You said the wrong thing. For once, I agree with you--you shouldn't Fall for what you say in a dream--but Sim disagrees.Well I know what I did, but the reason for this post was to complain that it is a tricky question to include your dreams into the virtue concept. It seems reasonable at first, because you choose your answers from a list just like during the rest of the game, but is a murder you dreamed of the same as a murder in reality ? ??? Your choice of replies does not represent anything you actually do or plan on doing during your waking hours.
"Really? But the consequences are so very real."Aware? The player is "aware" of that only if s/he assumes that what Irenicus says in a dream is to be believed--a bizarre assumption. Without the Virtue mod, the dream has no impact on anything ever, which would mean the PC is "aware" of something that isn't true, suggesting that "aware" is the wrong word.
"Your actions affect so many others than yourself."
Take this literally and it's fairly self-explanatory. Take it non-literally, and the player is still aware that the choice in the dream is going to affect who he becomes and what he does.
Incidentally, let's dig up a parallel: in the hell trials, the evil path for dealing with the Sarevok is giving in to the taint and growing angry. You're not harming anyone you wouldn't have harmed anyway, yet it's evil because you succumb to the taint.That happens while the PC is awake. It's not a dream.
Aware? The player is "aware" of that only if s/he assumes that what Irenicus says in a dream is to be believed--a bizarre assumption. Without the Virtue mod, the dream has no impact on anything ever, which would mean the PC is "aware" of something that isn't true, suggesting that "aware" is the wrong word.The player is expressing his intent to give in to the taint. Giving in to the taint is going to have consequences in the real world, because you're going to do nasty things like turning into the Slayer. Whether or not the mechanics of vanilla BG2 enforce consequences for the choice in the dream, the consequences really ARE so very real, regardless of whether the player believes Irenicus.
That happens while the PC is awake. It's not a dream.It's not real either (in fact, is the player actually awake, or is his mind just elsewhere while his body is in Suldanesselar?). And you're still operating on the assumption that it being a dream means it's insignificant. I disagree. Like I said, I think the character is making a conscious choice.
It's not real eitherWhat?
(in fact, is the player actually awake, or is his mind just elsewhere while his body is in Suldanesselar?).Either way, Sarevok remembers it happening in ToB.
What?The Hell Trials are a manifestation of your own mind, no?
Right, okay. So the consequences are "so very real" there as well. :)
And I'm still saying that this isn't a conventional dream, but one where you consciously give in to the Slayer, and one which does have real consequences. See comparison with Slayer Change dream (although you don't get any choice there).That is exactly the point. The Slayer change is something forced upon you by the void left by your stolen soul. Talking about nasty consequences of choices made during your life does not precipitate anything in the game. I could say that I will eat his underwear and kill all the kids the patch would let me, but nothing is going to happen in reality. Where are the real consequences in this second dream?
That is exactly the point. The Slayer change is something forced upon you by the void left by your stolen soul. Talking about nasty consequences of choices made during your life does not precipitate anything in the game. I could say that I will eat his underwear and kill all the kids the patch would let me, but nothing is going to happen in reality. Where are the real consequences in this second dream?You don't see any implicit consequences. So what? And these dreams aren't just any old random dreams about consequences of your actions. They seem pretty related to the taint, and indeed the plot of the game, to me.
The slayer form is your curse. Apart from the occasions where you change against your will, using your powers is optional. Falling for this is mandatory, although you could argue on a different note that it has a shapechanger component to it and you could use your new form to protect the innocent and uphold the law.The Slayer form is submission to the taint. Otherwise, it wouldn't warrant a Virtue drop any more than casting Polymorph Self would.
After all, in some real life religions, being guilty of thinking a sin is as bad as actually committing it.
Yes, you should give these religions a very high no-thank-you rating.After all, in some real life religions, being guilty of thinking a sin is as bad as actually committing it.
Yes, and that's one reason so many real-world religions are utterly ridiculous. Finding someone attractive and actually cheating on your spouse are two entirely different things in the real world.
Edit: Oh, and don't argue that virtue shouldn't be affected in dreams because nothing apparent happens. That's using meta-game knowledge. Does your character know that nothing will happen? Personally, I don't think so.
What's the difference?What's the difference between something done in a dream and something done in reality? What's the difference between a donut and a piano?
What's the difference between something done in a dream and something done in reality? What's the difference between a donut and a piano?
This = not a normal dream = taint-related dream = conscious sumbission to taint. A powerful Bhaalspawn giving in to his inner essence is going to have rather awkward consequences in the real world.
What's the difference between something done in a dream and something done in reality?
What's the difference between a donut and a piano?
Is that what I mean? Funny, it looks close to the exact opposite of what I mean. Although I must admit to being impressed by your ability to convince yourself that it makes sense that the "PC's imagination" somehow beats up Sarevok (who remembers it happening afterward), potentially gets up to five companions killed, and potentially brings Blackrazor, the Nymph Cloak, and a lot of potions out of Hell--excuse me, out of the "manifestation of the PC's imagination."What's the difference between something done in a dream and something done in reality?
You mean what's the difference between a manifestation of the PC's imagination, and a manifestation of the PC's imagination?
Your girlfriend wakes up and admits that she dreamed last night that she slept with Brad Pitt. And he was simply stunning to say the least.Your girlfriend is probably not suppressing a taint which threatens to consume her and make her sleep with every man on the planet, though.
I still think that the implementeation should be continually discussed, if something arises that is not obvious in reasoning, or at least explained.It's got to the point where I have as much fun arguing over various issues in the Virtue forum as I ever would actually playing the mod, heheh.
Your girlfriend wakes up and admits that she dreamed last night that she slept with Brad Pitt. And he was simply stunning to say the least.Your girlfriend is probably not suppressing a taint which threatens to consume her and make her sleep with every man on the planet, though.
On the other hand, I've come closest to being convinced by the argument that the player doesn't fully understand the nature of the taint until AFTER this dream, when he's witnessed the Slayer Change, etc.There is little doubt in my mind that anyone who's been through BG1 would fully understand the nature of the taint. However, I would point to this thread as compelling evidence that the PC could quite easily believe that the dream where Irenicus offers him/her power has nothing to do with the taint.
Equally, you can believe that Aerie's an ogre, yet you still get a Virtue drop for slaughtering her mercilessly. If, as I maintain, the character is making a conscious choice here, I think that failing to consider all of the possibilities is insufficient justification for it being acceptable.
But they still have consequences because of the whole taint deal.
I still think that the implementeation should be continually discussed, if something arises that is not obvious in reasoning, or at least explained.It's got to the point where I have as much fun arguing over various issues in the Virtue forum as I ever would actually playing the mod, heheh.
Same here I guess. The Aerie situation would be an understandable drop ( I cannot remember the Firkraag monsters by the way, six paladins that should blow you off the charts), but AFTER I wake up, nobody is Ctrl+Yed. Your real life actions not intentions shape your virtue. So, if you kill her fooled by that illusion you still did something wrong. There is even a legal term for this which escapes me now, but it is not applicable to the dream sequences where illusion and a real being in the scope of the dream are the same.So the Slayer Change shouldn't cause a Virtue drop? You're not acting to harm anyone.
Understanding the Bhaal taint in general is after everything you went through in BG1 quite likely, but when I play a sorcerer and Imoen is a mage and you are tortured by a powerful mage (You witnessed him practising this on you mostly), it is very conceivable that at this stage he has something mage related to offer. He cannot offer you the slayer or any connected ability, since he does not find out about this before the actual chanmge happens in the spellhold maze.On the other hand, I don't think it's much of a secret that it's your Bhaalspawn characteristics that interest Irenicus. And with this in mind, I think his stating that you're born of murder and may take power if you wish it in the same line should set alarm bells ringing that there's something beyond gaining an extra level 1 mage slot going on here.
So the Slayer Change shouldn't cause a Virtue drop? You're not acting to harm anyone.The first time you change into the Slayer, you attack your party. Whenever you undergo a voluntary Slayer change, you are quite likely to go berserk and attack everyone nearby--and if you stay in that form long enough, you feel Bhaal start to take you over. So, yes, each time you voluntarily turn into the Slayer you are either "acting to harm someone" or at least "acting with the strong and obvious likelihood of harming someone."
Giving in to the taint is going to have consequences (I say again: what is it that makes Slayer Change evil? Nothing beyond submitting to the essence within), whether or not the hundreds of people are CTRL+Yed after you wake up.
So will the Hell Trials be revised to make the PC become evil after choosing the evil path in one of them, since now you're arguing for Virtue drops for "giving in to the taint" rather than just looking at the morality of the PC's actions (which was your argument for giving the Hell Trials lesser Virtue reductions)?Nothing's going to be turning the PC evil in one swoop any time soon. But it's the difference between -1 virtue for giving in to the taint slightly, or -8 virtue for something that has serious tangible consequences (from memory, I think that's the highest drop you can get from the hell trials).
You can use the slayer to do good or at least further the good cause. I often used the slayer to open the doors to the master brain, but I had of course the intention of whacking them.You can use the slayer for "good" purposes, yet you still get a Virtue loss? I don't buy the argument that it's unstable, because the character can learn fairly quickly how much he or she can get away with while using it.
On another note, if one main objective of Virtue is to influence your party members' "happiness" then I would say that logically virtue should almost definately not be affected by the happenings of dreams because unless the PC tells his/her party what (s)he said/did in their dreams it's very unrealistic to suspect that they would know and think less of the PC because of it. I'm sure that's not Virtue's only goal but as it stands the way it deals with the issue at hand seems a bit discontinuous.Ooh, well spotted...
What do "serious tangible consequences" matter? Making an evil choice during the Hell Trials is giving in to the taint, and you argue that the lack of any consequences (other than those provided by you, of course) for saying the wrong thing in the dream is meaningless because it's "giving in to the taint."So will the Hell Trials be revised to make the PC become evil after choosing the evil path in one of them, since now you're arguing for Virtue drops for "giving in to the taint" rather than just looking at the morality of the PC's actions (which was your argument for giving the Hell Trials lesser Virtue reductions)?Nothing's going to be turning the PC evil in one swoop any time soon. But it's the difference between -1 virtue for giving in to the taint slightly, or -8 virtue for something that has serious tangible consequences (from memory, I think that's the highest drop you can get from the hell trials).
I don't buy the argument that it's unstable, because the character can learn fairly quickly how much he or she can get away with while using it.To be precise, the character will learn fairly quickly that each moment in Slayer form carries the risk of suddenly lashing out at his or her friends--assuming the character is stupid enough to try to experiment with a form which, during the first and perhaps second change, is completely uncontrollable and offers no hint that it could ever be controllable.
What do "serious tangible consequences" matter? Making an evil choice during the Hell Trials is giving in to the taint, and you argue that the lack of any consequences (other than those provided by you, of course) for saying the wrong thing in the dream is meaningless because it's "giving in to the taint."One is more serious than the other. The Virtue drops reflect this. If you want me to have the Hell Trials reflect the taint rather than the consequences, shall I have every evil path give a tiny -1 Virtue drop instead of one tailored to what you actually do?
To be precise, the character will learn fairly quickly that each moment in Slayer form carries the risk of suddenly lashing out at his or her friends--assuming the character is stupid enough to try to experiment with a form which, during the first and perhaps second change, is completely uncontrollable and offers no hint that it could ever be controllable.Oh, and what if you're soloing, by the way?
Being ruthless in the pursuit of good is a questionable concept at best.But doesn't this beg the question of the ends justifying the means?
I was referring to what was said in the previous post. Seanas' RP approach to playing a ruthless good character. :) For a wider perspective I was more thinking of the Abu-Ghraib concept.Being ruthless in the pursuit of good is a questionable concept at best.But doesn't this beg the question of the ends justifying the means?
"I deserve power because of what I am". What are you? a Bhaal spawn.. what power? Uhm.. wait, lemme think..
Okay, so if you had no CHOICE, and had to say it, fine. You get a choice in this dream.
Obviously, I'd rather you have everything reflect the PC's actions. However, in light of your stated intention to punish thoughts that involve "giving in to the taint," your management of the Hell Trials appears less than consistent.QuoteWhat do "serious tangible consequences" matter? Making an evil choice during the Hell Trials is giving in to the taint, and you argue that the lack of any consequences (other than those provided by you, of course) for saying the wrong thing in the dream is meaningless because it's "giving in to the taint."One is more serious than the other. The Virtue drops reflect this. If you want me to have the Hell Trials reflect the taint rather than the consequences, shall I have every evil path give a tiny -1 Virtue drop instead of one tailored to what you actually do?
Then, presumably, the PC is still aware of how volatile the Slayer form is. It seems to me it would be rather less than intelligent of the PC to assume that it will always be possible to change back. In any case, there are very few places in SoA where the Slayer change would not carry the risk of harming innocents (Ust Natha? Maybe, if the PC thinks Solaufein is just as evil as the other drow there, and the slaves from the surface have already been sent away...but the svirfneblin village is only a few minutes away as the Slayer runs).QuoteTo be precise, the character will learn fairly quickly that each moment in Slayer form carries the risk of suddenly lashing out at his or her friends--assuming the character is stupid enough to try to experiment with a form which, during the first and perhaps second change, is completely uncontrollable and offers no hint that it could ever be controllable.Oh, and what if you're soloing, by the way?
within BG/BG II, any time you get to choose between dialogue options (including the dream sequence in question), you get to express an intention. ergo said dream sequence is a question of morality, ergo it's a question of Virtue. QED.That would be a good argument--if every time the PC chose a power-hungry dialogue option, his/her Virtue dropped. I don't believe this is the case, however.
Obviously, I'd rather you have everything reflect the PC's actions. However, in light of your stated intention to punish thoughts that involve "giving in to the taint," your management of the Hell Trials appears less than consistent.Hmm? I don't see how giving a higher penalty for killing real things than for submitting to the taint slightly is inconsistent.
That would be a good argument--if every time the PC chose a power-hungry dialogue option, his/her Virtue dropped. I don't believe this is the case, however.Feel free to point me to other power-hungry dialogue options and I'll consider them case-by-case.
In this dream I am offered the power to kill my enemies. A mindflayer, a lich and a vampire are all on a paladin's to do list. After this dream I would be rather convinced that I can benefit from the 'power' to smite evil even if I rejected it in the second dream.Choosing the "power" option does result in immediate Meteor Swarming of a bunch of innocents though.
Choosing the "power" option does result in immediate Meteor Swarming of a bunch of innocents though.
Your girlfriend wakes up and admits that she dreamed last night that she slept with Brad Pitt. And he was simply stunning to say the least.Your girlfriend is probably not suppressing a taint which threatens to consume her and make her sleep with every man on the planet, though.
Feel free to point me to other power-hungry dialogue options and I'll consider them case-by-case.Telling Aran Linvail, "The power Irenicus promised me was denied me because your thieves attacked" or, "And the power he promised was taken with him." (For that matter, shouldn't every dialogue option where the PC chooses, "I want revenge on Irenicus" instead of, "I want to rescue Imoen" negatively impact Virtue? Rescuing Imoen is the intended motivation for a good character, revenge on Irenicus is the intended motivation for an evil one.)
"You Fall if you say you want power when you're dreaming" is certainly an awesome attempt at mincing my words. "You Fall if you say you want power when there are special circumstances involving the taint with fairly probable consequences" is a far nicer summary..It's not meant to be a paraphrase of your words. It's meant to be a summary of what you have Virtue enforcing. I do not believe for one moment that it makes sense that you are judged more harshly for what you say in a dream than for what you say in reality--but in any case, I meant that primarily for the people who have been posting, "There should be consequences because it's a choice." Of course it's a choice; I just don't see how it's more of a choice than, "Hey, chickens, Irenicus is GONNA BURN!"
And let's face it, with all the weird stuff that happens to you after dreams in BG1, it's probably fair to assume that making evil choices in unusual dreams is far more risky than telling the Umar Chickens that you want to kill Irenicus.As I said before, if making an evil choice in a dream leads to Falling you should just have every paladin Fall after a random amount of time--everyone dreams about doing less-than-pleasant things sometime.
It's meant to be a summary of what you have Virtue enforcing.But I'm telling you in no uncertain terms what I'm having Virtue enforcing. You just choose your explanation over mine.
What you're saying is that it's worse to say you want power in a dream with "probable" consequences (you haven't proven that there would be consequences yet, you've just asserted it) than honestly telling an actual, live person you want to be Lord of Murder, or purposefully hurting someone who cares about you.Yes, I've asserted that allowing the essence of the dead Lord of Murder to take over you is likely to have evil-ish consequences. Oh my god!
What the Virtue mod enforces is about what happens in the game--not about what's in your head. You can tell me that a paladin Falls for saying "I deserve power" because whenever a paladin says that there is a fairy somewhere who falls down dead, if you want; I'm looking at the effect, not the intention. (Incidentally, I wouldn't use the word "explanation," because that sounds like I'd addressing the intent, which I'm not.) I realize that you believe saying "I deserve power" there is somehow worse than saying to Jaheira, "My rightful place is as the Lord of Murder and yours is to serve as my slave." Your beliefs are not in question.QuoteIt's meant to be a summary of what you have Virtue enforcing.But I'm telling you in no uncertain terms what I'm having Virtue enforcing. You just choose your explanation over mine.
And of course... feel free to continue ignoring everything I say about the dream choice being more significant than those you cite from the rest of the game because of the influence of the taint in the situation. :)In the absence of any evidence to support the idea of the influence of the taint in the situation, thank you--I will.
Yes, I've asserted that allowing the essence of the dead Lord of Murder to take over you is likely to have evil-ish consequences.And you have asserted that saying "I deserve power" in that situation is equivalent to "allowing the essence of the dead Lord of Murder to take over you."
What you say in your head is important, but what you say to other conscious beings is not?
In usual dreams, you don't act like you would while alive, but in these you obviously do, since the dialogue gives you more than one option with which to respond.That's a big jump you got there. I don't know about you, but I generally make choices in dreams irl. (I would, in fact, contend that being lectured by the mad wizard you're pursuing to kill and being unable to respond by jumping him in midsentence is very much "not acting like the PC would while awake.")
For all intents and purposes this should be considered something other than a dream.Why?
What the Virtue mod enforces is about what happens in the game--not about what's in your head. You can tell me that a paladin Falls for saying "I deserve power" because whenever a paladin says that there is a fairy somewhere who falls down dead, if you want; I'm looking at the effect, not the intention. (Incidentally, I wouldn't use the word "explanation," because that sounds like I'd addressing the intent, which I'm not.) I realize that you believe saying "I deserve power" there is somehow worse than saying to Jaheira, "My rightful place is as the Lord of Murder and yours is to serve as my slave." Your beliefs are not in question.Shall I remove the Slayer Change virtue drop then? Since there's nothing actually happenning in the game to justify it, but merely your belief of what the result is likely to be. I see a parallel here.
In the absence of any evidence to support the idea of the influence of the taint in the situation, thank you--I will.Dreams you get shown seem fairly clearly to do with taint, ever since BG1 when you even got an ability after them.
And you have asserted that saying "I deserve power" in that situation is equivalent to "allowing the essence of the dead Lord of Murder to take over you."Yeh.
What you say in your head is important, but what you say to other conscious beings is not?If what you say in your head is more likely to have grave consequences.
In a dream, even as lucid as yours, how can you assume all these people are innocents and not wolfweres or think about the commoners in Pai'Nai's lair.The woman Irenicus talks about is described fairly thoroughly as someone not deserving of death. The others are fairly likely to be similar.
I was not arguing that the choice shouldn't make you fall, if it is not OOC to assume you know what you are deciding upon.Taken from a purely in-character perspective, having a weird dream is something to be treated carefully, given that the player knows he got abilities after dreams in BG1. Now, if the player gets a Virtue drop for rushing forward and killing Aerie without thinking, it seems reasonable to say that he should get one for accepting the power of the taint (which, as I said, is fairly clearly what Irenicus offers you in the dream, given that me mentions your heritage and so on in the same breath, and has already expressed a similar interest) without giving full consideration to the consequences (a bunch of commonners getting napalmed, which is fairly representative of bad stuff happenning even if not taken literally).
Shall I remove the Slayer Change virtue drop then? Since there's nothing actually happenning in the game to justify it, but merely your belief of what the result is likely to be.Nothing? Going berserk and attacking your friends=nothing?
Dreams you get shown? That's an entirely OOC consideration. The PC has no way of knowing whether the player can see his/her dreams, unless you contend that the PC never dreams without the dream appearing on the screen and having to do with the taint.QuoteIn the absence of any evidence to support the idea of the influence of the taint in the situation, thank you--I will.Dreams you get shown seem fairly clearly to do with taint, ever since BG1 when you even got an ability after them.
Nothing? Going berserk and attacking your friends=nothing?Didn't happen to me. You assert it as a likely consequence.
That's an entirely OOC consideration. The PC has no way of knowing whether the player can see his/her dreams, unless you contend that the PC never dreams without the dream appearing on the screen and having to do with the taint.My exact point is that the PC probably does dream aside from those we're shown, which means those we ARE shown must have some relevance to the story.
Nor is it "fairly clear" even from an OOC perspective. The dream could be sent by Irenicus, or it could be meant to show what's going on inside the PC's head. The fact that all six shown dreams in BG1 were about developing Bhaal powers is not evidence that every dream that ever appears on the screen will be about being a child of Bhaal.If all previous dreams are about being a child of Bhaal, isn't it fair to assume that the one at hand is also likely to be? From both an IC or OOC perspective. On the other hand, I see nothing to support your argument that this suddenly isn't about being a child of Bhaal.
Incidentally, do you think the dream where the PC meets Ellesime is also about the taint? It fits your criterion of "[a dream] you get shown," and it pushes you to get your soul back and help Suldanesselar, which of course is exactly what Bhaal would want you to do.This is the last dream you get in SoA, so it doesn't affect what and IC player should be thinking about the previous ones.
No, I assert it as, "...huh. Didn't happen to you? Then that's a bug, unless you were soloing."Nothing? Going berserk and attacking your friends=nothing?Didn't happen to me. You assert it as a likely consequence.
My exact point is that the PC probably does dream aside from those we're shown, which means those we ARE shown must have some relevance to the story.Relevance to the story? Sure. Connection to the taint? No.
If all previous dreams are about being a child of Bhaal, isn't it fair to assume that the one at hand is also likely to be?No. It makes no sense to assume, "Oh, I had six dreams about being a child of Bhaal. Now every dream I have ever will be about being a child of Bhaal." Six is not enough for a representative sample of dreams. For that matter, the assumption in question is not true (the final dream, with Ellesime) even if you're right about the particular dream in question.
However, your you are linked to Irenicus via your soul. What's wrong with a drive to reclaim it?You reclaiming it is the absolute last thing Bhaal would want, with you going out of your way to stop people from being murdered as next-to-last.
And your claim was an entirely OOC "if we see the dream, it has to do with the taint." If there's ever one dream in all of SoA where that is demonstrably not the case, then it's not true. So do you think the last dream has to do with the taint?I reckon it's about a certain drive to reclaim your soul, wherever that comes from.
So in spite of the consistency of what's happened so far, the PC should ignore this? If everyone I'd met so far on the forum spoke French, I'd assume that a newcomer would until they told me otherwise.Even if you'd only met six people? You must be used to being disappointed often.
*I don't actually know if you or Neriana speak French.
Bhaal used to be the Lord of Murder. His portfolio is already taken up by Cyric IIRC. So whatever you are (As said before I would prefer to be the God of sliced bread) gonna end up as is up to you after ascencion IMO.
Sim: I don't know any Chinese people. Therefore they don't really exist.Six chinese people walk into a room. I assume the next is likely to be chinese, unless something suggests otherwise.
Maybe the dream is about the taint. That does not prove that choosing the power option makes you more tainted, because it's still a dream and nothing in it affects the real world. It is certainly an important part of the exposition of the narrative. But it's still a dream. Dreams are outside morality because they do not impact the real world. I don't care whether it's a fantasy world or not, anything that only takes place inside your head should not impact virtue judgements. I don't even care whether the person in question is conscious or not. Imagination should not be policed.The dreams in BG1 seemed to impact the real world, since they gave you an ability afterwards.
Being a god like Kelemvor wouldn't be all that bad, even a paladin could not reject that. I could be the Shiva of FR. :DBhaal used to be the Lord of Murder. His portfolio is already taken up by Cyric IIRC. So whatever you are (As said before I would prefer to be the God of sliced bread) gonna end up as is up to you after ascencion IMO.
Bhaal's portfolio was Death, taken by Cyric, but now owned by Kelemvor. :)
If you became a deity I'd assume you'd take Death as your portfolio (similar to Xvim inheriting Hatred and so on from his father Bane). This *is* allowed providing the PC only becomes a lesser deity, which is likely since you'd have almost no worshippers.
That's a little off - topic, but what I'm saying is, you could still become a God of Death. :)
After all, in some real life religions, being guilty of thinking a sin is as bad as actually committing it.
Yes, and that's one reason so many real-world religions are utterly ridiculous. Finding someone attractive and actually cheating on your spouse are two entirely different things in the real world.
After all, in some real life religions, being guilty of thinking a sin is as bad as actually committing it.
Yes, and that's one reason so many real-world religions are utterly ridiculous. Finding someone attractive and actually cheating on your spouse are two entirely different things in the real world.
(Jesus said,) "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28
"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." 1 John 3:15
The point is that from God's perspective...
I seriously doubt any of you who have children teach them that it is okay for them to hate or lust, just so long as they do not act upon it by committing murder or adultery.
Also, "finding someone attractive" and looking at someone lustfully are clearly not the same thing -- YOU made that equation, and purely for the sake of refuting someone else's argument by altering it
beyond what they actually said.... ;)
While hate is rather obvious, I somewhat doubt I'd actively discourage my children from lust.
I would interpret this more along the lines of watch your thoughts. They are the beginning of sin. It is somewhere along the lines of Buddha's teachings that awareness will free you. Making the thought itself a sin would take away the responsibility and that cannot be the reason for Jesus to quote these examples.
What are you talking about?While hate is rather obvious, I somewhat doubt I'd actively discourage my children from lust.
There is a difference between "lust" and healthy sexuality, you know.
lust Audio pronunciation of "lust" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lst)
n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
1. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.
Or are you just trolling?Whatever definition of "lust" is in your head--I'd suggest you refrain from accusing people who don't share it of trolling.
Apparently, I struck a nerve with some people....You accused Neriana of "altering someone's argument" by not using whatever bizarre definition of "lust" you are, then accused Sim of "trolling" for, again, using a standard definition of "lust." That gives plenty of reason to view you as a twit without you having "struck a nerve."
The point is that from God's perspective...
I plan to teach my children that lust is a fine thing to feel, and a fine thing to act on when they are grown up and know what they're getting into. There is nothing wrong with lust whatsoever. In fact, it's great.QuoteOh please. Yeah, people go around not-looking at people they find attractive all the time, and certainly never looking at them with lust in their hearts. That's ridiculous.
See above post on this point.
"Watch your thoughts" is the beginning of mind-control, and hence the beginning of religion.
On the other hand, since you're damned to hell for all eternity just for thinking of a sin, whether you act on it or not, there's no reason not to act on each and every passing sinful thought. I mean, you're just as damned either way, right?
Now where did I leave my Batman costume . . .
Reasonable people can disagree -- and still remain agreeable, civil, and reasonable. Unreasonable people on the other hand....
So, you are so weak that you cannot look at an attractive person without desiring to use them sexually...?Isn't there something in the Bible about the mote in your neighbor's eye and the beam in yours?
You equate mind-control with religion, which tells a lot about how narrow-minded and bigoted you are. Using self-discipline and self-control to focus your mind on some things while avoiding others is not automatically the same thing as mind control, and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. Likewise, equating mind-control with religion. Certainly, not all religion is "bad" and involves "mind-control," just as the abscence of religion does not guarantee the abscence of mind-control, and the presence of religion does not guarantee that something good will come of it. Your hasty generalizations seem quite overbroad, and also very, very hostile and close-minded to anything resembling a point of view which differs too much from your own. You seem to believe that anyone who thinks differently from you MUST by definition be either corrupt or stupid, which is perhaps the best indicator that you yourself are either one or the other.
Hehe, I like your reasoning Bob and it is a real timesafer too.
*Thinks about some misdeeds for the afternoon.*
As stated above, I only posted because I thought I could clarify a misconception someone seemed to have about Biblical Christian theology. Apparently, I struck a nerve with some people...
<snip>
...I just don't understand why someone becomes so filled with hostility at the notion that someone else has looked at it and does believe it.
If it is just opportunity and not free choice than God has not given us free will and the concept of sin is meaningless. Only a willfull choice let's your thoughts not become actions. You can always see that you are getting let astray, but you can muster the will to act differently. If it is just chance and opportunity it is a question of statistics when I first whack someone, because nobody can control his own thoughts. The upside is that God knows that.I would interpret this more along the lines of watch your thoughts. They are the beginning of sin. It is somewhere along the lines of Buddha's teachings that awareness will free you. Making the thought itself a sin would take away the responsibility and that cannot be the reason for Jesus to quote these examples.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood. There would be no deed without the desire first, and often the only thing that prevents the deed from becoming desire is not conscience, but opportunity. Besides which, there is much more Scripture to this teaching than just the two passages I mentioned. ;) I didn't mean to go into the whole theology here, just make a quick comment to clear up an apparent misconception. Apparently, I struck a nerve with some people....
We are living in dangerous times indeed when those who hate and oppose "religion" do so with all the same zeal, furvor, hostility, dogmaticism, illogic, incivility, irrationality, intolerance, fascism and extremism that they so condemn in the stereotypical "fundamentalists" which they so despise.
If I have unneccesarily offended anyone, I humbly apologize. I do not plan on returning to this thread again, or else I will be tempted to start posting more off-topic rebuttals. You are now therefore (at least in your own minds) free to assume that I have done so only because I was "losing" the argument. But frankly, I have to deal with enough trolls and flamers in REAL LIFE than to waste my time arguing online with people who don't understand the concepts of polite debate and intellectual honesty -- and let's face it, the internet (heck, the world) is dominated by such people, and you won't get far in life letting them concern you too much.
I hope you all die of cancer. ;)What a benevolent christian thought. I'd rather die of shellfish.
Kill everybody inside. God knows his own.
I would settle for fundametalists as a whole. Waddayasay? ;)
Thinking is not acting, and I am willing to bet that even the most upstanding people have had thoughts that may not be considered "good". If we were to be judged on our thoughts, I am sure many of us would be tried for murder a hundred times over.But think about this in terms of religious orthodoxy. Some religions in our real life world tell us that if you so much as think a certain thought, your fate is sealed. Now, obviously, not all of us truly believe this, and our religions are not known in the Forgotten Realms, but in the FR we know that their gods are REAL (it says so in the FR rulebooks). Given that, if a paladin's god in the FR says that thinking about killing someone is the same as murder and therefore you will be banished to another plane when you die, that WILL happen, assuming that this god is omniscient. This was the question I was asking; I don't know enough about FR theology, so I don't know if any of the gods can get inside your head, but if they can, I can certainly see how a paladin may fall upon so much as thinking something.
I can see that only if the god in question is evil, which precludes it for paladins.Why? Take Helm for example; we know that Helm values lawfulness. So, let's assume that Helm doesn't like murder, since murder is against the law. Now, I'm a Paladin of Helm, so if I commit murder, I will become a fallen paladin and possibly be punished by Helm.
But what if Helm can get inside my head and know my thoughts? If Helm can do this, then even if I think about murdering someone, Helm may find grounds to punish me.So Helm is omniscient enough to see inside your mind, but not enough to see your future actions? If you are punished for a crime you are about to commit and it was this foresight that Helm needed for that, you would be even punished before the thought. Your mere existence guarantees your punishment, but where is your free will. Can you fail, if you cannot decide and choose? The sinner could not be punished without concept of choice as it would be his very nature that is punished. Someone who always dreams of killing his wife or eating children and never acts on that impulse but leads a normal life is as much beyond the reach of a god as someone who says he wants to rob a bank in public can be arrested. Anomen would not be punished by Helm perhaps as IIRC Saerk was guilty as by the Order who want their tinheads to adhere to their rulez. The tricky question for a paladin would be what happens when jurisdiction and justice collide?
Punishing someone for thinking, not doing, is evil. Helm would not be so lawless as to go around saying "think what I want or you fall." Those "orthodox religions" are nothing like FR religions, and yes, any doctrine that says people should be punished for thinking is evil. Evil is uncompatible with paladinhood.Take the beliefs of English Protestants of the Elizabethan era, for example. They believed (at least the ones who subscribed to these beliefs) that even if you so much as think a sinful thought, you were guilty of that sin. This is reflected in Shakespeare, Spenser, and a lot of the other literature from this time. But they didn't think that God was evil.
Punishing someone for thinking, not doing, is evil. Helm would not be so lawless as to go around saying "think what I want or you fall." Those "orthodox religions" are nothing like FR religions, and yes, any doctrine that says people should be punished for thinking is evil. Evil is uncompatible with paladinhood.Take the beliefs of English Protestants of the Elizabethan era, for example. They believed (at least the ones who subscribed to these beliefs) that even if you so much as think a sinful thought, you were guilty of that sin. This is reflected in Shakespeare, Spenser, and a lot of the other literature from this time. But they didn't think that God was evil.
Shakespeare most certainly did not believe that thinking a sin was the same as acting it. He was the most brilliant playwright of all time and had an incredible knowledge of human nature, he wasn't a raving imbecile. (Nor was Spenser.) Many of his plays tease out the time between thought and action, and nothing is inevitable. Shakespeare cared about human beings more than anything else, about our thoughts and emotions, and about the wonderful and horrible things we decide to do based on those thoughts and emotions. If Othello had just had murderous thoughts about Desdemona, but had not strangled her, there would have been no tragedy. Lysander had murderous thoughts about Hermia at one point, but that was resolved easily enough when everything returned to its proper place.First of all, I'm not knocking Shakespeare (nor Spenser) as a "raving imbecile." I've probably read more Shakespeare than any other writer (approximately 2/3 of the plays), and I love his work. I agree with everything you said about Shakespeare. I've also read through The Faerie Queene, but I must admit that I didn't care for it as much, and I struggled through it because of this.
Nor did "English Protestants" (everyone who practiced the one legal religion of the Church of England, in other words) of the time believe that thinking was the same as acting, not even Puritans (illegal but not to the degree that Catholicism was), who annoyed the bejeezus out of everyone else with their uptight doctrines. They got sent to the colonies so easily because England was trying to get rid of them. Further, the entire basis of Christianity is forgiveness (forgiveness is another theme which Shakespeare deals with a lot), which washes Helm right out.
Forget as a PC class--if thinking about doing something wrong causes Falling, it shouldn't be a class available to any humans or quasi-human species at all.I know, but I felt others had already stressed this and wanted to add that it made even less sense in the setting of bgII.