Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6605191" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would tend to say, &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp; I suppose there might be exceptions as in the case of a character who by mode of dress is strongly suggesting their alignment - for example a cleric of some deity wearing formal ecclesiastical garb - but I would argue that such overt signaling is a form of communication and exists precisely for that purposeIf it does play a role, then I would say, &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp; The target must have some moral sense of their own before they care a whit what the moral sensibilities of someone else are.&nbsp; An animal or other creature that lacks an alignment does not care what the alignment of a character is because they cannot understand the concept in the first place.I would only vary this depending on the cosmology.&nbsp; D&amp;D tends to suggest that animals are aligned with neutrality and for example Druids.&nbsp; It would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that as an exception to the normal rules, Druids do get their alignment modifiers when interacting with animals.&nbsp; Other cosmologies might have different animals explicitly aligned with different groups.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, my homebrew world tends to have lots of talking animals of the fairy tale sort, and animals are broadly predictable in their alignments (oxen and wolves tend to be lawful, cats and foxes chaotic, wolves and sharks evil, elephants and cranes good, etc.).&nbsp; In that case, if I introduced alignment based reaction modifiers, they'd probably ignore limitations of intelligence in order to make the world act appropriately.&nbsp; I would say that in 1e/2e, this is adequately handled by any charisma modifiers themselves.&nbsp; A charismatic character is intuitively disguising his true self from scrutiny, for example, a blackguard presents himself as noble to the good aligned, a good aligned person emphasizes his toleration over his sense of justice, and so forth.&nbsp;&nbsp; In 3e, this is handled by the decision to 'bluff' rather than use 'diplomacy' and the player creating appropriate social context through RP to justify the one or the other.I'd use most and least different.&nbsp; The presence of at least one person who is sympathetic will color the reaction to the whole group.&nbsp; And, yes, groups are a threat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6605191, member: 4937"] I would tend to say, "Yes." I suppose there might be exceptions as in the case of a character who by mode of dress is strongly suggesting their alignment - for example a cleric of some deity wearing formal ecclesiastical garb - but I would argue that such overt signaling is a form of communication and exists precisely for that purpose If it does play a role, then I would say, "Yes." The target must have some moral sense of their own before they care a whit what the moral sensibilities of someone else are. An animal or other creature that lacks an alignment does not care what the alignment of a character is because they cannot understand the concept in the first place. I would only vary this depending on the cosmology. D&D tends to suggest that animals are aligned with neutrality and for example Druids. It would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that as an exception to the normal rules, Druids do get their alignment modifiers when interacting with animals. Other cosmologies might have different animals explicitly aligned with different groups. For example, my homebrew world tends to have lots of talking animals of the fairy tale sort, and animals are broadly predictable in their alignments (oxen and wolves tend to be lawful, cats and foxes chaotic, wolves and sharks evil, elephants and cranes good, etc.). In that case, if I introduced alignment based reaction modifiers, they'd probably ignore limitations of intelligence in order to make the world act appropriately. I would say that in 1e/2e, this is adequately handled by any charisma modifiers themselves. A charismatic character is intuitively disguising his true self from scrutiny, for example, a blackguard presents himself as noble to the good aligned, a good aligned person emphasizes his toleration over his sense of justice, and so forth. In 3e, this is handled by the decision to 'bluff' rather than use 'diplomacy' and the player creating appropriate social context through RP to justify the one or the other. I'd use most and least different. The presence of at least one person who is sympathetic will color the reaction to the whole group. And, yes, groups are a threat. [/QUOTE]

Verification