An equal and opposite reaction

[Being]

Should the alignment and reputation of a settlement affect the alignment and reputation of it's citizen as the citizen's alignment and reputation affects the settlement?

If my character's alignment is lower than that of a settlement I join should my reputation be enhanced by the association while the settlement's reputation average is lowered by my joining?

Should my character have a reciprocal relationship by association?

Should the pure and holly be oppressed by the company of thieves? Should a villain be slightly ennobled by the company of the enlightened?

[theStormWeaver]

Interesting idea Being.

I think a slight pull for both would make sense, although it would make sense for a Settlement to be affected less by a single individual than that individual would be affected by the Settlement. Sort of like gravity between a very massive object and a relatively small one.

[Proxima Sin]

I think the spirit of alignment is being driven by character's action. The settlement's alignment is derivative from player actions.

To have that work in the opposite direction, a character's alignment be affected when they haven't taken action, doesn't feel right at first glance.

[Gaskon]

In most cases, I think the evil or chaotic alignment should prevail.

If I put a drop of ink in a glass of milk, I perceive the milk getting darker, not the ink lighter.

If I see thieves in a LG settlement, my respect for the settlement goes down, instead of my respect for the thieves going up.

In the small group association, if I see an assassin traveling with a paladin, my default assumption is that the Paladin is tainting himself, not that the assassin is striving for redemption.

After an extended interaction, I might determine that the opposite is true, but in general I think it is much easier for the evil to taint the good, than the good to elevate the evil.

[Being]

theStormWeaver wrote:

Interesting idea Being.

I think a slight pull for both would make sense, although it would make sense for a Settlement to be affected less by a single individual than that individual would be affected by the Settlement. Sort of like gravity between a very massive object and a relatively small one.

I concur. This is the model I was thinking should be.

[Being]

Gaskon wrote:

In most cases, I think the evil or chaotic alignment should prevail.

If I put a drop of ink in a glass of milk, I perceive the milk getting darker, not the ink lighter.

If I see thieves in a LG settlement, my respect for the settlement goes down, instead of my respect for the thieves going up.

In the small group association, if I see an assassin traveling with a paladin, my default assumption is that the Paladin is tainting himself, not that the assassin is striving for redemption.

After an extended interaction, I might determine that the opposite is true, but in general I think it is much easier for the evil to taint the good, than the good to elevate the evil.

Perhaps it is only my neutral disposition, but I resist the idea that evil/chaos should dominate. If I add drops of pure water to ink it does dilute that ink. If I add salt to meat the meat does taste salty and probably the salt so used would taste meaty thereafter if it could be isolated.

I think that it will be just as likely for the wicked to improve or the chaotic to trend more orderly as it would be for the pure to be sullied or the lawful to loosen up.

[Aeioun Plainsweed]

I think character action should be the most prevalent factor to define alignment. Can't remember it being any other way in the pnp either. I think the simpler the system is the less workarounds people will find to use the alignment in a non intended way.

[Harad Navar]

I think that having both affect the other is a feedback loop and not optimal. A settlement is the sum of its parts.

[Being]

astute. GJ Harad. In light of this observation, were such reciprocality decided appropriate and workable then the potential problem of self-escalating feedback loops would need a counter, a governing mechanism.

[Nihimon]

Being wrote:

Should the alignment and reputation of a settlement affect the alignment and reputation of it's citizen as the citizen's alignment and reputation affects the settlement?

This actually seems like a very lore-appropriate means of handling Core Alignment. Good idea.

[Urman]

Being wrote:

Should the alignment and reputation of a settlement affect the alignment and reputation of it's citizen as the citizen's alignment and reputation affects the settlement?

I think any such mechanisms might take place at the individual:company level, but not at the individual:settlement level. The company is the close group, the people with whom the character interacts with on a daily basis, in an unguarded setting.

When the character goes out into the rest of the settlement, he puts on his political face. Likewise, the company:settlement relationships don't sway both groups much because it's a much looser association than individual:company.

I would offer that the character's core alignment might be affected by the company alignment. If my core alignment is say LE on my off time I might usually be doing lots of LE behavior. But if I'm in a nominally LN company with a lot of LG, I might not be able to blaspheme and kick puppies as much as I could in a nice LE company.

[Shane Gifford]

I don't like Reputation being influenced by other people's actions or whatever company you're in. I'm okay with alignment being affected by your company, but I think Rep should be a very personal thing that only you can affect with your own actions.