|
Chaotic evil creatures can have friends they like and trust.
Think, Darth Maul, Alex from Clockwork Orange, Top Dollar from The Crow, or Loki from Avengers.
Now imagine they think you are their closest friend. They're still all dangerous psychopaths, but they aren't going to attack you without very good reason.
Problem is that psychopaths can easily make up their own very good reason if they feel you have betrayed them, regardless of any actual guilt.
The movie Downfall makes an excellent portraying of Hitler in his last days and you can really see why being close to a psychopath with power can be great while he wins but becomes quite lethal when things stop going his way.
That said, you can be CE without being a psychopath. And you can have friends and family that you hold dear to your heart, even when Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, you can be CE without being a psychopath. And you can have friends and family that you hold dear to your heart, even when Evil.
As a CE individual, I support this message.
Reminds me of my long standing concept for a "Good" Necromancer class, that I call "Bone Dwellers". Bone Dwellers are a branch off of most common necromancers, the main differences are they do not enslave spirits, good, evil or otherwise, nor do they make pacts with eldritch beings or dark gods.
Don't mind me, just bookmarking an idea to steal borrow eventually.
Charm explicitly makes the recipient act as a friend of the caster. Attacking and/or murdering the caster is clearly in direct conflict with being a friend or friendly to them and outside of the limits of what charm enforces.
Alignment, however, explicitly makes it clear that it does not control or limit your actions. It doesn't do anything to your character that is not purely mechanical and has no control over your actions.
Let me try one more time. This is the first sentence in the CRB section of alignment:
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
If your alignment changes, that means your "general moral and personal attitude" changes. Usually your attitude is reflected in your actions, so when they don't make sense together you work with your GM to make your alignment match your recent actions. No problem.
Sometimes your alignment changes involuntarily. When that happens, your "general moral and personal attitude" changes involuntarily. I can conceive of a character whose actions are driven entirely by a code. That character would not act differently in any way when their alignment changes. Anyone else's morals affect their actions, so if your morals changed, it should affect some of your actions. Even if that effect is just you musing "My heart has betrayed me and pushes me on to slaughter you, but I KNOW that's not me."
Otherwise the definition of alignment only applies when you choose it. That's why I think my reading is supported by the rules. I take no issue with the claim that your reading is also supported by the rules.
Don't mind me, just bookmarking an idea tostealborrow eventually.
You're free to ste-I mean "borrow" the idea to your heart's content, stick it hither, thither, change it up, dress it up, fry it up with Troll hash browns and Roc eggs and eat it, I don't care.
If you could note me somewhere as the origin of the idea though, I'd be much obliged. ;3
Actually most undead are sentient and I'd imagine even if you go with the explanation of something like planar energy from the negative energy plane warps their personalities and minds so they function too different.... then why don't outsiders possess such an immunity, they are much more eldritch beings than undead. They're immortal beings made from belief, concepts and souls. Even outsiders from the negative energy plane, effectively bits of the plane sealed in negatively powered flesh made from pure entropy itself lacks the protection that humans have when charged with negative energy.Most things immune to mind affecting that have minds are super alien and presumably don't think anything like humanoids. Undead, robots, awoken constructs, particularly weird aberrations, plants, oozes, etc.
Or some of these might just be lazy because a lot of the type doesn't have minds, and they don't bother with exceptions for the rarer creatures that do think.
Most outsiders aren't really all that weird. They are descended from mortal souls, they have to breath, they can sleep and eat. They're just immortal, highly morally/ethically specialized magical people, when you stop to think about it.
You say "eldritch" outsiders, I say "alien thought patterns or brain structure" for undead, oozes, robots (and awoken constructs).
The movie Downfall makes an excellent portraying of Hitler in his last days and you can really see why being close to a psychopath with power can be great while he wins but becomes quite lethal when things stop going his way.
You mean in Brazil because recent FBI files became uncovered/ unclassified that showed he didn't die in Germany, but escaped to Brazil. True, he died there due a revolt there, but he didn't die in Germany.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your alignment changes, that means your "general moral and personal attitude" changes. Usually your attitude is reflected in your actions, so when they don't make sense together you work with your GM to make your alignment match your recent actions. No problem.
Sometimes your alignment changes involuntarily. When that happens, your "general moral and personal attitude" changes involuntarily. I can conceive of a character whose actions are driven entirely by a code. That character would not act differently in any way when their alignment changes. Anyone else's morals affect their actions, so if your morals changed, it should affect some of your actions. Even if that effect is just you musing "My heart has betrayed me and pushes me on to slaughter you, but I KNOW that's not me."
Otherwise the definition of alignment only applies when you choose it. That's why I think my reading is supported by the rules. I take no issue with the claim that your reading is also supported by the rules.
The problem is you haven't been able to establish causation.
Which is why I keep saying it's up to the individual, as I noted before. It's up to how the individual as to how they want to play it. If they want to play it as they're essentially the same person but now tainted by the smear of evil, they can do that. If they want to play it differently, they are likewise no less wrong or right.
Alignment begins by saying its general and personal attitudes are represented by alignment, and then goes on to detail what that means in terms of how it plays out in game. It notes under no unclear circumstances that alignment is just a tool, not a straitjacket. It doesn't control your actions, it doesn't prevent your actions, and your actions can very well and frequently change your alignment if your usual mode of operation suddenly differs from your current alignment.
Once More, but with GUSTO! :D
Charm effects explicitly make you do a thing!
Alignment is at best an idea board and doesn't make you act in any way!
Thus, how the character behaves is 100+% up to them and it's not wrong in any way regardless of how they do it.
As a point of curiosity. Can someone who has been advocating the "undeath turns your alignment to evil, which changes your personality" point of view, kindly tell me how exactly they'd make that work at the table?
I'm curious how this situation plays out in your mind's eye. So I'm a player at your table, I'm playing a LG Order of the Dragon cavalier, and as I ventured into the crypt of scarlet ashes, to scout ahead of the party, I was attacked by a vampire, drained and turned. My party, noticing signs that I've had a scuffle with a vampire, decide to retreat and go shopping in the Van Hellsing armory, for the proper equipment to deal with the longfang, and rescue me, if I'm still alive.
Now you describe my character awakening, I've been turned into a vampire. The argument here is that now that I've been turned, my alignment has been changed to any evil (Let's say Neutral Evil), and this is something I should roleplay. What do you, as the GM, tell me when my character wakes up?
What is my character's personality? It has just been changed, and not by me. If my alignment changing has forced an entirely different mindset, to such an extent that I now act and think in a way that fits the bill of neutral evil, what do you say to me? I have NO way of knowing what you expect of my new personality, or how my character justifies ANYTHING. I knew how my character thought and WHY she thought what she did, before, when my character was something I had constructed. Are you going to explain an entirely new character to me? And what does my character believe the basis for her new actions and thoughts are, having been a lawful good white-knight of friendship and loyalty, no more than 1d4 days ago?
When you give the reins back to me, and say "there, now roleplay your neutral evil vampire cavalier", what have you told me that would enable me to properly portray your vision, and how long have you taken to explain this to me?
I'm asking because, as I attempt to imagine my GM telling me these things, I'm left with an impression that I would be left with not nearly enough information to properly portray and understand my character.
Thanks in advance.
-Nearyn
There are a short list of things charm makes you do.
1.) Regard them as a close friend and ally
2.) Treat attitude as friendly
3.) View all their words and actions in the best possible way
4.) Take orders if they win a Charisma check
2 has a game effect for NPCS and you could handle some of it for PCs. 3 doesn't really have an explicit game effect. 4 certainly does. I carefully selected my words to avoid situations where they give orders or have words or actions to take in the best possible way.
Friendly as an attitude has some things you tend to do, just like alignment does. Friends and allies have ways they tend to act just like alignment. But unless the non-command things you're having charm do are "include in a bless" they aren't explicit results of those attitudes, I don't know what they are. That's what I'm comparing to alignment shift.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's kind of the down side to having your alignment shift dramatically with no internal motivator. I dunno, be Eeevil whilst twisting your mustache and take as many opportunities to monologue as possible? That probably makes as much sense as anything else.
I kind of think it's a trope you really only see in tongue in cheek style games because its pretty stupid if you look at it too hard.
As a point of curiosity. Can someone who has been advocating the "undeath turns your alignment to evil, which changes your personality" point of view, kindly tell me how exactly they'd make that work at the table?
You're dead, the GM runs the NPC inhabiting your body. If you're a particularly gifted roleplayers who's down for it you could run it for him within certain criteria, but that's unlikely. Most likely your undead self flees the party or attacks them. Your options are: 1) party tracks down and kills undead, resurrects PC, or 2) roll a new character.
You're absolutely right that outside of what it says it does, it does nothing else. That is likewise my stance on alignment. Having them be your friend forces nothing that isn't an innate part of being a friend (such as not trying to kill you, as noted before). They won't volunteer to do anything they wouldn't do in their particular cases with you as a friend so outside of that limited scope of restrictions and Charisma checks the player's freedom is unquestioned.
Given that alignment doesn't even have a scope of restrictions or effect on actions, we're back to the potato patch.
You're dead, the GM runs the NPC inhabiting your body. If you're a particularly gifted roleplayers who's down for it you could run it for him within certain criteria, but that's unlikely. Most likely your undead self flees the party or attacks them. Your options are: 1) party tracks down and kills undead, resurrects PC, or 2) roll a new character.
Appreciate the answer, but your answer happens to avoid the context of my question. I'm asking this because it has been made evident, that some people believe that were I to remain in control of my character, through the transformation to vampire, my personality would then be radically changed. My question asks for their clarification on how they would have that change be a thing, at their table. So this response is not really helpful.
-Nearyn
You're absolutely right that outside of what it says it does, it does nothing else. That is likewise my stance on alignment. Having them be your friend forces nothing that isn't an innate part of being a friend (such as not trying to kill you, as noted before). They won't volunteer to do anything they wouldn't do in their particular cases with you as a friend so outside of that limited scope of restrictions and Charisma checks the player's freedom is unquestioned.
Given that alignment doesn't even have a scope of restrictions or effect on actions, we're back to the potato patch.
But is that an innate part of being a friend? If you're an assassin and you have a job to kill your friend, is it clear you wouldn't do it? If you might, it's not an innate part of being a friend. If that's something you can't do because you're magic-friends rather than real-friends, the same should apply to other attitude based impositions.
You are assigning real world meaning to that word but not other words. The hard thing about alignment is it's a game of aggregates, so there's not really any single act that an evil character wouldn't do. So the GM would be unreasonable saying you can't help that orphan, but asking why and expecting an answer besides it's the right thing to do is sensible.
You're dead, the GM runs the NPC inhabiting your body. If you're a particularly gifted roleplayers who's down for it you could run it for him within certain criteria, but that's unlikely. Most likely your undead self flees the party or attacks them. Your options are: 1) party tracks down and kills undead, resurrects PC, or 2) roll a new character.Appreciate the answer, but your answer happens to avoid the context of my question. I'm asking this because it has been made evident, that some people believe that were I to remain in control of my character, through the transformation to vampire, my personality would then be radically changed. My question asks for their clarification on how they would have that change be a thing, at their table. So this response is not really helpful.
-Nearyn
Generally I would do the same as Slither D unless it is setting up a reveal and betrayal or there's an angle where the party's goals are still sensible for the vampire.
I have done a shifting alignment when someone had a ride-along ghost if you will. It gave some low level power like constant comprehend languages. It had more power, but to unlock it, you had to let him in more. As that happened I told the player what the ghost was influencing him toward and let the player handle it. If he had significantly over or under done it, I'd have let him know. Finally, when the ghost had opinions that weren't obvious, I'd let the player know.
In the circumstance you're talking about, I'd tell you you're hungry for blood, but not overwhelmingly. I'd tell you if you had a new goal you heard it. Otherwise I might say that your friends are now beneath you and mere tools, but you want to keep them in the dark about that. If it seemed like you weren't acting on that, I'd tell you and we'd talk about why you took the actions you did. If I'm letting you play the character for more than a session, though, I'd give you a lot of latitude about how you do it.
But is that an innate part of being a friend? If you're an assassin and you have a job to kill your friend, is it clear you wouldn't do it? If you might, it's not an innate part of being a friend. If that's something you can't do because you're magic-friends rather than real-friends, the same should apply to other attitude based impositions.
Yes. Because being friendly means to be non-hostile. I quoted the definition of it earlier. I don't see what you hope to accomplish by trying to twist things like you are. No, if you are going to murder your "friend" you are not being their friend and you certainly aren't being friendly.
You are assigning real world meaning to that word but not other words. The hard thing about alignment is it's a game of aggregates, so there's not really any single act that an evil character wouldn't do. So the GM would be unreasonable saying you can't help that orphan, but asking why and expecting an answer besides it's the right thing to do is sensible.
No, I'm not. When a thing is not defined in game terms, such as the words used to define game terms, then you use the meaning of the word. If your suggesting you cannot use real world definitions of words when they are describing the game the result is lunacy.
The opposite, however, is not the case at all. The rules go to great lengths to define exactly how things work. Charm as a game mechanic is defined differently that the meaning of the word charm, but that is specific and doesn't hinder the ability to logically work through issues.
Will you please either bring up something that isn't obviously trying to twist things into meaning something that they do not, such as with your insistence that it's friendly to try to kill your friends, to make your case? Because right now our conversation has gone like this.
You: "Alignment could change your outlook on things."
Me: "Yes."
You: "And charms can change your outlook on things."
Me: "Yes."
You: "And charms can make you act in ways you wouldn't."
Me: "Yes."
You: "And thus alignment can make you act in ways you wouldn't."
Me: "No. Because the reason charm can make you act in ways you wouldn't is because it explicitly says it can, and details the ways that it does, as an effect of the charm. Alignment does not do this."
You: "But you could attempt to kill your friend and still be friendly to them."
Me: "No, you factually cannot. The definition of friend/friendly literally involves being non-hostile towards them. Trying to kill them is in direct contradiction to that word."
You: "But you're trying to apply real life meanings to game terms!"
Me: "When those terms are not defined as being something other than real life meanings. One does, one does not."
Really, we could go around all day and night with you trying to twist words and insist that a thing does something it clearly does not, and I can continually not twist words and note that the rules do not do that.
While I have no issue with you or your desire, there is an objective correctness involved in this argument because one is factually demonstrable by the rules. The other has to step outside of the rules. One is consistent with the rules. The other is not.
I can only hope that at least this carousel is entertaining and educational to those reading it.
So the GM would be unreasonable saying you can't help that orphan, but asking why and expecting an answer besides it's the right thing to do is sensible.
"Because I wanted to." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I felt like it." is a perfectly reasonable answer."Because he reminded me of someone I knew." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because nobody else would." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because he didn't do anything to me." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because it makes me feel good." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because it makes me feel like I used to." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because it makes me feel better about myself." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because orphans need love." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I can." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I was an orphan." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I wouldn't want to be an orphan." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I think of people I care about and them being in that situation." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I imagined myself in that situation." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because I don't hate children." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because it was fun for me." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because it makes me look good." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
"Because..."
Ad infinitum once again.
EDIT: Oh, and "Because it's the right thing to do." is a perfectly reasonable answer.
As an individual who would best be described as having the chaotic evil alignment, I can say that I have done good things that I wouldn't be able to give you a reason for beyond "Because".
As an individual who would best be described as having the chaotic evil alignment, I can say that I have done good things that I wouldn't be able to give you a reason for beyond "Because".
I agree that evil characters might do any single action for any single reason. The way we think of abject evil in the real world that they might be good nearly all the time but torture someone once a year. All I was trying to say (with a fairly classic do-gooder exemplar rather than attempting to talk about a specific action) was that if something is forcing you to be evil (and therefore have evil morals in some way because of what the definition of alignment is) and you always do the same thing as a good character "because that's my moral code" without being clear about what it is, it seems likely that we either disagree about what it means to have an evil moral code or you are not acting according to your forcibly changed outlook.
The key here being the always.
Thing is, you're holding onto the one line that says that a creature's general moral and ethical outlook is represented by these alignments, but your alignment is a reflection of your actions. You are putting the horse before the carriage here.
Actions -> Alignment -> Outlook.
It's not some other combination.
Your actions determine your alignment. Your alignment then represents your general outlook and ethics. If your alignment changes your actions do not necessarily change unless you wish them to, in which case your alignment will naturally change back at whatever would be the normal timeframe the GM would adjust alignments for acting a certain way (or instantly with atonement).
This is why we keep butting heads on this. Alignment does not dictate anything beyond what it says it does (and that is mechanical consequences to your actions, such as being affected by dispel good).
So if you become evil, you suffer mechanical consequences of being evil. However evil people are normally evil because they do evil actions. They do not do evil actions because they are evil. So given time, a character will stop being evil if they toss that cursed mace in the garbage and continue their usual activities which don't involve kicking puppies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are putting the horse before the carriage here.
Well, yeah. Isn't that how it's usually done?
Will you please either bring up something that isn't obviously trying to twist things into meaning something that they do not, such as with your insistence that it's friendly to try to kill your friends, to make your case?
I wasn't trying to twist meaning. There are people in the game world (and potentially in the real world, as well) with sufficiently depraved morals that they would kill their closest friend for the correct payoff. Whether it's a threat to their family or money, it could happen. I would consider it a stretch to call that forcing to act outside your nature, but that extreme example could reasonably be called that stretch. But friendly in-game means I will help you if it doesn't cost me anything. So if not betraying/killing you is sufficiently costly, it's reasonable to assume that someone with the right (or wrong) values would betray you no matter how much they like you.
I realize a few of those steps were only in my head before and that maybe the "it's not personal, it's just business" wasn't enough to overcome the charm hurdle, but that was the point of that diversion. Any action can be justified with sufficient motivation.
I thought about relating how this is analogous to some determinations of whether you're being evil, but I think I have cluttered this thread enough with this disagreement.
Thing is, you're holding onto the one line that says that a creature's general moral and ethical outlook is represented by these alignments, but your alignment is a reflection of your actions. You are putting the horse before the carriage here.
Actions -> Alignment -> Outlook.
Ok, I lied about being done, but that's because you ninjaed me with something new. Where does this come from? From my perspective, Outlook -> Alignment and Outlook+Circumstances -> Actions. If you say you have a good alignment but you keep on doing bad things, you're kidding yourself. The reason alignments shift (voluntarily) in-game is either because your outlook changes or because your actions indicate you were never the right alignment in the first place. We only use actions to define alignment because they're the most honest evidence of what you actually value.
There are subsystems about making progress to alignment shifts, but they're either there to make sure the player means it or to give means for influencing an NPC's alignment. The rules even say to just let PCs shift alignment when they want and don't suggest making them act out their new alignment first.
So yes, this is the core disagreement. Is my position here unsupported by the rules?
Will you please either bring up something that isn't obviously trying to twist things into meaning something that they do not, such as with your insistence that it's friendly to try to kill your friends, to make your case?I wasn't trying to twist meaning. There are people in the game world (and potentially in the real world, as well) with sufficiently depraved morals that they would kill their closest friend for the correct payoff. Whether it's a threat to their family or money, it could happen. I would consider it a stretch to call that forcing to act outside your nature, but that extreme example could reasonably be called that stretch. But friendly in-game means I will help you if it doesn't cost me anything. So if not betraying/killing you is sufficiently costly, it's reasonable to assume that someone with the right (or wrong) values would betray you no matter how much they like you.
And the moment they become hostile they are no longer friendly or your friends. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
You are not being friends/friendly while trying to kill somebody. Do you understand? Lack of hostility is a requisite of being a friend/friendly. The moment someone tries to attack someone else they cease being their friend and are now something else. They may re-enter the state of friendship after that but being a friend means non-hostility.
You are putting the horse before the carriage here.Well, yeah. Isn't that how it's usually done?
Yeah I typo'd. I meant it the other way around.
Generally I would do the same as Slither D unless it is setting up a reveal and betrayal or there's an angle where the party's goals are still sensible for the vampire.
I have done a shifting alignment when someone had a ride-along ghost if you will. It gave some low level power like constant comprehend languages. It had more power, but to unlock it, you had to let him in more. As that happened I told the player what the ghost was influencing him toward and let the player handle it. If he had significantly over or under done it, I'd have let him know. Finally, when the ghost had opinions that weren't obvious, I'd let the player know.
In the circumstance you're talking about, I'd tell you you're hungry for blood, but not overwhelmingly. I'd tell you if you had a new goal you heard it. Otherwise I might say that your friends are now beneath you and mere tools, but you want to keep them in the dark about that. If it seemed like you weren't acting on that, I'd tell you and we'd talk about why you took the actions you did. If I'm letting you play the character for more than a session, though, I'd give you a lot of latitude about how you do it.
I don't think you answered Nearyn's question. Or, rather, you didn't answer the question I thought Nearyn meant to ask, but I may have just misinterpreted Nearyn.
But since you're here, I'll just ask you what I (possibly erroneously) thought Nearyn wanted to know, because even if I'm wrong, I want to know too:
If you believe a character's personality and/or motivations change when they become undead, how do you decide what the new personality and/or motivations are? Regardless of whether they remain a PC or become an NPC, how do you decide their new motivations/personality/goals/whatever?
Obviously this question is within the context of your homebrew rules, since the actual game's rules doesn't have anything about it.
Good question. Here's my weaselly answer since I don't know the motivations behind every monster. If there's an actual entity behind it (the cohabiting spirit I mentioned), it has preexisting motivations. If it has an icky need (like a vampire) I would discourage them from ignoring it. If it's somehow elevated (lich, vampire, maybe a version of lycanthrope that affects your attitude when you're not transformed) they'll have a callous disregard for the uninitiated. Those last ones come from a lot of popular culture treatments of the topic.
If it's a straight alignment shift, it depends on the mechanism. Mace of Blood in my game would lead to an obsession with blood and death and an overall psychopath vibe. Helm of Opposite Alignment would either be polar opposite on something or, more interestingly, some value they have but subverted (the classic trope here is the paladin who becomes so obsessed with stamping out evil that he decides to stamp out all life or all lawbreakers no matter how trivial the offense).
That's what I would do for NPCs. For PCs, outside of it coming from an existing force (that the player decided to allow in) I would make those suggestions but let the player run with it as long as they aren't trivializing the change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I lied about being done, but that's because you ninjaed me with something new. Where does this come from? From my perspective, Outlook -> Alignment and Outlook+Circumstances -> Actions. If you say you have a good alignment but you keep on doing bad things, you're kidding yourself.Thing is, you're holding onto the one line that says that a creature's general moral and ethical outlook is represented by these alignments, but your alignment is a reflection of your actions. You are putting the horse before the carriage here.
Actions -> Alignment -> Outlook.
Well yes, because your alignment is going to change to match your new actions. Which is my point. You might be X alignment right now, but act in keeping with a different alignment frequently enough and your alignment will change.
The reason alignments shift (voluntarily) in-game is either because your outlook changes or because your actions indicate you were never the right alignment in the first place.
Except you might have been the right alignment. Right up until you decided to change. If you had been acting in accordance with a specific alignment and then over time drifted away from that alignment, you clearly were the right one before but not the right one now, and so the GM changes it.
Because that's how alignment works. Alignment doesn't control actions. Actions control alignment. Alignment is a condition of action. Sometimes that condition is changed but it doesn't change actions and actions can change it back (at whatever rate the GM typically uses, though atonement is specifically for rapid alignment swapping) unless something explicitly says otherwise.
So the mace of blood can turn you evil. It makes you mechanically evil. However it doesn't control your actions. If consistently act outside of evil, you'll stop being evil in time. How much time is up to the GM or you could just get an atonement spell in which case the time is "right now". It doesn't make you do anything, cannot make you do anything, and only changes a fundamental part of your character if you want it to.
Because it doesn't do anything else.
We only use actions to define alignment because they're the most honest evidence of what you actually value.
Everyone values good. Literally everyone would prefer that people do good for them. Even evil people would be super happy with you doing good to them all the time. But valuing good and doing good are two different things. Likewise, plenty of evil individuals probably don't value anything about evil but see it as a means to an ends or do evil things because it is convenient for them to do so. Not specifically because they value hurting, oppressing, or killing.
There are subsystems about making progress to alignment shifts, but they're either there to make sure the player means it or to give means for influencing an NPC's alignment. The rules even say to just let PCs shift alignment when they want and don't suggest making them act out their new alignment first.
Yes, indeed it does. And if they don't act in that alignment, it's going to change from that alignment again. And the game even notes that if they're frequently changing alignments left and right, chaotic neutral is a better fit.
So yes, this is the core disagreement. Is my position here unsupported by the rules?
Yes. I do believe it is indeed unsupported by the rules.
EDIT: And the reason I believe it's unsupported is because you can't actually provide something to support your claims. At best you have questioned the sentence that explains alignment being a representation of your character's outlook and ethics, but since you have not been able to provide any examples of alignment determining your actions and I have repeatedly given examples of actions being both independent of and determining of alignment, I think the rules argument is over and has been over for a bit now.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to clarify MY position in this whole thing.
Where the rules do not govern, freedom reigns. It is up to the individual to roleplay their circumstances as they prefer. I actively believe it is wrong, even morally so, to try to force or browbeat people into playing a certain way when it is not part of the rules to do so.
EDIT: This applies to both players and GMs and is mutually beneficial.
I encourage you to read what the PRD has to say about changing alignment. It basically says if their actions don't match their alignment, suggest they might have the wrong alignment. Not warn them that their soul is teetering on the brink of flipping alignment. Mention that maybe their label is wrong. Maybe it wasn't always wrong, but that's because your personality changed which meant your actions changed, not because your evil actions outweighed your good ones.
And how you weigh the right thing vs personal gain is a matter of values. Or, at least, when I say values here that's part of what I mean. Evil people do evil either because they lack the willpower to do what's inconvenient or because they don't sufficiently negatively value cruelty, oppression, etc. And there's a level of hating it where they wouldn't need willpower to avoid doing it. So it's still a matter of values, just in a roundabout way.
That's not to say that actions never drive alignment (barring magical effects). A kindly king driven to terrible tools to save his kingdom might see their effectiveness and warm up to them. But that's a legitimate case of outlook changing, too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read it, repeatedly. In no cases does it say that your alignment changes the way you act. It does say that you can change your alignment to more accurately reflect how you're acting and if you're not acting in keeping with your alignment that the GM should tell you so in a friendly manner.
GM: "Hey, y'know, I really think that burning down that orphanage and enslaving everyone inside it, except those you sacrificed to paint your armor in the crimson blood of infants doesn't really fit with Neutral Good."
Player: "What's your point?"
GM: "I'm pretty sure your alignment is actually evil. Perhaps psychotically so. In fact, I think Asmodeus himself thinks you're a dick. I think that's a bit of an issue 'cause you're a cleric of the good Domain and follow a good deity."
Player: "Hmmm...what are my options?"
GM: "Well if you want to be a good guy, you should go get an atonement spell and for the love of god stop using babies to dye your clothing."
EDIT: Player: "And if I don't?"
GM: "You should probably get a new deity and stock up on protection from good spells."
And the reason I believe it's unsupported is because you can't actually provide something to support your claims. At best you have questioned the sentence that explains alignment being a representation of your character's outlook and ethics, but since you have not been able to provide any examples of alignment determining your actions and I have repeatedly given examples of actions being both independent of and determining of alignment, I think the rules argument is over and has been over for a bit now.
That's because this isn't, and never was, my claim.
Simply put, Alignment is derived from Outlook. Different outlooks can give rise to the same alignment ("alignment is not a straitjacket"), but different alignments cannot come from the actual same alignment.
When my personality changes, my alignment should change immediately to match that new personality (which might be the same alignment because there are only 9 boxes). In fact, the rules don't say there's a waiting period on alignment change ("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."). So if a player says he's changing alignment, his alignment and personality change at the same time.
The reason alignment sometimes follows actions instead of the other way around is there is leeway in alignments and nobody falls neatly into any one box. So there are some areas where my opinion is lawful and others where it's chaotic. Just because I let the kid go and pointed the guard in the wrong direction doesn't mean lawful is the wrong place for me. It's rare that one action would be enough to figure out somebody's outlook enough to say their alignment isn't the right fit. So as an outsider looking in, we can't lead the change, we have to follow it.
Edit: And in case it needs repeating again, because your personality/outlook determines your alignment, an external change in your alignment must also come with an external change to your personality. Because those are intertwined by definition. If y=f(x) and y changed, we can only conclude that x changed as well. That doesn't dictate how it changes specifically. But rejecting a change in x means you're also rejecting a change in y. There's another function of your personality (with a few more variables) that defines your actions. It's possible to end up at the same actions despite the personality change. But you should justify it to yourself and as the GM I may ask to see your work.
I've read it, repeatedly. In no cases does it say that your alignment changes the way you act. It does say that you can change your alignment to more accurately reflect how you're acting and if you're not acting in keeping with your alignment that the GM should tell you so in a friendly manner.
GM: "Hey, y'know, I really think that burning down that orphanage and enslaving everyone inside it, except those you sacrificed to paint your armor in the crimson blood of infants doesn't really fit with Neutral Good."
Player: "What's your point?"
GM: "I'm pretty sure your alignment is actually evil." (Snip)
Right. The character's alignment was evil. Otherwise he wouldn't have acted that way. We're just getting to the party late. He didn't change to evil because he killed the orphans. Whatever derangement made him decide to kill those orphans made him evil AND led to his evil actions.
Actions don't drive alignment and alignment doesn't drive actions. But they're correlated. That's because they have a common origin in the character's personality/values/whatnot.
Edit: And I hope it doesn't seem like I'm pouncing on a change in wording. I firmly believe that "is actually evil" is the right way to approach it rather than "will become evil". Your definitions up to now have struck me as thinking of alignment shift as "will become" and that's really not the way I see it or read it in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're saying is that if the character was good but is now acting evil they were evil all along? And if a character begins being good, he was good all along even though he's done nothing but evil before now?
Does. Not. Compute.
So what you're saying is that if the character was good but is now acting evil they were evil all along? And if a character begins being good, he was good all along even though he's done nothing but evil before now?
Does. Not. Compute.
No. I'm saying there's a reason his behavior changed. Whatever that reason was indicates whether he was evil all along or changed alignment at that time but it took us a while to realize.
For example, he might be evil, acting good to gain trust until he can betray us for maximum gain. If that's the case, he was evil all along.
He might instead have decided that he wanted to change his ways because he fell victim to the Care Bear Stare and started acting good. In that case, he was evil and is now good.
He might act evil on Sundays and good the rest of the week. In that case, depending on the level of things, he could be some bizarre version of neutral or something else confusing. The guidance in the CRB is that he's CN.
Without knowing the inner workings of a character's mind and soul, we have to use what evidence we have to assign him an alignment. That's his actions. If they change drastically, it's important to know whether he has truly turned over a new leaf. In that case his previous behavior is not indicative of his personality and hence isn't reflective of his true current alignment.
[He might act evil on Sundays and good the rest of the week.
As I've said before. You're not evil because you kick puppies more often then you help old ladies cross the street.
You're evil because you kick puppies. period.
Good and Evil are determined by where you draw the line at what choices you make.
For example, he might be evil, acting good to gain trust until he can betray us for maximum gain. If that's the case, he was evil all along.
Man, what an excellent deceiver. He even fool that holy smite and protection from evil spell. >_>
Okay. So at this point you're pushing a narrative which isn't supported by the rules. That's fine, we've established it's not the rules and has no game effect. That part's done, we can just focus on the value of such things as roleplay ideas.
At this point, my only beef is that such things are personal and shouldn't be pushed onto others. It's a decent place to fish for ideas but it's not law and shouldn't be enforced as such. Just like with my Paladin and her Wisdom drain.
I myself would indeed ham it up. Turning undead suddenly? F---yeah! Freak out time! Let me have some of that cake! I'm ready for my closeup!
But there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's.
[He might act evil on Sundays and good the rest of the week.As I've said before. You're not evil because you kick puppies more often then you help old ladies cross the street.
You're evil because you kick puppies. period.
Good and Evil are determined by where you draw the line at what choices you make.
Actually in Pathfinder it's more about consistency.
Edit: Similarly there is no "moral event horizon".
For example, he might be evil, acting good to gain trust until he can betray us for maximum gain. If that's the case, he was evil all along.Man, what an excellent deceiver. He even fool that holy smite and protection from evil spell. >_>
The only reason a character with these motives wouldn't have been evil from the start (on his character sheet) is if he was lying to the GM. A cleric of Asmodeus needs this to be true if he's going to play the long game. Or do you think he's at risk of becoming good and losing his spellcasting?
You say my narrative isn't supported by the rules, but there's is nowhere that says alignment is a result of actions, only code of conduct violations. All it says is a character's actions can tell you their alignment isn't right. In fact, the rules even say that a good guy who snaps and kills an innocent changed personality when they did so:
An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
I have no problem with you running it differently or believing the rules are different than what I think they are (although here I'm confident).
What brings me back are the statements that "we have established it's not the rules" because we haven't. You have said why you think it's that way and I have said why I think it's this way and we each think our evidence is conclusive. If you instead said "we have each laid out our arguments and we're at an impasse. That part is done." I'd agree. But the way you said it, if I leave that standing or continue in the conversaton, I'm left agreeing indirectly to something (admittedly inconsequential) that I don't agree with.
It takes two sides to make an argument, so I'm likely culpable of similar things, as well, but those statements (or an early one dismissively summarizing what everyone who disagrees with your position holds) are the siren's call to me.
Edit: I guess my point is, while I'm enjoying some of this exchange there are a few things I feel I need to respond to. Some of them are interesting twists and that's good. Some of them feel like words put in my mouth that I need to refute and those don't make me happy. I don't mean this as a rebuke. You seem to want to end this conversation sometimes, but those very comments are the ones I feel compelled to respond to rather than excited to respond to.
What brings me back are the statements that "we have established it's not the rules" because we haven't.
Fact: Alignment has no control over actions. Alignment is not like charm, dominate, or compulsions. Alignment doesn't prevent you from taking, or compel you to take, any course of action you decide to.
Thus, no matter how hard you try to argue, being X alignment has diddly squat to do with how your character acts except as far as you want it to.
That is the end of the rules discussion.
Everything else is wishful thinking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say my narrative isn't supported by the rules, but there's is nowhere that says alignment is a result of actions, only code of conduct violations.
But the actions specifically are the thing that change alignment from one to another.
That is the end of the rules discussion.
I'm going to leave this, but point out that it makes it very hard for me to leave alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to leave this, but point out that it makes it very hard for me to leave alone.That is the end of the rules discussion.
If you're so confident in your alternative interpretation of the rules, you need to support it with some evidence. Your argument thus far breaks down into "A, therefore A", which isn't valid.
You say my narrative isn't supported by the rules, but there's is nowhere that says alignment is a result of actions, only code of conduct violations.But the actions specifically are the thing that change alignment from one to another.
That's very close to what the rules say (from my read), but it's not actually what they say. They say that if a character acts in a way inconsistent with his alignment, talk to the player about changing what it says on the paper to match the way the character is portrayed.
The portrayal (which includes motives and the like) is what drives alignment. The actions are the most visible part of that.
You say my narrative isn't supported by the rules, but there's is nowhere that says alignment is a result of actions, only code of conduct violations.But the actions specifically are the thing that change alignment from one to another.That's very close to what the rules say (from my read), but it's not actually what they say. They say that if a character acts in a way inconsistent with his alignment, talk to the player about changing what it says on the paper to match the way the character is portrayed.
The portrayal (which includes motives and the like) is what drives alignment. The actions are the most visible part of that.
That might have some weight if alignment were purely a metagame construct- but it's not. Alignment is visible in-world. Characters know what it is, can detect it with spells, and are directly affected by it. If your assertion were true you'd also need to go back and change past events in the campaign based on the change of alignment (like losing a fight they actually won because they weren't as badly affected by a holy word, or pinging on a detect alignment spell).
Alignment change actually occurs in world, and needs an in world cause.
If you're so confident in your alternative interpretation of the rules, you need to support it with some evidence. Your argument thus far breaks down into "A, therefore A", which isn't valid.I'm going to leave this, but point out that it makes it very hard for me to leave alone.That is the end of the rules discussion.
This probably belongs in another thread, but A in this case is the part of the rules that I view as the definition of alignment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're paraphrasing as A.
I don't think there are rules that I'm ignoring. There's a lot of assertions about what things mean on both sides, but not rules. I have, in fact, quoted most of the alignment section of the rulebook in this thread to support my arguments.
The rules are silent on how to handle a character that has had their alignment changed involuntarily. I claim it's because from the definition of alignment it's clear that means their personality has changed. Others claim it means there's no change other than writing some different letters on the sheet and having magical effects that key off those letters handled differently. So to prove me wrong, either you need to show me that my definition of alignment is incompatible with the rules or that when you don't make the choice, the rules say your personality and alignment are decoupled. To prove those others wrong, I need to show that my definition is correct and the rules say that when you don't select your alignment, your personality follows it instead of the other way around.
The thing is, my goal isn't to prove those others wrong. I have made that very clear. I'm trying to show that my interpretation is valid, instead. If you believe that only one interpretation of the rules can be consistent with the rules as written, that may be equivalent, but I strongly don't believe that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's extremely hard to argue with you when you respond to criticism in that way. You're asking people to do something that's already been done, in this thread. You're saying "You've shown me the evidence, now show me the evidence!" and it's utterly baffling.