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: SimDing0™
« on: September 30, 2004, 11:47:35 AM »

On the whole, checking interface commands isn't possible either, no.
Posted by: rreinier
« on: September 23, 2004, 08:30:10 AM »

True, true. I'm wondering, though, if it would be able to detect who you're targeting...
Posted by: Ieldra
« on: September 21, 2004, 04:29:48 AM »

Ding0 - I know it's impossible to check if someone pickpockets, but would it be possible to detect if the player gives a command for pickpocketing?

Just having a thought...

Even if it is possible - the command is the same for disabling a trap. You wouldn't want Virtue hits for that, would you? ::)
Posted by: rreinier
« on: September 18, 2004, 08:05:32 AM »

Ding0 - I know it's impossible to check if someone pickpockets, but would it be possible to detect if the player gives a command for pickpocketing?

Just having a thought...
Posted by: Lord Kain
« on: September 16, 2004, 09:04:40 AM »

you can be a good person an a thief. LG and CG should lose virtue but no one else.
NG and still steal but not ever be evil. Theift alone will not make one evil.
Posted by: Janneia
« on: September 16, 2004, 04:36:10 AM »

I thought it was established that NG people were no less good than LG people.  The only real difference is on the choas/law scale.

Yes. I was thinking that they would receive less of a penalty for theft because they were less concerned about the lawfulness of the ation, rather than being less concerned about the morality of the action. Sadly that re-opens the "Does Lawful mean respect for the Law" question. :)

Most people are lawful good so they can get a higher starting rep? I'm always LN, OK, so I start with 10...but I remember one of the BG1 Walkthroughs, I think, telling ppl that they should be LG so their starting rep is higher...
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 13, 2004, 09:37:52 PM »

Here's the thing:  Is the theft a means requried to achieve a good goal?  Hypothetical:  THe PC needs to kill a lich to save a town from having their souls trapped within tiny gems and made into a necklace.  Unfortunately the PC is not long out of Chateau Irenicus, and has little in the was of magical weaponry.  SO the theft becomes necessary

Are you a Terry Pratchett fan at all? There was a scene in Men at Arms where Carrot (as close to a paladin as you'll find in Pratchett) breaks into the City Armory in order to equip his men. It is necessary to do so for the good of the city. When faced with the officer in charge of the Armory, Carrot bluffs the man into giving up the weapons. It is implied that had the man flat out refused to be intimidated, Carrot would have backed down. If writing a scenario where a Paladin were forced to steal in order to accomplish a greater good, that's the model I'd probably use; a true paladin might bend his principles in order to do what had to be done, but when it came right down to it he wouldn't break them.
Posted by: Mongoose87
« on: July 13, 2004, 09:05:03 PM »

Here's the thing:  Is the theft a means requried to achieve a good goal?  Hypothetical:  THe PC needs to kill a lich to save a town from having their souls trapped within tiny gems and made into a necklace.  Unfortunately the PC is not long out of Chateau Irenicus, and has little in the was of magical weaponry.  SO the theft becomes necessary
Posted by: Cybersquirt
« on: July 13, 2004, 06:21:58 PM »

(waits for it)
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:41:59 PM »

I thought it was established that NG people were no less good than LG people.  The only real difference is on the choas/law scale.

Yes. I was thinking that they would receive less of a penalty for theft because they were less concerned about the lawfulness of the ation, rather than being less concerned about the morality of the action. Sadly that re-opens the "Does Lawful mean respect for the Law" question. :)
Posted by: rreinier
« on: July 13, 2004, 03:15:18 PM »

In fact, NG people are more good than LG people, because they are restricted by no law or code of behaviour. They only do that which is Good.
Posted by: Mongoose87
« on: July 12, 2004, 03:29:55 PM »

I thought it was established that NG people were no less good than LG people.  The only real difference is on the choas/law scale.
Posted by: jester
« on: July 12, 2004, 08:14:55 AM »

Of course this needs fine tuning, but it would make virtue even more contingent with gameplay and alignment.
Posted by: rreinier
« on: July 12, 2004, 07:58:35 AM »

Still, 3 points is a heck of a lot of Virtue to substract for simple theft, if saving an entire city from destruction only yields one point...
Posted by: BobTokyo
« on: July 12, 2004, 06:43:51 AM »

That would imply that theft actually costs more than 3 Virtue points?  :o

Or that it costs a LG person 3 points, a NG person 2 points, and a CN person 0 points. 2 for LG, 1 for NG and 0 for 2 or more steps removed from LG would also work.