ugh.
too much, i confess.
and be warned, i'm still going to go off on individual quest tangents, and those rants don't necessarily have anything to do with any extant argument. but ultimately, my overarching 'point' is (and always will be) less about whether a mod "goes too far" in any respect, and more about how few choices we are given in our gameplay, and that there must always be more, more more.
i still don't know why you suggest i ever advocated or required metagaming. you did explain to some extent, but i really don't make that connection. perhaps i have subliminal blockage. at the very least, it becomes less distinct to my mind when those who have played this game so much, and know the content so thoroughly, "pretend" that they are starting with a clean slate and don't know what's going to happen. obviously that's one of the things which roleplaying is all about. and in some respects, this entire discussion is about hindsight. or metagaming. i know you understand this, but somehow you still don't seem to think that i do. i thought that my 'what if you actively distrust your source' hypotheticals were actually skewed away from "but they turn out to be right" rhetoric (which i hope was something i never said or implied to support a point).
yes, there are a few cases where being skeptical actually informs one's choices, when one is actually being deceived, or otherwise makes a difference plot-wise. and i think it's a fault of the game [mostly because i'm an open-ended-rpg snob/purist/etc.] that there is not
far more room for active, consistent doubt and questioning. then again, i am often deluded about how much time i have on my hands IRL.
What I meant to say was that you won't know whether or not you did a good deed until you have hindsight to assist you.
but the only *deeds* i really have an issue with are the ones assigned by evil/underworld 'employers'.
i never passed judgement on the simple isolated case of a paladin killing gethras-known-to-be-evil. i passed judgement on the method (intruding on a private residence, compounded by the unfortunate/ridiculous lack of any source of information on gethras other than edwin) and (more importantly) the fact that the paladin already has to have Worked For Known or Avowed Criminals More Than Once for the deed to even be a topic for discussion in the first place.
to boil it down (yeah, right
), i don't think that a paladin should complain about taking a hit for a shady-however-justified (and justified after you have investigated in the only manner allowed/addressed by the game, which is also unfortunate) killing when they're already embroiled in the criminal underworld, however justified *that* is.
and if the real justification is only in hindsight, the paladin already has to somehow be comfortable with the arrangement of pretending to be employed by an evil criminal while actually being employed by the not-evil-but-trustworthy-how? Bloodscalp... or perhaps the paladin has also rationalized that they are only pretending to work for renal - and {multiple} layers of disloyalty/deception should definitely cause hits - reversible hits, but hits nonetheless.
(i also don't think that killing gethras should cause a permanent Fall unless it's compounding previous code violations that haven't been resolved. but i gave that input weeks ago, and probably in another thread, and i guess i should have restated it earlier.)
justification in hindsight - huzzah, you finally got to eliminate the despicable mae'var and all that - does not, imo, mean that a paladin should not suffer a small virtue hit
at least for the whole episode, because as i see it, they were forced to follow through by the Game (or by wanting to see this set of jobs through, and having no alternatives because of game design), not by the criminal 'employers' themselves. (esp. as enforced by the infuriating arkanis gath
deus ex munchkin)
i guess i see the virtue hit occurring at the slaying of gethras as being incidental. perhaps it should happen only when you either agree to work for renal, or report to mae'var and witness him performing torture and let it happen For A Good Cause (and how do you know it's going to end up being that good a cause? but you know, you ultimately 'have to' let him torture the guy to proceed with your mission)... does that make more sense? do you think hindsight references are entirely irrelevant to the questionable nature of the proceedings?
(and yes, all of my paladins bristle when visiting STHQ if they stumble on the torture room, and really have no recourse until they come back from the Underdark...)
Simply put, once more, all I'm saying is that you can't (IMO) say an act is virtuous or unvirtuous based upon who gave you the information or what their motives were.
gotcha. agreed. but i can say that working with thieves is unvirtuous overall (the best in-game excuse a paladin can have is doing a favor for yoshimo), not so much about the individual tasks they give you, but, um, it's not really setting much of an example a la the Radiant Heart, unless perhaps renal lets you bring mae'var's head to them - i wouldn't mind seeing that conclusion
.
Going after Gethras based on Edwin pointing the way is, to me, no different than going after Perth based on Golin pointing the way.
good point. i forgot all about perth. (and i've never scrutinized golin!
) it also seemed to me that everything in brynnlaw was designed/created as quickly as possible, with the festhall quest the only activity with an interesting and decently-fleshed-out variety of tactics/outcomes.
we may actually be in agreement.
more or less.
maybe this should've been PM from the getgo.
*If* you can only accept quests from confirmed do-gooders, then yes, I think 90% of quests are going to be off limits. And I think that is a logical extension of your contention that you can't justify going after Gethras without losing Virtue simply because it was Edwin who pointed him out.
yup, pretty much my miscommunication. more to it, as mentioned above. 'confirmed do-gooders' would be overstating my point, though. trust is one of the hallmarks of chivalry. (you've never met adalon or mazzy, you didn't grow up with ryan trawl, nobody told you glorious tales of the exploits of the folks in question - although the svirfneblin leader {name escapes} has nice enough things to say about adalon, i suppose...)
You said you were confining your points to Paladins, then assumed I was talking about someone LN.
{clarifying: the following is in the context of the CWs-holding-Imoen 'argument', and of course charname being a paladin}
no, i just thought that that particular logical extension you were tacking onto my argument would only apply to someone who doesn't ultimately place the greater Good above Law... since paladins can {ideally/canonically but obviously not in vanilla bg} atone for chaotic acts and not for evil ones, i think that bias is pretty straightforward.
I believe that if a Paladin can't go after Gethras or Illithids,
i never said a paladin can't do these things - i mostly took issue (and far far moreso with gethras than with raiding illithid/beholders) with how they are railroaded into carrying out the missions, or at least severely limited in how they communicate their *acceptance* of the missions. (unless for example the beholders were stumbled upon during exploration and so on and so on, but Technically that isn't a decision one makes if one bars 'metagaming' from one's mind, it'd just have to be pure coincidence/disorientation/fanatical exploration/what-have-you). and that, given the willing installation of a mod far more relevant to paladins than the other classes (imo), somebody taking exception to suffering a single virtue hit for one of a string of Criminal Undertakings, well, just seemed a touch inappropriate.
and i don't see the harm - foresighted even - in accepting a mission from ardulace, the upshot of which is clearly detrimental to an enemy of Good (and you can always detect evil on the elder orb or elder brain, and all of their intervening minions, if you're in doubt along the way), when you're actually working for adalon's benefit {and the bigger picture which that entails} in the first place.
if the disguise-as-drow/working-for-drow aspect grates on a paladin's convictions (no reason for it not to), adalon's plight can surely make it worthwhile. plus you can always intend to bring the drow to justice once you have the eggs - the eggs which are presumably the main reason you've entered ust natha to begin with. perhaps, then, that whole episode deserves a small virtue hit, since ust natha is almost certainly more of a threat than are the STs - BUT, unless you just let the demon get summoned and run rampant, it kind of seems like the good of saving the eggs outweighs: the destruction of some (or a lot of) evil "on behalf" of other evil (and said other evil ultimately suffering their own setbacks anyway...).
, then he can't justify rescuing Imoen once he finds out she did break the law (especially if you' re in the "Cowled Wizards aren't an Evil organization" camp). As far as you know, Irenicus is also lawfully imprisoned & no longer a threat, so you can't go after him either. Hence, no game.
why should even an inquisitor (anti-evil-magic, not strictly anti-magic) take at face value such an absolute law against magic use? with a very small and simple amount of investigation it's clear that they are too powerful and secretive to be given the benefit of the doubt. and even if we dismiss the cutscenes as temptations-to-metagame, the standard speculation regarding imoen's fate is "you'll probably never see her again." this is unacceptable, correct? and no representative of the CWs ever satisfies your curiosity (and the two who hint that they might/could are already obviously manipulating you). and no appellate court. and bylanna admits that in effect, "nobody watches the watchmen." and they give no indication that they support justice or follow any creed that a paladin can identify with. so after inquiring all over the city (and at jermien's house if you wish), and presumably still caring about your childhood friend, what's the excuse for writing her off?
no longer a threat? that's a laugh by any stretch. what would ever give anyone that idea?
just because i'm not in The Camp of "the CWs are an evil organization" (i take issue with the fact that that's an oversimplification, not the issue that the organization has evil
members and quite clearly {after minimal scrutiny of their operations} doesn't actively promote the greater good) does not in any way demand or entail that my paladin has to support or accept their enforcement. period. really don't believe i ever even 'implied' otherwise.
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals? mighty, mighty obvious.
I see hyperbole is only off limits for other people.
1) why should the nature of an information source ever be irrelevant, if you believe in investigating for yourself? and why would the unreliability of "many" be the invalidating circumstance?
2) i wasn't attributing those words to you. the only hyperbole to which i have objected was inflating other people's arguments to absurdity (e.g. nobody ever said paladins have to apply for permission in triplicate in order to act, but that was used as an excuse to argue "but then you'll never be able to do anything!" when the original complaint was about getting away with one shady job).
how about i utterly retract my oh-so-out-of-line spiel? better than i'm ever going to get from qwinn or 6, i'm sure.
- see the conclusion of the Tanner quest in Trademeet
or one of the Paladin stronghold quests (sometimes the girl's uncle is Evil, sometimes not)
or Madulf or Aerie or Solaufein.
sure, i was thinking too narrowly. by 'deceived' i meant 'actively deceived by your employer'. the people who blame madulf's band for the disappearances are hysterical, not sinister; nobody says "there's an ogre in the tent, go kill it"; but true, it's not technically 'too late' (in a life/death sense) when rejiek/darsidian's ruse becomes apparent (which btw is sloppily done, don't you think?). and of course i was forgetting that you can end up in windspear via the Order rather than via 'firkraag' in the CC. (and what's this about solaufein? you mean when phaere wants you to kill him? i don't recall her being deceptive; isn't she too sure of her authority for that? she's just being nasty and testing your commitment to her whim, isn't she? okay, other than not admitting to their past relationship the way s. does...)
and i certainly didn't count the randomly evil uncle paladin quest, being the only part of the entire campaign actively designed to make 'detect evil' properly useful... (as the gethras incident should also be.) and in that you're warned to use it ahead of time, it further cheapens all of the other potential uses that Ideally would AT LEAST inform one's dialogue options.
Lord Jierdan Firkraag - Evil
"I have a job for you, if you wish it."
*confront Firkraag*
. . .
"10000? That seems an awfully large sum!" etc.
i don't know what's worse - discrimination against paladins or discrimination against meaningful use of detective tactics.
So why is that when you investigate Edwin's claim & discover Gethras is Evil you suddenly can't act on it without taking a hit? We are in agreement with all the other instances where investigation lets you know whether you're right or not - why this one exception?
all right, i'll agree the hit is ill-timed, as recently speculated. and should probably only be for paladins working with thieves (and edwin). (railroading reminder - gethras is only ever home after you are following edwin's instruction, right? that deserves to be altered too. i'm assuming that wasn't a part of the Oversight changes.)
but more to the point (yours and mine! sweet unity
), the confirmation-via-detect-evil should be, if it is feasible, required to prevent a virtue hit for murder (even in addition to a hypothetical hit for Being a Pawn of Criminals)...