Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wlmartin" data-source="post: 6494566" data-attributes="member: 6679380">Yes, that makes senseWith only a fairly small finite number of combinations it makes more sense to run it via a table rather than a series of conditional statementsSo would you say that for any given alignment combination there is a certain chance and go from thereI'd for those that are the same there is a 80% chance at same, 15% neutral and 5% opposed so Alignment combinations are the rows of my table and the 3 possible options are in columns alongside their chance, repeated for both charactersMy example below is for LE and LGSo in row A, col a we have LL, col b is L, col c is 80, col d is n, col e is 95, col f is C, col e is 100So I run a single d100, compare the number against col c, e, f sequentially until the number found and then return the value against the column to its leftHowever in row b, I have EG, so my return columns are N, E, G and their probabilities are 50, 75, 100In both cases if the result is 66, 92 for my 2 rollsIn part 1, with 66 its under 80 so the first return column hits, and L is the returnIn part 2, it hits the 2nd result and gives me G since its between 75 and 100, my last valueSo LE and LG create LG in this caseUsing my formula there is a stronger weight to Lawful in this offspring but it's adore likely to get neutral or failing that one from eitherHave I got your idea right?</blockquote>