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: April 30, 2004, 10:36:41 AM »

I only just noticed this.
On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
She's going to be burned alive.  I'd say leaving her (or anyone) to that fate should absolutely lower Virtue.  Cutting her down and killing her quickly, no; letting her die by torture, yes.

Much embarassment as Ding0 realises this is already how it works. I'm not sure what I was talking about earlier on, sorry everyone...
Posted by: Zandilar
« on: April 30, 2004, 08:15:00 AM »

Heya,

On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
She's going to be burned alive.  I'd say leaving her (or anyone) to that fate should absolutely lower Virtue.  Cutting her down and killing her quickly, no; letting her die by torture, yes.
Which is another reason Keldorn's reaction to Viconia seems out-of-character to me.
There's also the fact that she's about to be executed by an evil cleric yelling about an evil god (Beshaba).  "Kill them all and let Torm sort them out" might be an understandable reaction, but not, "Stand back and let her be burned alive by a mob in the name of an evil god."

Burning at the stake was not a nice way to go, because it was frightening in the extreme for the person being burned... But... generally speaking the poor person looses consciousness and dies due to smoke inhalation very quickly... So they're really not being burned alive.

However, I'd agree with the idea that leaving her to die that way would be a hit against virtue - and Keldorn would be all for bringing Viconia before a judge, and letting them deal with her - being as Torm is pretty chummy with Tyr, rather than letting Behsabans (of all people!) take "justice" into their own bloodied hands. (Beshaba is the Maid of Misfortune, the goddess of bad luck, she has nothing to do with justice!)

Posted by: Kish
« on: April 29, 2004, 03:25:00 PM »

On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
She's going to be burned alive.  I'd say leaving her (or anyone) to that fate should absolutely lower Virtue.  Cutting her down and killing her quickly, no; letting her die by torture, yes.
Which is another reason Keldorn's reaction to Viconia seems out-of-character to me.
There's also the fact that she's about to be executed by an evil cleric yelling about an evil god (Beshaba).  "Kill them all and let Torm sort them out" might be an understandable reaction, but not, "Stand back and let her be burned alive by a mob in the name of an evil god."
Posted by: neriana
« on: April 29, 2004, 03:19:38 PM »

On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
She's going to be burned alive.  I'd say leaving her (or anyone) to that fate should absolutely lower Virtue.  Cutting her down and killing her quickly, no; letting her die by torture, yes.
Which is another reason Keldorn's reaction to Viconia seems out-of-character to me.

Beholders and illithids are from another plane. The only reason they come to Faerun is to kill, dominate, do other evil stuff, right? Unless they're summoned like that poor beholder guarding the chest. Besides, and maybe more importantly, they try to kill you first. I don't think killing anything that's automatically red-circled is wrong. The Underdark quest for body parts raises a moral quandary, but since you could wander into the various lairs and get attacked anyway, I don't know how it could affect Virtue.

A person's alignment could be evil, but if s/he doesn't attack you or DO anything that you absolutely know of that warrants death (i.e., the guy who killed the halfling boy), killing him/her is still wrong. A person's alignment may be good, but if s/he attacks you, defending yourself is not wrong.
Posted by: Kish
« on: April 29, 2004, 03:01:52 PM »

I only just noticed this.
On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
She's going to be burned alive.  I'd say leaving her (or anyone) to that fate should absolutely lower Virtue.  Cutting her down and killing her quickly, no; letting her die by torture, yes.
Posted by: discharger12
« on: April 21, 2004, 03:25:37 PM »

But you're going to kill.  So by that logic the creature is equally able to attack you.

heh, well I did say it was an idea.

Posted by: Cybersquirt
« on: April 21, 2004, 02:02:36 AM »

But you're going to kill.  So by that logic the creature is equally able to attack you.
Posted by: discharger12
« on: April 20, 2004, 06:49:25 PM »

Now that I look at it, I guess it is oxymoronic..  :P

I guess for 'virtue stays the same' I would change it to "you talk to a creature who you can tell is going to kill"

That better?
Posted by: Kish
« on: April 20, 2004, 06:38:59 PM »

I have my own little ideas on virtue.

Your virtue stays the same is

-you spot an evil creature such as a beholder, ogre, minotaur, shadow, etc. who you know would strike at someone in an instant *

Your virtue goes lower if

-You kill a creature regardless if it is nice, or evil, but because of its race

These seem oxymoronic, presuming that when you say "spot" you mean "spot and kill out of hand.".
Posted by: discharger12
« on: April 20, 2004, 06:35:10 PM »

I have my own little ideas on virtue.

Your virtue stays the same is

-someone attacks you and you defend yourself

-you spot an evil creature such as a beholder, ogre, minotaur, shadow, etc. who you know would strike at someone in an instant *

-a creature is plotting to kill (such as the skinner)

Your virtue goes lower if

-you kill a good creature (obviously)

-you kill a creature whether good or bad, and you know it won't kill/hurt anything

-You kill a creature regardless if it is nice, or evil, but because of its race

* Of course minotaurs and ogres can be nice, as you see in Umar Hills, but this is quite unusual, and also the other ogre in the 'Gong quest' But a creature like a shadow is obviously not going to be a good creature. I mean, if you are a shadow your soul has to be evil.
Posted by: jester
« on: April 20, 2004, 01:59:36 PM »

I am trying a different angle to highlight my prob. Virtue changes in two possibel ways (not how they are scripted behind the scene, but as they appear to work for the player):

Very simplified Viconia sequence (numbers are made up to show my point):

-Free her (burning her is evil) virtue +1
-Let the b**** burn (there you have it) virtue -1
or
-Sorry, you had it coming (she is evil and a drow like the UN folks) virtue +/- 0

The 'only net change shows' concept:

-Defending yourself against zealots during the act: +/-0 (or should nullify any virtue hit from killing those opponents, because you should have the right to defend yourself, without Aikido being properly implemented)
-Freeing someone from certain death and injustice: virtue +5
-Freeing someone evil -2
-Freeing a drow -2
-net change virtue +1 ( obviously corresponding to choices one and three from the simplified example)

For the drow city this would mean that the net change would weigh any good reasons for doing so that justify the means against the virtue hits you get for the mere act, which could be very tricky given the fact that I have been walking into every place on a map pillaging it so far (even as a paladin). So why I have to slaughter them is a touchy point to define.

For my liking even killing Firkraag or the Shadow dragon could be debatable, because you do not have to kill them to fullfill the quest. I am not saying that none of this is tempting, but you would end up bouncing between the netral and lower good range in game for doing everything that just looks swell on your resume as an adventurer.

Posted by: Cybersquirt
« on: April 20, 2004, 12:37:29 PM »

Right, so you don't need to clear out either the Beholder nest or the Drow city, even though they'll both attack you given the chance.
Well, yeah, you're pretty much invading them.  With the exception of the drow, whom you're merely infiltrating for the purposes of recovering the dragon eggs.  You can leave all places alive.

Quote
Quote
Beholder, Kuo-Tao, etc, are more easily demonized because they seem to lack language.  Ultimately, I guess, what makes a monster a monster is in lacking the ability to change; lacking reason, wisdom, and ultimately, capacity for compassion.  Feel free to expand on or contract this - you bring up an interesting point.
The Drow we meet in Ust Natha don't seem to be particulary compassionate from what I've seen. Granted, there are good Drow, but we also see Beholders that certainly aren't evil...see Spectator Beholder. Or, so I don't have to rely on an awful joke for my argument, the Monstrous Manual also lists non-evil Beholder-kin.
With regards to language, it also says: "All beholders speak their own language, which is also understood by all beholder-kin."
the operative word was 'seem' in the first sentance.  The drow aren't taught compassion, it is true, but what does (even an unmodded) Solaufein display?  The capacity.. it doesn't necessarily have to be realized.  We put murderers in jail daily in hopes of reforming them - not the best example, based on the current system, but that's the idea ..second to putting them somewhere they couldn't bother us.

Quote
Quote
Then, if we want to step outside the BG game world and view traditional monsters in a different light, et's start with the drow: The only thing we see in this drow city is adults.  How reasonable is this?  They certainly have children?  They included a few examples of drow who did not feel as other, perhaps more wicked, drow did - Solaufein and Phaere, even the worshippers of Vhaerun and possibly Jarlaxe.  They are all murderous drow with no capacity or capabilty to change, perhaps leave?
And what says this isn't the case with the numerous Kua-Toa, Beholdes, Illithids, and whatever else you happen to slaughter?
Never said it wasn't.. I was trying to narrow my focus.  I'm arguing for a group of humanoids that I feel I can ascribe the same traits a human has.  Besides, I'm the one saying we don't have to slaughter anything, remember?

Quote
Quote
But one thing I will say - no matter how many times I play that through I still can't bring myself to corrupt that Kuo-Toan pool.  That would effectively kill their race, as well as being an optional act.
This is where it gets sketchy, because this sort of genocide certainly isn't very nice.
Now I'm confused.  They are both acts designed to wipe out a group of people; where's the line?

Quote
Quote
Is this your attempt at gauging the reactions?
You mean players' reactions? I love gauging reactions, not so I can mod by democracy, but to see all the alternative viewpoints and reassess for myself.
mod by democracy.. jesus, you guys use that term like it's profane.  The rest of the statement I can, at least, respect; yes, the players reactions.  :)

Quote
Quote
I didn't realize that the PC gets a virtue increase for freeing Viconia, I assume they get a virtue decrease for letting her burn?  ...what was the question again?
I haven't implemented a Virtue penalty for letting her die. Yay, time to expand the discussion. Viconia is being killed because she is a drow, not based on any past actions. Saving her from this fate is virtuous. On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.
Then why does saving her raise it?  Seems like a big contradiction.  Saving her from false justice is virtuous leaving her to burn is not.  If you really want to go the evil route, I'm sure you know that the fanatics are evil as well.  So what makes her evil any greater than theirs?  This would go double if taking the unimplemented lycanthropy into account.
Posted by: SimDing0™
« on: April 20, 2004, 10:57:19 AM »

Right.  ;) Which is why their alignment is prob not LG and their virtue wouldn't be close to any ranger and paladin. Just because they do it does not make you any more virtuous doing it yourself, I think.
Right, but I'm saying that they're not so different from all the other monsters you go and slaughter when you don't have to. It's probably not virtuous, but it's pretty presumptuous to slap a massive Virtue hit on for it.

Quote
Obviously it is your mod, hence your call, but a discussion can highlight the reasoning behind some decisions.
I am strongly opposed to a "IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY MOD GO MAKE YOUR OWN, N00B" philosophy. If you don't agree with something, please continue to point it out. :)
Posted by: jester
« on: April 20, 2004, 09:26:26 AM »

Humanoid (cheap try to include humanoid races discovered after we made contact) races seem to have a tendency to refrain from killing anything that resembles them closely (pets are not included in this ranking).
The drow don't seem to have any problem killing you if they find out who you are.

Right.  ;) Which is why their alignment is prob not LG and their virtue wouldn't be close to any ranger and paladin. Just because they do it does not make you any more virtuous doing it yourself, I think. Obviously it is your mod, hence your call, but a discussion can highlight the reasoning behind some decisions. Since the question of ethics is a huge thing to tackle in any philosophical discussion, I do not think that it is a particular shortcoming not to agree in many points here. I value the Virtue component as the quintessential addition to BG, without it alignment doesn't make any sense and is a mere label which allows the 'good' guys to stand as what they are no matter how vile their deeds.
Posted by: SimDing0™
« on: April 20, 2004, 08:46:47 AM »

Humanoid (cheap try to include humanoid races discovered after we made contact) races seem to have a tendency to refrain from killing anything that resembles them closely (pets are not included in this ranking).
The drow don't seem to have any problem killing you if they find out who you are.

Just to get the game stuff out of the way: The beholder dungeon doesn't really need to be cleaned out, you get the prize from the first beholder you meet.  Conversely, you don't clean it out you miss an experience farm. You, then, don't need to clean out any dungeon because Andalon will take you right to the door when you've brought your eggs to her.  Even Andalon, (LG?) doesn't wipe them out.
Right, so you don't need to clear out either the Beholder nest or the Drow city, even though they'll both attack you given the chance.

Quote
Beholder, Kuo-Tao, etc, are more easily demonized because they seem to lack language.  Ultimately, I guess, what makes a monster a monster is in lacking the ability to change; lacking reason, wisdom, and ultimately, capacity for compassion.  Feel free to expand on or contract this - you bring up an interesting point.
The Drow we meet in Ust Natha don't seem to be particulary compassionate from what I've seen. Granted, there are good Drow, but we also see Beholders that certainly aren't evil...see Spectator Beholder. Or, so I don't have to rely on an awful joke for my argument, the Monstrous Manual also lists non-evil Beholder-kin.
With regards to language, it also says: "All beholders speak their own language, which is also understood by all beholder-kin."

Quote
Then, if we want to step outside the BG game world and view traditional monsters in a different light, et's start with the drow: The only thing we see in this drow city is adults.  How reasonable is this?  They certainly have children?  They included a few examples of drow who did not feel as other, perhaps more wicked, drow did - Solaufein and Phaere, even  the worshippers of Vhaerun and possibly Jarlaxe.  They are all murderous drow with no capacity or capabilty to change, perhaps leave?
And what says this isn't the case with the numerous Kua-Toa, Beholdes, Illithids, and whatever else you happen to slaughter?

Quote
But one thing I will say - no matter how many times I play that through I still can't bring myself to corrupt that Kuo-Toan pool.  That would effectively kill their race, as well as being an optional act.
This is where it gets sketchy, because this sort of genocide certainly isn't very nice.

Quote
Is this your attempt at gauging the reactions?
You mean players' reactions? I love gauging reactions, not so I can mod by democracy, but to see all the alternative viewpoints and reassess for myself.

Quote
I didn't realize that the PC gets a virtue increase for freeing Viconia, I assume they get a virtue decrease for letting her burn?  ...what was the question again?
I haven't implemented a Virtue penalty for letting her die. Yay, time to expand the discussion. Viconia is being killed because she is a drow, not based on any past actions. Saving her from this fate is virtuous. On the other hand, she IS evil, and as such, it doesn't seem appropriate to dictate that leaving her lowers Virtue.

[EDIT] And just for clarification, Virtue v14 is NOT going to include an Improved Ust Natha component, whatever else happens. :)