How does alignment work in encounter reactions?

[Hriston]

Are there any first edition people out there who'd like to discuss the way alignment works in an encounter reaction check? I'm looking at the modifiers for loyalty on page 37 of the DMG and my main interest is in discussing the possibility of alignment influencing the outcome of an encounter reaction without any of the parties involved ever "knowing" the other's alignment. The Know Alignment spell refers to the caster reading the aura of the spell's target, and I'm wondering if there is an unconscious awareness of and interaction between the alignment auras of different creatures that could account for alignment playing the part in a creature's reaction that the rules seem to imply, or whether the intention is for alignment to only come into play when it is revealed through the use of alignment languages, or some other external marker, as many have suggested in the past. Another possibility that comes to mind is that these modifiers apply only to loyalty and not to encounter reactions. I'm attempting a conversion of encounter reactions for fifth edition and this has become one of the points on which I can see that there would be a variety of opinions.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character that is speaking.

There is no need to KNOW the other's alignment. The assumption is that in speaking to someone your alignment in and of itself, as well as the degree of difference between your alignment and the one you're speaking to will factor in anyway. It inherently influences how others will react to you in good or bad ways. p.43 also specifies that charisma and loyalty adjustments apply to the percentile roll for encounter reaction as if the creature were a henchman of the character speaking.

HOWEVER, note that the DMG gives a second method for encounter reactions. Flip back to p.10 and you see that Gary notes that for encounter reactions HE uses a d6 with the faces, SPADE, CLUBS, CLUBS, DIAMOND, DIAMOND, HEART along with a 3d6 roll. The first d6 is a general attitude and the 3d6 roll shows the strength of that attitude. However, he mentions nothing about using formal modifiers to that, and if you know much about the man it's almost certain he didn't have any and preferred to wing it from there. It does, however, demonstrate that the author does not himself use the far more detailed system he provides later in the book for encounter reactions.

One of the things you need to remember about 1E is that there was an EXPECTATION that every DM would simply do what he wanted with the rules anyway. If you're intent on adapting the system from p.63 then you should be including all the applicable modifiers from loyalty, even if you're not going to use loyalty in and of itself. But all the checks happen without the PC's, NPC's or monsters needing to cast spells or have formal alignment detection abilities. Alignment is just one of many potential modifiers to an otherwise very random roll.

 

[Hriston]

[MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]: I agree with everything you've said. I favor this interpretation of the rules as well because it allows alignment to operate as the rules suggest it does, rather than the other way around. There is no question in my mind that the modifiers labeled "Liege" are to apply only to reactions to a character that is speaking (in which case I intend to ask for a Charisma check), but what of the modifiers for the character's "Associated Group"? Surely, they are not speaking, and yet their alignments (at least the one that is furthest removed) are to influence the outcome of the reaction roll. This leads me to question the necessity of anyone speaking as a prerequisite to a reaction check. For example, what of the reaction of a creature with whom no communication is possible, or who reacts before a character is able to speak? Mightn't the associate modifiers still apply? Notice that the variant reaction check EGG gives on page 10 does not specify attempted communication as the reason for the check, but only uncertainty as to the creature's attitude. The outcome of "discourse" is given as only one of a number of modifiers. Monster reactions in D&D were presented in much the same way, which leads me to wonder if the text you quoted was meant as an elaboration of rules already stated more simply elsewhere, specifically calling out the addition of the Charisma modifier for the purposes of a parley.

The example on page 10 is a great example of EGG adding more randomness, and complexity, to his game. The variant is, in essence, not that different from the "official" version, however. It increases the likelihood of an "uncertain" outcome while vastly decreasing the probability of extreme hostility or friendship, but it basically fulfills the same function. I would fully expect EGG to keep playing D&D the way he always did, even while admonishing others to play AD&D by the book. And notice that he does modify the rolls. While he doesn't lay out a set of modifiers, the adjustments he makes for an "offer of tribute or favor", and "a gift" are pretty much in line with the type of modifiers he lays out elsewhere, and are probably an example of the more intuitive approach he suggests for experienced DMs after the modifiers on page 37.

 

[Hriston]

To elaborate on where I'm likely to go with this and to, hopefully, spark some discussion, I have formulated a few questions:

1. Is communication necessary for alignment to play a role?

2. Are there any other considerations that would prevent alignment from being considered? (e.g. Intelligence below 5 or lack of alignment in the creature whose reaction is being considered.)

3. Is it possible to use deception to disguise one's alignment for the purposes of a reaction check, or to cause a creature to react as if to an alignment other than the character's true alignment?

4. When applying modifiers for the Associated Group, are they cumulative in the same way that racial preferences are (i.e. using the most and least different), or do you use only the most different alignment of the group? Also, does it make sense for a creature to possibly react more negatively to a group than to just one person?

To partially answer some of my own questions, its my view that an unaligned creature would still react directly to the alignment of the speaker, as long as there was some way to communicate. Aligned creatures, however, would react to the group's alignment(s) even if no communication was possible.

 

[pemerton]

Interesting thread.

My feeling on (1) is "no" - I think that in classic D&D there is an assumption that alignment is to some extent manifest (through behaviour, choice of holy symbol, choice of companions, etc). On the other hand, the presence of the Know Alignment spell might suggest otherwise. So my feeling of "no" is perhaps contradicted by that spell.

My feeling on (2) is "yes" - creatures of no intelligence or animal intelligence probably shouldn't be affected by alignment, at least if they are themselves neutral.

My feeling on (3) is "not without difficulty" - otherwise the Assassin ability to disguise, and to learn alignment tongues, becomes even more boutique than it already is!

 

[Hriston]

Interesting thread.

Thank you!

My feeling on (1) is "no" - I think that in classic D&D there is an assumption that alignment is to some extent manifest (through behaviour, choice of holy symbol, choice of companions, etc).

Agreed, especially with regards to behavior and, perhaps, general demeanor. For me, it hearkens back to the medieval concept of the unity of goodness and beauty, and of course its opposite, the unity of evil and ugliness, and I for one like my D&D to have a medieval flavor. If the alignment of the person manifests itself outwardly, however, and that is what the reaction is in regard to, then what is to prevent someone who is skilled in such things from counterfeiting a "false" alignment? I suppose to successfully pull off such a deception some speaking would be required as I would expect for most Charisma-based abilities. But, yes, I think that an aligned creature could be expected to react to the difference in alignment between itself and another without anyone uttering a word.

On the other hand, the presence of the Know Alignment spell might suggest otherwise. So my feeling of "no" is perhaps contradicted by that spell.

I think its important to keep in mind that to have a reaction to either a difference in alignment or to someone's alignment itself in no way requires the reactor to know what the particular alignment is. I think of it in terms of getting a good or a bad feeling about a person. Of course, players themselves get these kinds of feelings about creatures their characters are having encounters with because of the way the DM describes and/or role-plays them.

The way I regard alignment in my campaigns is that it's a meta-game concept. People in the game-world don't have specific names for alignments and certainly don't use the terms we do, which are merely a convenient way for those playing the game to categorize the views, beliefs, and attitudes of characters and monsters about their relationship to the rest of the world. It would mean nothing to anyone in the game-world to identify someone as one particular alignment or another. And yet we have this spell that seems to allow a cleric to receive meta-game knowledge. I would suggest that the caster of Know Alignment is actually gleaning complex information about the target which the DM can most easily summarize by revealing the target's alignment to the caster's player. It isn't necessary to assume that such information is available to the reacting party in an encounter, but it may be that the same manifestation of alignment upon which the spell operates, i.e. the creature's aura, may be that to which at least some of the reaction is in response to. In which case, it might be even more difficult to fake your alignment.

My feeling on (2) is "yes" - creatures of no intelligence or animal intelligence probably shouldn't be affected by alignment, at least if they are themselves neutral.

I was thinking in terms of fifth edition here. Of course in first edition there are no unaligned creatures, but you seem to have gotten my point anyway. I should have said neutral. Obviously creatures who in fifth edition have been identified as unaligned could not react to any difference in alignment, but since alignment is the relationship that one has with the rest of the world, it is possible that an unaligned creature would react to the alignment of a person able to communicate with it, manifested either through words, manners, or the person's aura. A good-aligned person may give the creature a sense that its life is valued, whereas a chaotic evil person may produce the opposite response even though the creature itself has no particular alignment of its own. This is why evil creatures still have a negative reaction to a chaotic evil character.

My feeling on (3) is "not without difficulty" - otherwise the Assassin ability to disguise, and to learn alignment tongues, becomes even more boutique than it already is!

I'm glad you mentioned alignment tongues. In his discussion of alignment languages on page 24 of the DMG, EGG warns strongly against the use of alignment tongues for the purpose of initial contact, and that revealing one's alignment by such means would be perceived as a serious faux pas, even by creatures of the same alignment. It occurred to me upon reading this passage that alignment tongues weren't really put into the game for the player's to reveal their alignments, but rather for the DM to reveal the alignments of NPCs to the players when it was important for the players to trust the NPCs were acting in good faith. I suppose that the Assassin's ability to learn the tongues of other alignments is a way of turning this dynamic around, allowing the Assassin to gain trust, from an NPC or another player's character, where none should exist.

 

[Hriston]

As for #4 above, it occurred to me that to avoid the situation where a group has the possibility of incurring a worse reaction than an individual that only one modifier should be used for difference in alignment. Only the alignment that is furthest removed should be considered, whether it is that of the speaker or another party member. Does anyone else use these modifiers in this, or any other way?

 

[Hriston]

An update on my thoughts about converting all this to 5E, at the risk of going a bit off topic: After reviewing the section on Conversation Reactions in the 5E DMG, I'm leaning towards making all alignment based modifiers dependent upon communication actually taking place, that is, no reaction to alignment on sight alone. Where the alignments of associated group members would then come into it is when one of them is assisting with the speaker's Charisma check. The Advantage gained from such assistance would then be offset somewhat by any penalty incurred by a significant difference in alignment between the assisting party member and the creature whose reaction is being determined.

Any feedback on these ideas would be appreciated.

 

[pemerton]

Any feedback on these ideas would be appreciated.

Your way of handling associated alignment seems reasonable, but maybe doesn't cover the field - eg if an NPC recognises an associate's holy symbol then that should affect reactions, shouldn't it, even if the associate doesn't actually say anything?

 

[Hriston]

Your way of handling associated alignment seems reasonable, but maybe doesn't cover the field - eg if an NPC recognises an associate's holy symbol then that should affect reactions, shouldn't it, even if the associate doesn't actually say anything?

I'd be more inclined to handle this type of factor through the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, say if the NPC recognizes the symbol as belonging to a favored or despised cult. A holy symbol doesn't necessarily denote a particular alignment and could be displayed in an effort to misrepresent the beliefs of the bearer, however unlikely that may be. I think, for this reason, I'd like to keep religion and alignment separate. Religion is a recognizable thing in the game-world, while alignment operates at the meta-game level. I'd prefer that the alignment modifiers apply only when reaction to the in-game manifestation of the character's alignment is being considered, whether it's a manner of speaking, or some other way that an NPC gets a "feeling" about the character that's not dependent on having a particular set of knowledge about this or that local religion. The idea I'm going for is that alignment is the thing that produces this effect, not an object that someone happens to be holding.