a lich. But if they did, they would suffer an abrupt personality change to Evil. Maybe they will develop a taste for innocent infants, or something else, but now their personality is Evil.
3) Allignment=mechanical attribute associated with personality/motivation
Kinda a middleground between (1) and (2). Allignment shifts when you commit actions, but where it shifts is determined not by the kind of action(e.g. killing an innocent), but by the motivation behind that action(e.g. killing an innocent because I FLIPPING HATE EVERYTHING)
Pretty much same as (2), but allignment is continuous over time(doesn't suffer abrupt shifts), since after the personality of a person changes the person in question still has to do stuff before his allignment changes.
4) Allignment=mechanical attribute affected by a million factors.
Actions change allignment. Motivation does too. So does personality. And race. And any other factor you can imagine that might affect Allignment.
5) Allignment=personal ethical and moral views of the person, subjective
Aka "You know what? I don't like this Evil and Good business. Is there some neat pack of rules that deals with subjective philosophy instead?"
You are in luck. Google "pathfinder revised allignment", it's a google doc file.
My personal opinion is that 5>1>>>3>2>4. Vanilla allignment is a little too simple-minded for my taste, but 1-st interpretation at least lets you ignore it most of the time. 3-d interpretation implies that your personality affects wherever you are Good or not, and I don't like that, but at least it's continuous(unlike 2). Finally, 4 is pretty much pure GM fiat, so in the worst case it can be as horrible as imaginable.
No matter what the initial goal or justfication may be... you simply can't exist beyond your alotted span without a price. And frequently much of that price is paid by the innocent.The price of becoming a Mummy, which is a popular lich alternative for clerics and such, is holy oils, blessed linens, fragrant flowers, and so forth. In fact, it's very holy, sacred, and noble.
And then "Evil" is slapped on you because screw everyone.
Adding to this, Wizards who reach level 20 and take the Immortality Arcane Discovery don't get slapped with a "you must be Evil now" sticker.
So... the "skirting life span" theory just doesn't hold any weight.
Well, more, there are ways to extend your life that don't involve with replacing your life force and infusing your soul with pure entrophy (and traditionally having to commit a string of war crimes in the process).
Heh. Lichdom is one of the few ways to become undead without obliterating your prior personality (i.e., loss of feats, skills, class levels, etc.). Undeath is rough on your mind, soul, and sanity.
But then there's the matter of "what sort of person becomes a lich, anyways?" Especially in light of there being other, better routes? (Though perhaps lichdom is one of the easier routes to immortality.)
The intent for lichdom since 1E has been that you pretty much have to be a psychopath to want to go through the process in the first place.
The process has been left vague so that a GM can custom tailor it to any lich.
So that there's space for the GMs that want undead to be inherently horrifying and there's space for the GMs that want undead to simply be unsanitary X-men.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You and Ashiel are of the opinion that alignment change is nothing more than a tag to determine whether key spells and abilities effect a person. I and many others think it is a method of determining how a character should roleplay their character. that debate can go on until eternity.
First off, stop right there.
I'm of the opinion that alignment is exactly what it says it is. The alignment rules itself state that alignment only affects the way that certain mechanics interact with your character and functions as a shorthand to give a general idea of the attitude of a particular NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item. That it doesn't control how a character acts and that characters aren't even always consistent with their alignments.
Because that's exactly what it says it is. No more, no less. So no, while people can keep saying "no no no no no", there is no real debate because the answer is already known. This isn't subjective, it's objective. Unless you can present the goods (and thus far nobody has presented any goods) there is no debate.
It resembled a debate earlier in the thread, but it doesn't anymore.
Ashiel has absolutely said that curses that change alignment should have no effect on determining a characters actions. He has kindly repeated it above. Curses and forced alignment change obviously doesn't follow the normal guidelines for alignment otherwise it wouldn't be a curse or forced change.
Let me tell you a story. I once had a Paladin that was wisdom drained down to 1-3 Wisdom (I forget how much but I think it was below the minimum Wisdom that humans can have naturally). I roleplayed it as the Paladin entering a state of extreme delusion and insanity. She would stare blankly into space, act like she was interacting with objects that didn't exist, follow the party around but she just seemed very "broken" in the head somehow. This was mixed with sudden bursts of "Wait, is she all better?" only for the group to realize it was just a moment of apparent clarity that indicated that she wasn't incapable of normalcy but that it wasn't the standard.
For example, at one point the party was concerned that she might do something that was going to get her hurt or wander off in the dungeon, so they literally put a leash around her neck like an animal and had the party's Hellknight (her co-martial) be the leash-buddy. At one point the party climbed down a ladder, which she climbed down first or second. As everyone was working their way down, she held the leash's rope in one hand and gazed at it a bit before remarking "Y'know, if I wasn't ****ed in the head, this would be really demeaning.", which caused everyone to go "Wait, what?", but by that time she was out of it again.
She would have nightmares and randomly relate stuff about her (unpleasant) history with the mental and physical abuse at the hands of her mother. She'd randomly break down and cry for her daddy who spent most of her life looking for a cure for her genetic illness. She never did anything self destructive but she did act very, very, messed up.
But none of that is an actual effect of Wisdom damage or drain.
It's just how I roleplayed it, loosely basing it off the notion that low Wisdom is often associated with insanity and mental instability. By choice. Because it's my choice. I could have roleplayed it completely differently, and if I didn't choose to roleplay the minor penalties of the drain I still wouldn't have been doing anything wrong.
Alignment is the exact same way. I could roleplay it however I want. It's entirely the right of the player of the character, PC or NPC, and how they want to run it. It is no less wrong to roleplay it as a magic item or template or whatever had an initially corrupting effect on the character which tainted them with evil but had no effect on who they actually are, as it is for your character to suddenly have a deep desire to go around kicking infants and act on that.
if you believe a character using a cursed mace and suffering alignment change to chaotic evil who spends his time healing the sick and feeding the hungry in order to change back is good roleplaying then you are playing a very different game to me. That's your call. You are being just as holier than thou by claiming you are playing the one true pathfinder. I have repeatedly said it is a matter of choice per game group as to how this issue is resolved.
Is it not ironic that in the same metaphorical breath that you try to dictate what is the proper way to roleplay, you claim the person you are remarking to be "holier than thou"? When all we've said is "alignment does X, nothing more, nothing less" and then leave it to the individual to do with as they want.
Yet we've been called powergamers in a derogative way, accused of only arguing this because we want to play undead creatures for more mechanical power, been accused of having no common sense, been accused of being bad roleplayers, been told that we're not roleplaying correctly, and all from people who just seem to think that they have the authority to dictate this without actually backing it up with the rules of the game. Literally telling us that not only are we super badwrong but that we should accept that this is the way the game is supposed to be run on their word alone rather than the actual rules of the game.
Given the options of being "holier than thou" and what appears to be the alternative, the grass is green enough over here for me, thanks.
You have just given a good example of how you roleplayed wis 1-3. That is exactly what I think people should do if they can.
I also said I accept that some tables aren't fussed at all and accept that they play that way.
I once moved to a different city with work, and joined a gaming group there. It was a group of 4 that saw the game as a strategy miniatures game almost like a wargames. There was about 20 minutes roleplaying in each session that largely consisted of planning attacks. I left the game after a half dozen sessions when I realised it wouldn't change. I didn't criticise them, or insist they roleplayed - I went and found a group who played like I do.
Many of these threads attempt to find an absolute truth. In this case, as in many cases there isn't one. You see alignment as a descriptor, I and many others see it as more than that. Play at the table that fits your style. I very rarely say that people are wrong stylistically.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am.. Am I moving again?
*sigh*
Whatever, let's move over here then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have just given a good example of how you roleplayed wis 1-3. That is exactly what I think people should do if they can.
But please don't miss the underlying point. Nothing about what I did was the right way to do it. Someone else could have roleplayed it very differently, such as simply roleplaying that they're less observant or aware of their surroundings (which is true) any they would have been just as correct.
Likewise, the idea that a good character has become "tainted" by evil isn't exactly a hard pill to swallow. Being cursed with the taint of evil without actually being evil is a common trope in and of itself, and nobody, you or I, have the right to tell someone that they are doing it wrong or that they must or even how they should do it when the rules don't dictate anything about it.
There is literally nothing wrong with having a character that uses the cursed mace who suddenly becomes chaotic evil aligned continuing to act as they would normally because alignment doesn't determine actions. The curse itself is simply that their alignment no longer matches who they are. A Paladin using it suddenly falls. If they die, they're tossed into the Abyss instead of wherever they were going to go. The curse is it has clearly made them for all game effects Chaotic Evil. No where does it say that they have to act in keeping or even like their new alignment (whereas the helm of opposite alignment is a special snowflake).
It's entirely up to the individual as to whether or not they want to roleplay their character differently after the change or whether their characters are simply good people that have been cursed with the blight of evil on their souls.
It's not for anyone except the individual to decide.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR of Ashiel's point: It's okay to say alignment/undead/smurfs are objective and absolute. It's not okay to say they are always absolute according to the rules. Because they aren't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, the rules are the law. Everything not governed by the rules is fair game. This gives us a lot of flexibility and creative freedom with characters, so before anyone tells anyone that they can't, shouldn't, wouldn't, or whatever, back it up or shut it up. It's that simple.
If a player was turned into a ghoul and they decided...
1) To react with horror at the monster they have become and cry a lot when they eat corpses.
2) Decide to embrace the darkness and go around killing people to eat.
3) Decide that they'll make the best of their circumstances and suck it up.
4) Decide that they actually like being a ghoul and this undead thing isn't what they expected but keep being a good person.
5) Decide that they have become an abomination and commit suicide.
6) Plead with their allies to find some way to restore them to their living selves.
7) Decide the bad guys made a really bad decision turning them into a ghoul and now run off to enact some vigilante justice on those idiots.
8) Decide they're a good person but are suddenly having dark urges and occasionally slip further towards neutral and then towards evil by the temptation.
9) Are mostly concerned about how the rest of society is going to view them and if they can still get a date with any regularity.
10) Realize that joking "you're so adorable I could just eat you up" would be really awkward now.
11) Decide that being a ghoul has opened their eyes to another side of things and that they themselves will attempt to be a walking PR icon for sentient undead everywhere.
12) Seek out and destroy the one who did this to them out of a lust for vengeance.
13) Attempt to write the closest thing to a vegan cookbook for ghouls that they can concoct, or become the world's greatest ghoul chef.
14) Decide to remain a ghoul because it's helpful to their party to have a guy who can walk into the room with the poison gas to retrieve the McGuffin or serve as their nightly watchman.
15) Try to convince the rest of the party that this ghoul thing is actually really cool and they should turn to, and then piss and moan about how the party actually hates them when they decline.
16) Doesn't really care and kicks in the door to find the next beholder to smite.
17) Decides to go out on a quest to find answers to new questions about life and unlife they never considered before and become a philosopher.
...
...
...
...
...
Ad infinitum.
None of these are wrong. None of these are right. These are simply ideas. All of which are valid. They aren't even mutually exclusive. You could recoil in horror and cry about your first feeding, plead to find a cure, later realize it's not that bad, come to terms with yourself, realize that the world's bigger than you know, try to find others like yourself, find others like yourself, try to start a pro-ghoul PR group, become a philosopher chef that eats beholders with a hatred of wooden doors, and suggest the party should totally join your new ghoul cult.
10) Realize that joking "you're so adorable I could just eat you up" would be really awkward now.
Reminds me of
Ms Lovett: Oh, Mr. Todd, I'm so happy
I could eat you up, I really could
Do you think it's unreasonable for a GM to say the transformed character is now an NPC? What about leaving the character as a PC but ruling out some of these options?
If your answer to the second one is that it's reasonable, I have no fundamental disagreement with your perspective. If it's that the GM is unreasonable, just one more question to elucidate the differences in our perspectives. When a PC is charmed by a villain, would you bat an eye at them killing that villain in their sleep if the PC had previously been a team player? I ask because I see the transformation, the forced alignment shift, and charming as ways that a character's perspective can change without the player's deciding to do so.
All of this is setting aside a GM's authority to change rules in Rule Zero.
Explanatory aside: I agree that the taint of evil that you're describing is a relatively common trope. I just think if they were going for that it would look like a broader infernal healing rather than a stripped down helm of opposite alignment. Since this isn't really provable or common enough to be a big deal, I'm saying this to clarify why I think the attitude shift is the natural reading as opposed to your "tainted" interpretation. I took more issue with your list of approaches by people who disagree with your interpretation than I probably should have. I probably should have read it with a wink since tone is difficult on the internet. :-)
"A humanoid who dies of ghoul fever rises as a ghoul at the next midnight. A humanoid who becomes a ghoul in this way retains none of the abilities it possessed in life. It is not under the control of any other ghouls, but it hungers for the flesh of the living and behaves like a normal ghoul in all respects."
That is the ghoul fever rule in the bestiary. If your player character is a ghoul with DM permission you are off the reservation rules wise - anything is fair game.
"A humanoid who dies of ghoul fever rises as a ghoul at the next midnight. A humanoid who becomes a ghoul in this way retains none of the abilities it possessed in life. It is not under the control of any other ghouls, but it hungers for the flesh of the living and behaves like a normal ghoul in all respects."
That is the ghoul fever rule in the bestiary. If your player character is a ghoul with DM permission you are off the reservation rules wise - anything is fair game.
True, but I don't think it's materially different from that interpretation for undead or other monsters that keep memories. I'm betting Ashiel chose ghouls because of a good list of joke reactions.
Getting Ghoul Fever is not the only way to turn into a ghoul, and wasn't even mentioned. The Ghoul Fever entry specifies "A humanoid who becomes a ghoul in this way..."
If you become a ghoul through a casting of create undead, there is no reason to believe the same would apply. So it is perfectly feasible for a player to play a ghouled character.
-Nearyn
Getting Ghoul Fever is not the only way to turn into a ghoul, and wasn't even mentioned. The Ghoul Fever entry specifies "A humanoid who becomes a ghoul in this way..."
If you become a ghoul through a casting of create undead, there is no reason to believe the same would apply. So it is perfectly feasable for a player to play a ghouled character.
-Nearyn
Kind of a hair splitting arguement there. What about a disease makes it more likely that the personality changes than say, being crafted from black necromancy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of a hair splitting arguement there. What about a disease makes it more likely that the personality changes than say, being crafted from black necromancy?
What you call hair splitting, I call paying attention to the words of the game, and playing by the rules.
And just to provide you with a potential in-world explanation:
Ghoul Fever... is a disease.
Create Undead... is a necromantic ritual performed at night, by a caster spending a full hour weaving eldricht sigils and chanting ominously, in a ritual during which a clay jar full of grave dirt, and an onyx gem of variable value(that is based on the HD of the creature you're attempting to raise), is destroyed to provide the catalyst for the spell to work.
If the rules themselves aren't enough for you, maybe that difference provides you with what justification you'd need? =]
-Nearyn
Like i said, hair splitting.
You must be a riot to game with.
Naeryn: Are you saying you could animate a ghoul PC with create undead to play as a ghoul in a standard game without some special dispensation from the GM, including continuing to gain class levels?
You are saying that is possible under the rules?
You must be a riot to game with.You are arguing on an Internet forum. Don't cast stones.
Far as I'm concerned the stone throwing started right about here
If you want to tell a more complex story, ignore any "always evil" undead or otherwise, in favour of characters that have depth and personality instead of just a (stereo)type.
That vaguely concealed contempt for playing rong continued since then, picked up by Ashiel and Nearyn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last time. We've already gone over why alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Those are ways people who end up with those alignments act.
If alignment was prescriptive it would be in-born and utterly impossible to change through actions- someone with a particular alignment simply would never act in a way opposing their starting alignment, and no change would ever occur.
Wrong... it's why change is appropriately rare. As it should be. A creature of a given alignment will tend to stay in that alignment pending a major influence or moment of epiphany. Buddy's father in "ELF" would have ended his days on the "Naughty List" if it had not been for the influence of his newly discovered son. That's pretty much clear from the characterisation.
A forced alignment change is a reformat of the basics of your being. As much as it was when Angel became Angelus and vice versa.
Naeryn: Are you saying you could animate a ghoul PC with create undead to play as a ghoul in a standard game without some special dispensation from the GM, including continuing to gain class levels?
You are saying that is possible under the rules?
It is absolutely possible to continue playing a character, that has been animated with create undead. I'd personally like my GM's cooperation in the matter, since there is no ghoul template - meaning I'd rely on my GM and myself adjusting my newly ghouled character with the rules found in the bestiary, which include adding class-levels to monsters.
I cannot say if you would count that as "special dispensation", but it is very much within the rules of the game. =]
-Nearyn