Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Ghreyfain
« on: July 17, 2004, 01:31:27 PM »

Please to be talking about grave robbing, not real world politics.
Posted by: nurgles_herald
« on: July 17, 2004, 10:26:58 AM »

"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D
rich + greed = bad
rich + charity = good

greed + charity = parse error

rich2 + greed 2 = politician

I'd have to say it equals a capitalistic politician.  A Socialist or Buddhist or Ascetic (even though ascetic politicians can't really exist) politician would certainly not be.
Posted by: Cybersquirt
« on: July 16, 2004, 09:31:38 AM »

"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D
rich + greed = bad
rich + charity = good

greed + charity = parse error

rich2 + greed 2 = politician
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 16, 2004, 09:06:15 AM »

Pickpocketing the guards who IIRC sometimes just carry useless gems, but sometimes scrolls they can't use, is not that bad. He probably got it at his turn at the City Gates anyway. :D Giving to the poor doesn't pay off virtue-wise. It is just market mechanics at work. ;)

I wrote a fan-fic explaining those scrolls . . .

;)
Posted by: jester
« on: July 16, 2004, 08:30:39 AM »

Pickpocketing the guards who IIRC sometimes just carry useless gems, but sometimes scrolls they can't use, is not that bad. He probably got it at his turn at the City Gates anyway. :D Giving to the poor doesn't pay off virtue-wise. It is just market mechanics at work. ;)
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 16, 2004, 04:51:47 AM »

"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D

I hate starting a new page with a post like that. :-\

Especially as "rich" pickpocket targets in BG2 are generally merchants, and you never give more than a few gold to the poor unless you count buying up your rep at the temples. It's more a case of "Take from the middle class and keep it."

Not that I'm looking to turn this into a politics thread . . .
Posted by: Caswallon
« on: July 16, 2004, 04:42:24 AM »

"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D

I hate starting a new page with a post like that. :-\
Posted by: Ghreyfain
« on: July 15, 2004, 01:14:45 PM »

I can imagine a CG character pickpocketing...

But only from bad guys.
Posted by: rreinier
« on: July 15, 2004, 03:27:21 AM »

I can imagine a CG character pickpocketing...
Posted by: Quitch
« on: July 14, 2004, 07:01:46 PM »

As I've said before, Virtue needs to allocate points depending on your current virtue.  A scale of 20 simply isn't enough to allocate them blindly.  Virtue should try level you out at the right virtue, rather than just adding and removing.  It should decide that a pickpocket is around a virtue 12, then aim to take you no lower unless you start commiting more serious crimes, etc.
Posted by: nurgles_herald
« on: July 14, 2004, 02:33:48 PM »

Whoever said you had to successfully pick-pocket someone for it to be a bad thing?  A virtue hit should incure whenever you use pick pockets, not just suceed.  However, someone brought up the very valid point of "is a pick-pocket really Neutral Evil" (which, after picking pockets many times, they would become)?  In the scenario this person set up (who I can't remember their name; sorry!), the pick pocket doesn't kill people, doesn't beat his wife, and is generally only bad in the sense that he steals things.  That doesn't sound like a neutral evil person.  So, perhaps a cap could be applied to virtue loss through pick-pocketing (you can't fall below CN etc.).
Posted by: Kish
« on: July 11, 2004, 07:29:14 PM »

I am glad you had no complaints about the second bit  (religion vs. morality) this time. :) Either I made myself clear (which is rare) or I confused you beyond any valid responses.
Yes, I understand what you mean now.

There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pockets only because it's impossible to tell when someone successfully uses Pick Pockets.
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 11, 2004, 06:01:13 PM »

You spend a great deal of time robbing the dead in BG2.

Also: There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pocket. Why should robbing the dead be more evil than robbing the living?

There should be a virtue hit for using pick-pocket on most targets.
Posted by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD
« on: July 11, 2004, 03:54:11 PM »

You spend a great deal of time robbing the dead in BG2.

Also: There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pocket. Why should robbing the dead be more evil than robbing the living?
Posted by: jester
« on: July 10, 2004, 07:31:38 PM »

Ok, I admit having been completely wrong about VG. :( I shall break his almost decaying body into pieces next time I see him. Promised. A hit for not killing Marlowe would be an overreaction even for me. :D He can still fullfill his side of the contract. For me Marlowe is still partly to blame, if he knew about the circumstances and the special requirements of this spell. He put his family in danger in my eyes for he knew his soul was save (as argued above as being useless, if taken by force), but with the slightest imagination he could always assume that VG would try to force him and hurt his  family. VG is not Louis Cipher, but Angel Heart is a good example of somebody who tries to trick his counterpart. You are right about it though and I admit it wholeheartedly. ;)

Do you get a hit for keeping her soul?

I am glad you had no complaints about the second bit  (religion vs. morality) this time. :) Either I made myself clear (which is rare) or I confused you beyond any valid responses.