Pocket Plane Group

BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: jester on June 01, 2004, 02:50:25 PM

Title: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 01, 2004, 02:50:25 PM
I just lost my paladin status after the second Irenicus dream. How is that possible? I want my minority report.  :-\
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 01, 2004, 02:52:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 01, 2004, 03:10:43 PM
if it's the one I'm thinking of, I think it's rather devious to be able to admit "I deserve power because of what I am" and go on as if nothing happened when you wake up; ergo, a paladin should fall.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 01, 2004, 03:21:17 PM
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.

Think about all the possibilities and I do not think it is devious to act contrary to your character in a dream. It is not temptation but action that shapes your virtue. If I dream that my superior paladin is eaten by Firkraag, because he made me clean all the urinals in Athkathla, I am not guilty of anything, or am I.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 01, 2004, 03:37:54 PM
Indeed, I would venture that if we're having the PC Fall for what s/he says in a dream, every paladin should Fall after a randomly determined amount of time in the game, since only an elf (who doesn't sleep and therefore doesn't dream in the conventional sense) is likely to never have a dream in which s/he says or does something unpaladinly.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: mcruz on June 01, 2004, 03:38:23 PM
I guess I have to kinda agree with Jester........i mean you can't really control what happens in your dreams (except of course in BG II)  :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 04:08:42 PM
But you obviously can control what happens. The issue is whether this is a conscious choice made by the character, or something the player decides just happens to them ingame. I argue the former, since I can't think of a single other incidence where dialog options represent the player making a decision but not the character.

And for anyone who wants to suggest that wanting power is not evil: you're clearly shown the consequences of your choice, and Virtue allows you to express an interest in power but not the suffering it brings.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 01, 2004, 04:15:55 PM
You can sometimes control your dreams, actually. They still don't have any impact on the real world. The question is: does the character believe this isn't really a dream or does s/he think it has as much impact as that weird one in which Gorion and Imoen tangoed together? Further, what actually happens if the character makes an "evil" choice in the dream? Does any real person actually get hurt? If not, I don't think a paladin should fall.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 04:22:26 PM
"Really?  But the consequences are so very real."

"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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 01, 2004, 04:29:11 PM
"Really?  But the consequences are so very real."

"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.
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.

For that matter, one of those lines only shows up after s/he has chosen, and the other is a general statement that does not appear to me to be referring just to the dream (indeed, I would contend that what happens in a dream is not "actions" and therefore it doesn't refer to the dream at all).
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 04:52:06 PM
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.
And if you're saying that submitting to the taint here does not equate to submitting to the taint while awake, I'd draw your attention to the Slayer dream, which precedes actually gaining the ability. I'd call that pretty real consequences.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 01, 2004, 04:56:24 PM
It's not real either
What?
Quote
(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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 05:00:01 PM
What?
The Hell Trials are a manifestation of your own mind, no?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 01, 2004, 05:03:22 PM
No.  They're not.  You're in what becomes your Pocket Plane in ToB--whether your body is there or not--interacting with other real entities, including several items you can bring out of Hell with you and one entity (Sarevok) who will agree in ToB that, yes, he remembers you beating up his Wraith.  Your will shapes them because your blood rules there, not because they're "not real."
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 05:09:18 PM
Right, okay. So the consequences are "so very real" there as well. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 01, 2004, 05:23:28 PM
Right, okay. So the consequences are "so very real" there as well. :)

Take out the "as well" and I'd agree. Just because your mind is creating someone who seems to be Irenicus (and whom I don't think really is) to "test" you, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself. A paladin could actually be scared enough by his or her dreaming self saying "I deserve power because of what I am" that s/he would choose to be even better in the future.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 05:27:10 PM
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).
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 01, 2004, 05:55:48 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 01, 2004, 05:59:57 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Bri on June 01, 2004, 07:01:03 PM
I always viewed the dreams as another way of testing the Bhaalspawn.  And so if he gives into the power that is offered, that would be an evil choice in my eyes. 

Heh, and Kish, I have played in games where a paladin who did give into such emotions as revenge could possibly lose his abilities as well.  After all, in some real life religions, being guilty of thinking a sin is as bad as actually committing it.  So this means if you lust after someone, and then sleep with them, its almost like two sins for the price of one. 
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 01, 2004, 07:51:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 02, 2004, 03:14:18 AM
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.
Yes, you should give these religions a very high no-thank-you rating.

True, you should fall for the Slayer, but not for dreaming of -drumroll- consequences. Or do you think it is the real Irenicus talking to you in your sleep? Isn't this just a projection brought about by Imoen's torture and the unbalancing of the force erm I mean the taint?.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 02, 2004, 08:24:33 PM
I always thought of the "dreams" as interludes, as opposed to subconscious dreams, wherein the Bhaal taint/our soul was talking to Irenicus.

(and I still think you should loose virtue)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 02, 2004, 10:08:33 PM
When and how does that interlude happen? Can Irenicus summon you to the dream plane? He is not yet connected to your soul or the taint. Even for a wupass elven mageling that would be quite a thing. A dreamwalker sort of.

Another reason to use the cut dreams fix. It is a fool proof method to get your dreams as dreams and not pseudo mini-dramas or interludes. On a sidenote I thought interludes where the ones that furthered the plot showing what's happening at another location like spellhold and the underdark.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 02, 2004, 10:11:38 PM
Okay, thought I'd post, since we're talking about this in chat anyways.

In the dream, your character appears to have self-awareness, seeing as how you get options in dialogue.  But it's in a dream world, so virtue doesn't affect you?

Then in the Hell Trials, you are in a world that isn't "The Real World", seeing as how Ellesime mentions that you appeared dead for however long.  Virtue is affected in this situation because your choices are made while the PC is completely aware.  Whether they affect anything or not is irrelevant.

So now that my thoughts have wandered away while writing this post, I'll pretend it's done and finish it.  Virtue loss/gain in real world = good, because of conscious choice, and possible consequences.  Virtue loss/gain in dream worlds (Irenicus dreams/Hell Trials) = good, because of conscious choice, and possible consequences.

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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 02, 2004, 10:15:08 PM
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.

So why should your character assume something will happen? It's a dream. Unlike the Hell Trials.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 02, 2004, 10:18:16 PM
Would you want a paladin to guard you from evil if he acts like that in a dream that he's in?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 02, 2004, 10:35:31 PM
How a paladin acts in a dream is completely irrelevant; I would never know or care.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 02, 2004, 11:21:31 PM
If you were a god who had the ability to know whether he was consciously choosing to be evil in his dreams, would you still want to grant him powers?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 02, 2004, 11:26:22 PM
If I were a god, I'd hope I'd have enough sense not to worry about what my paladins were dreaming.

*points at thread title*
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 03, 2004, 01:10:00 AM
Would you worry about what they're doing while visiting Hell?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 03, 2004, 01:11:46 AM
Yes.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 03, 2004, 01:13:02 AM
What's the difference?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: mcruz on June 03, 2004, 02:07:38 AM
In the Hell Trials for instance you can sacrifice one of your companions so you won't be affected, while if you were to do this in a dream the consequences wouldn't be as clear (for certain your companion would most likely be okay), plus in the Nine Hells the PC and company are pretty much fighting for their survival and in the dreams it seems more like an inner struggle if anything.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 03, 2004, 02:52:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Lord Doomhammer on June 03, 2004, 03:09:45 AM
Quote
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?

Hmmm... What is the difference between a donut and a piano? No, dont tell me. Ill get it....

Err... anyway. Id have to agree that what you do in dreams is completely irrelevant to to real life.

And no. im not giving any reasons. im not so good at that....
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 05:03:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 03, 2004, 05:09:27 AM
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.

Round and round it goes...
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 03, 2004, 05:28:44 AM
Saying that I think that 'Virtue' is the uintessential addition to BG2 is redundant. (I have said it so many times it might as well be in my sig :P). I still think that the implementeation should be continually discussed, if something arises that is not obvious in reasoning, or at least explained. The way it is implemented in my view it is on a trigger on certain actions which depends on a case to case judgement.

I agree that the Hell Trials have consequences and are a different reality, but your dead father offers you something in the cameo as Irenicus. He offers you the gift that is contained in your taint for the first time. This is where you find out for the first time what is offered to you as a person. This gives a good character the opportunity AFTER waking up to reject this and fight this. (I know rivers of blood and stuff, but now we are talking pesonal development).

Someone: Do you want it?
Someone else: Yes
Someone: Wow, because it is like you know so awesome and everything. You could kill all theses people with a high level mage spell, even if you are a ranger.
Someone else: oh that is not so good, then I'd rather not and have some tea instead.

This dream triggers the awareness process and roleplaying doubts should not make you fall in a dream this early. In Hell you know what the taint really is and what the Slayer is. I am not arguing that your consequences depend on your knowledge, I am rather doubting the consciuous choice.

That would be a conscious choice!
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 03, 2004, 01:15:25 PM
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?  Not terribly much, in my opinion. :)

Quote
What's the difference between a donut and a piano?

Both can be used to commit acts of monstrous evil.  Poison a donut and give it to your enemy.  Sabotage a piano that your enemy's about to play on--Oh wait, those are similarities.  Hmmm, differences.  Well, one is a delicious pastry treat, and the other can be used to crush stuff if you drop it from height.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 03, 2004, 01:40:25 PM
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?
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."
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 03, 2004, 02:07:15 PM
A dreamcatcher question:

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.

Tick the appropriate:

a) You break up with her, because actions follow your thoughts and she already betrayed you in her mind. It has yet to happen in RL, but it is all downhill from here.
b) You break up with her, because even thinking about it is crime enough for you.
c) You see it as a hint for future endeavours in your relationship and sign up at a local gym.
d) You stay together, because your dreams are personal and so are hers.

I suspect that anyone with the answers a and b should see a shrink, a priest or/and get rid of that Salma Hayek poster just in case you and your next GF are kindred spirits.


..and saying that a dream is the manifestation of your imagination just like your actions are a real life manifestation of your will won't hold in court (Although the free will debate is very much alive).

I repeat: 'I did not want to have sex with THAT women.'

I can only beg anyone to dream about the huge pile of cash I find tomorrow morning next to my bed. I'll keep you posted on this.

@ Sarevok remembering your fight in hell and the difference to a dream:
Does anyone remember the film The Cell? That is what is happening to Sarevok IMHO at least sort of. If your mind thinks you are hurt you are hurt. Not papercuts, but lethal blows do the job. Again the second dream is neither the Hell Trials nor a piano or donut. A huge character development and a completely different situation is presented to the player.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 04:31:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 04:36:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 03, 2004, 04:47:28 PM
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.

So - if someone dreams about murdering someone they know, they're guilty? They could possibly murder that person. If someone dreams about sleeping with someone they know, they're guilty? They could possibly sleep with that person.

DREAMS ARE NOT REALITY. The Hell Trials are. They really happen, the PC is completely conscious during them, and the PC is told that s/he is being judged by them. All those people who "die" in the PC's dreams don't die. Anyone who dies in the Hell Trials does die.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 04:56:33 PM
I'll take the chance to reiterate my argument that these are not regular dreams, so the analogy is inappropriate.

The player is presented with dialog choices. Everywhere else in the game, this indicates the player character making a conscious choice. I don't believe this should be treated differently just because it's a dream.
The dreams are linked with the taint. Bioware didn't just put every random nightmare the player has in there; they're linked to plot development. There's probably a reason that you're shown nightmares about turning into the slayer and submitting to evil, but not Irenicus dancing about in dresses with low-cut tops.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 03, 2004, 04:57:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 05:01:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 03, 2004, 05:28:27 PM
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.

If you slaughter Aerie mercilessly, she's dead for real. No one can possibly die in the dreams.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 05:34:44 PM
But they still have consequences because of the whole taint deal.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 03, 2004, 05:56:17 PM
But they still have consequences because of the whole taint deal.

Name one consequence.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 06:06:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 03, 2004, 06:27:51 PM
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.

@Irenicus' offer:

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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 03, 2004, 06:32:30 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 03, 2004, 07:04:27 PM
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."

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)?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 03, 2004, 07:19:39 PM
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.

Name one consequence that actually happens.

I think Virtue is sort of like a court of law. You need actual evidence, and I haven't seen any yet.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 03, 2004, 07:26:31 PM
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. :D

Dropping for the voluntary slayer change is good, but do you also drop for your involuntary change? So I must refine my actions argument. To murder someone you need the intent and the action. I can understand, when you think that a paladin sitting in Waukeen's diner dreaming up new ways of slaughtering kids and peasants has a virtue problem in the long run, but his dreams are a different matter. After spellhold your personal taint problem is clear, but none of the other tainted ones can change into the slayer, so the slayer is a story turning point, but that is hindsight. At this point it is still possible for you to think to be able to thwart Irenicus' plans. We had a huge discussion over at FW about this and your portfolio after ascension.

What kind of dream would Balthazar have? Your evil essence does not make you evil as such. You have  'to give in to the taint'. By becoming a god and never giving in you could banish Bhaal forever and pick your fate from another vantage point. The fact that this dying, empty mortal coil which once was Joneleth can only foresee havok would only tell you something about the current state of the taint and Irenicus' state of mind, not its long term potential for you
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: julwise on June 03, 2004, 11:43:08 PM
I've followed this discussion and I have a few things to add.

Personally, I can see an argument for both sides. Lets start with an analogy similar to Jester's...

First lets assume you're in a committed (romantic) relationship with some significant other. Imagine you are having a lucid dream (wherein you are aware you are dreaming and can direct the course of the dream, or at least your own actions in it) and the extremely attractive person of your choice is coming on to you. You have the choice in this dream to either sleep with this person or not. Honestly, would you feel obligated to refuse the offer? And just because you may make the choice to sleep with this person in a dream doesn't by any means infer that, were the opportunity to rise, you would sleep with them in real life. This is because in the dream there are no consequences whereas real life actions do have consequences.

However, from a strict RP-ing point of view (that is, from the point of view the IN GAME character, not the actual player), it's arguable whether or not the PC has the awareness necessary to surmise that there may be more to his/her Irenicus dreams than simply... well, dreams. If the PC does have the insight to realize that these dreams are/could be significant than I think a virtue drop is appropriate if (s)he makes the more "evil" decisions. However, if you imagine yourself in the place of the PC, you may not have reason to believe that these dreams are anything special (which, in the original game, they're more or less not as far as having any consequences). In this case the only solution I can see would be some kind of wisdom check on the PC done by virtue to estimate whether the PC would forsee possible consequences of his actions in the dream before changing virtue's value. But I don't know if that's even in the scope of the mod and i'm fairly sure it would not satisfy all players.

In the simplest terms:
Wisdom < # = no penalties for either evil or good choices
Wisdom ># = virtue penalties for evil choices

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.

Hope all of the above made sense. ;)   
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 04, 2004, 05:23:35 AM
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 04, 2004, 06:04:20 AM
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).
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."
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 04, 2004, 06:25:40 AM
Quote
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?

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: seanas on June 04, 2004, 06:52:36 AM
wading into the debate...

the debate about dreams and reality is a bit of a red herring (altho i'd point to chuang zhu as a riposte to any simplistic dream/reality dichotomies  ;).

the question seems pretty straightforward to me:

Virtue is a mod about morality - to quote from the readme: "Virtue ... represents how morally correct the party's actions are". morality is a concerned with intention, not action (i would have thought this was self-evident, but i'll supply references if necessary, altho a quick google on morality + intentionality will give a pretty good summary of the argument). 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.

as to whether i have Virtue installed at the moment: err, no, but that's cos i like to be ruthless in my pursuit of Good (or Neutrality, as the character demands) and don't want to bear the consequences of my actions  ;D.

s
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 04, 2004, 11:26:57 AM
As a butterfly dreaming of being a human who argues about dreams I am a bit puzzled by your quick fix.

(For those who do not know the story in question: Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakeable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou.
Chaung Tzu)

Morality and intentions are a good starting point, but,  if you skipped the part in class about the differences of being awake or asleep in that respect, I try something different. :P Walking past a bank and thinking about robbing it is not robbing it. Whatever your local cleric will tell you. Dreaming about robbing a bank is a nice topic for your shrink, but it will hardly affect your daytime life. On top of that there are not very many successful robberies by butterflies recorded.

BTW : "Virtue ... represents how morally correct the party's actions are". morality is a concerned with intention, not action So you are critizising Virtue here for measuring the wrong thing and the triggers should be in the dialogue?

If Irenicus tells you that you are a chicken during a dream, can it be that you wake up and are indeed a chicken?

Being ruthless in the pursuit of good is a questionable concept at best.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 04, 2004, 11:35:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 04, 2004, 11:44:12 AM
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.
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.

You get a choice in the dream. Yes, but it is a dream. That is my point.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 04, 2004, 12:21:04 PM
Quote
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?
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.

Quote
Quote
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?
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).
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 04, 2004, 01:33:55 PM
Being power 'hungry' is not bad by itself, if it is not linked to the slayer form. After all you had to be 'powerrful' enough to best Sarevok and avert the crisis in BG. So a certain amount of power boost would be welcome to the char at this stage. Remember we are discusssing a chapter 2 dream. The Hell Trials are the end of the story (It goes without saying that there should have been a sequel storywise. :(). If your capabilities of judging everything surrounding your personal connection to the taint have not improved since the said dream than a huge drop is in order.

If you see the dream Irenicus not as a projection of your mind, but as somewhat connected to your opponent. I wonder why we could not be more cooperative or taunting in the dream to lure him away from Imoen or spill any secrets. I think it has nothing to do with him as a person and is your essence talking to you channeling through leatherface.

Edit: After I just played through the third dream I am even more convinced that the argument for the drop is shaky. 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. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 05, 2004, 01:00:58 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 05, 2004, 07:12:50 AM
Quote
Choosing the "power" option does result in immediate Meteor Swarming of a bunch of innocents though.

How can a paladin kill somebody with MS? I agree that the feeling at first must be something like: 'Whatever the strange man is suggesting is going to hurt a lot of people. Wait, this is a mage spell it. He killed those people and mnust be stopped at all costs.' I had the feeling that he did it all along. Just to show me what high level magic can do.
Since he tells you about a power you can get, I assume that his dispaly of whjat you can do(MS) can only be his work.

After the second dream I could even be doubtful, if the powers are all that bad. True, at first all these innocent where killed by the Jon, but in the second I whack all these bastards. This is what I was after with the good side of the power which could be reasoned about at this stage.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 05, 2004, 07:14:33 AM
Which is why Virtue gives you an option to say that you're interested in the power, but wary of the consequences. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 05, 2004, 10:02:34 AM
Dang, you are right. What happens after that? I never picked that one. :(
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Andyr on June 05, 2004, 12:36:53 PM
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.

Heh.

I agree with Ghrey and Sim on this one - It's a conscious choice you make. It's not like the BG1 dreams where you just watch.

They've said all my arguments already, though. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 05, 2004, 02:27:03 PM
I don't think anyone's argued that it's a conscious choice, but rather that saying "I deserve power" is morally neutral or, at least, a lot milder than a number of things that currently don't impact Virtue (the previous-debated sleeping with Phaere in a commited relationship comes to mind, as well as all the power-hungry lines outside dreams).
Quote
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.)
The dialogue options that show up in all the romances about "I want power" certainly qualify, too, as well as telling Jaheira at least (can you tell the others this?  I'm not sure) that you want to be the Lord of Murder.  And what about the romance-ending dialogue options where you're quite cruel to your love interest?

(I don't actually think making any of these choices impact Virtue is a good idea--except for telling Jaheira you want to be the Lord of Murder, and perhaps being excessively cruel to a love interest--but I do think "you Fall if you ever say you want power, you not-guarded-enough-in-your-speech paladin" is more consistent than, "You Fall if you say you want power when you're dreaming.")
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 05, 2004, 03:15:41 PM
Of course, I agree entirely that it's ludicrous to implement Virtue drops for all of those. However...

 "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. 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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 05, 2004, 04:19:30 PM
"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!"
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 05, 2004, 04:25:36 PM
Wait. 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. What you say in your head is important, but what you say to other conscious beings is not?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 05, 2004, 04:36:34 PM
Quote
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.

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. :)

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 05, 2004, 04:48:05 PM
Quote
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 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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."
Quote
What you say in your head is important, but what you say to other conscious beings is not?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 05, 2004, 05:26:54 PM
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.

The fact that even gods have alignments shows for me that there is a difference between a LE or a LG character to become a god. Is there any hint in the game (for those who know the game verbatim) that the essence turns anyone evil, if enough of it is amassed into one being? How could Balthazzar hope to succeed then?

I deserve power is as neutral as it gets when a mortal is presented with the choice in question.

BTW 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. Only about the women who is killed by Irenicus do we learn anything. And another dilemma for the will fraction (boils down to the basic CRPG trouble), if this is my dream, why am I not hurting Irenicus at all?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 05, 2004, 11:58:18 PM
You keep acting as if the cut-scene dreams are like usual dreams.  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.

Assuming Irenicus sent you this dream, so as to awaken your power so that he can extract it more easily, do you think submitting to the taint is a Good thing to do?

Assuming it's the inner essence of Bhaal trying to awaken the slayer in you, do you think submitting to the taint is a Good thing to do?

You keep rehashing the same argument of "but you don't get a choice in dreams!", and I agree with you, that in regular dreams, yeah, you don't have a conscious say in what happens.  For all intents and purposes this should be considered something other than a dream.  Perhaps a job interview being held by the slayer.  Things you say in job interviews have great import, as do your responses in these particular dreams.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 06, 2004, 12:25:20 AM
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.")
Quote
For all intents and purposes this should be considered something other than a dream.
Why?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ghreyfain on June 06, 2004, 12:31:52 AM
Eh, I'm giving up arguing for my point in this thread, because I just argued it in IRC, and I've convinced myself thoroughly.

If you don't want to open your mind to my side of the argument, that's fine. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 06, 2004, 02:41:49 AM
Although I see yours and Sim's points, I still think that it is wrong to say that Jon wants to offer you the slayer as a gift. Otherwise his sister would not be surprised to see your change. IRC or not. :P His focus is on luring you to Spellhold to get hold of your powerful soul. My impression always has been that, if he knew what you would turn into he would have gone to greater lengths to ensure your demise after Spellhold. Talking about hybris.

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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 06, 2004, 01:16:10 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 06, 2004, 01:40:07 PM
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?
Quote
Quote
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.
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.
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.  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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 06, 2004, 01:50:23 PM
Nothing?  Going berserk and attacking your friends=nothing?
Didn't happen to me. You assert it as a likely consequence.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
However, your you are linked to Irenicus via your soul. What's wrong with a drive to reclaim it?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 06, 2004, 02:09:16 PM
Nothing?  Going berserk and attacking your friends=nothing?
Didn't happen to me. You assert it as a likely consequence.
No, I assert it as, "...huh.  Didn't happen to you?  Then that's a bug, unless you were soloing."
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 06, 2004, 02:11:55 PM
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.
Um. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's OOC about "I've seen 6 dreams which are about the taint; this one probably is as well."
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 06, 2004, 02:13:55 PM
That's a logical fallacy called Hasty Generalization, actually.  "I don't speak French.  You don't speak French.  Neriana doesn't speak French.  I must therefore conclude no one on the forum speaks French."*  I contend that it is inappropriate to force the PC to act according to logical fallacies.

*I don't actually know if you or Neriana speak French.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 06, 2004, 02:18:22 PM
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. Yet I don't see anything to convince me that the dream isn't about the taint.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 06, 2004, 02:21:25 PM
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 concede I cannot offer a logical proof to someone who doesn't see anything illogical in one of the classic fallacies.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 06, 2004, 02:23:21 PM
I see illogical, but I think you overestimate its weight. Where there's little evidence either way, I'm inclined to go with the more probable explanation; to me, this means consistency in this situation.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: seanas on June 06, 2004, 04:24:43 PM
but whether the dream in question is 'real' or not  is not a question of inductive fallacies, Kish, but of verisimilitude. it's only an inductive fallacy IF it's compared with a  normative 'RL' experience of dreams. in that context, if i had even a dozen consecutive dreams that bore a direct relation upon my woken life, i *still* wouldnt expect the 13th to have such a relation.

but this is a false comparison: the question of truth is not 'how true to RL is the experience of the Irenicus dreams' but 'how true to the narrative'. and within the context of the narrative, as greyfain argued and i asserted, nothing happens that isn't part of the narrative: so if yr having a dream within BGII *and it's represented to you the player* then its necessarily connected to the narrative. and given that the narrative driver of the BG series is 'the PC's relation to their taint' (or perhaps 'the PC's possession of the taint') then any sequence - dream or not-dream - where yr presented with choices is going to bear upon the taint. so whether you tell the Solar in TOB 'i will claim my heritage' or Jaheira 'you should be my slave' or a dream-Irenicus 'i deserve power', yr - within the narrative - submitting to the taint. that might not bear upon yr reputation - cos no-one else sees it - or upon yr alignment - cos, err, the alignment system is bollocks - but it should bear upon a judgement of morality - which is what Virtue is concerned with.

as i said before: i choose to have my PC behave in ways that are neither virtuous, nor - frankly - good (i agree fully with you in that regard, Jester), but because a: the alignment system is so crap; and b: i'm careful not to install Virtue (or at least until i can hack Kit.ids to allow a sword angel within a BP install: but that's a discussion for a different forum  :P) my PC doesnt have to bear the consequences of my playing style. but if i had a morality-mod installed [in the game] and i asserted my will-to-power [in the game] in the way Jester described at the start of the thread, then i would expect [in the game] to bear the consequences of behaving so unVirtuously (assumng that's a real word!  :))
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on June 06, 2004, 05:17:15 PM
*I don't actually know if you or Neriana speak French.

I do, a little. I can read it :)

Sim: I don't know any Chinese people. Therefore they don't really exist.

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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Andyr on June 06, 2004, 05:23:08 PM
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.

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. :)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 07, 2004, 01:51:55 AM
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.
That's a rather closer analogy.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: mcruz on June 07, 2004, 03:13:31 AM
The only way I see it is that the PC has heard about the tainted blood..........over and over and over again........plus all the bad stuff about Bhaal and the essense that you're carrying...........so in a "special" dream by inciting the taint (i.e wanting more power) you're doing a bad thing.......

on the other hand the PC hasn't really experienced the taint from within (except for those powers in BG and the dreams) which in my opinion is not much to formulate an opinion about whether the taint is something that should be explored or not...so we can't really blame the PC at this point if he is curious about the essense of Bhaal inside

it's also kinda hard to accept that saying you want more power a la Bhaal especially in a dream (even an unique one) is a bad thing simply cause we don't really know the state of mind of the PC so it falls on the assumption of what the player wants/thinks

unfortunately......there are no real consequences to what you do or say in these dreams (that I can think of that is) in terms of what happens eventually in th game which makes the drop in virtue also hard to accept

nevertheless it's a good idea because I do think that the dreams are sort of tests.......
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on June 09, 2004, 05:32:54 AM
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.

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. :)
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. :D

@ worshippers: I let all my concubines spread the word which would give a new meaning to the chosen of ***.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Venn on June 11, 2004, 04:09:47 PM
Wasn't Myrkul the God of Death?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on June 11, 2004, 05:04:53 PM
No, Myrkul was the God of the Dead.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Ruben on June 11, 2004, 08:17:32 PM
Well not if my opinions will be paid attention to but here are my 2 cents worth.

The dreams is BG 1 and BG 2 are different. The dreams in BG one your character is continually dragged along from one sit thought to another, and the dreams are reflected up the choice you made while you were awake. The BG 1 dreams were more like real dreams than the BG2 dreams.

You recieve "power" from these dreams regardless of your choices. Is useing your other Baal abilties sucumbing to the Taint? Like cure light wounds or draw upon holy might? It is the power inside you from your bloodline which is NOT good or evil.


Second of all, the BG2 dreams you do get to make decisions, and you get to influence how the dreams go, so in that case they are quite different that the BG 1 dreams, as they are not results of your decisions but very well could be the result Irenecus who was torturing you for an indefinite amount of time.

Knowing the outcome of the dreams in BG1 a good character could easily assume that wanting power could end gaining more "good" power. Power to heal, protect and defend.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 15, 2004, 04:33:18 PM
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.

I don't normally make posts on theology to gaming boards, lol, and this doesn't directly have anything to do with this mod, but I find it hard to avoid such comments go without some clarification....

(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, lust is just as damnable a sin as adultery, and hate is just as damnable a sin as murder.  After all, the act does not take place without having first begun as a desire.  (Sometimes opportunity is the only thing that separates just having the desire and actually being able to act upon it.)  But there is clearly a difference in the material world between the physical consequences of hate and lust (desires which, even if they do not lead to murder or adultery, can still have a negative impact on the material world) and the physical consequences of adultery and murder.  Even in the theocracy of Old Testament Israel, the civil law code did not provide penalties for hate or lust, but they did for murder or adultery. 

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....  ;)

But none of this, of course, really applies to the "moral reality" of BG2 or the Virtue mod.  And as so many have repeated, the dreams (visions, perhaps)  in the game are clearly something different from the "normal dreams" which people in the fantasy world of the game normally dream -- which it would seem safe to assume are much like the normal dreams we normally dream in the real world.   :P
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 15, 2004, 04:40:03 PM
While hate is rather obvious, I somewhat doubt I'd actively discourage my children from lust.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on July 15, 2004, 05:48:47 PM
(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


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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on July 16, 2004, 05:16:28 AM
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...

Which of course the Bible claims to know, even though it contradicts itself completely multiple times. According to the Bible, God also says it's OK to offer up your daughters for mass rape, that sleeping with a woman during her period is a heinous sin, and that stoning disobedient children is right and proper.

Quote
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. 

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.

Quote

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....  ;)


Oh 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.

"Watch your thoughts" is the beginning of mind-control, and hence the beginning of religion.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 07:54:20 AM
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 . . .
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on July 16, 2004, 08:19:16 AM
Hehe, I like your reasoning Bob and it is a real timesafer too.

*Thinks about some misdeeds for the afternoon.*
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 22, 2004, 11:56:13 AM
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.  Or are you just trolling?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 22, 2004, 12:00:15 PM
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....
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on July 22, 2004, 12:11:43 PM
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.
What are you talking about?
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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."
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 22, 2004, 12:17:55 PM
The point is that from God's perspective...

Which of course the Bible claims to know, even though it contradicts itself completely multiple times. According to the Bible, God also says it's OK to offer up your daughters for mass rape, that sleeping with a woman during her period is a heinous sin, and that stoning disobedient children is right and proper.

I love it when someone says soemthing like this, because it gives me the opportunity to say, "Name ten such contradictions, quickly, if there are so many; okay, then name two; okay, how about just one?"  ;) 

First of all, please show me the passage where God condones offering your daughters for rape.  It's obvious you're thinking of Lot in Sodom here, which just goes to show how poorly you know the Bible (and perhaps logic and reason as well).  There is an obvious difference between mentioning that someone did something, and saying that what they did was morally okay.  Second, your other two examples are both mischaracterizations of the text, as well as misapplications, because you are taking what in context are clearly ceremonial laws that only applied to the Jews until the coming of the Christ, and treating them as if they are universal moral principles for all people and all time, which they quite clearly are not.  Now, for some people, the Bible HAS to have "multiple contradictions," because they have convinced themselves that to concede any real truth to it is tantamount to admitting they might be wrong themesleves about some things....

Quote
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.
Quote

See above post on this point.

Oh 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.
"Watch your thoughts" is the beginning of mind-control, and hence the beginning of religion.

So, you are so weak that you cannot look at an attractive person without desiring to use them sexually...? 

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. 

Reasonable people can disagree -- and still remain agreeable, civil, and reasonable.  Unreasonable people on the other hand....
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 22, 2004, 12:21:45 PM
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 . . .

It's not "thinking of a sin" that is condemned, but the desire to DO it.  Anything that does not meet God's standard of moral perfection ("Be holy as I am holy."), is defined as "sin" or "evil."  Obviously, if you can look at God's judgment of your sins as justification to sin more, you're only proving how right he is to damn you in the first place....  ;)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on July 22, 2004, 12:24:01 PM

Reasonable people can disagree -- and still remain agreeable, civil, and reasonable.  Unreasonable people on the other hand....
Quote
So, you are so weak that you cannot look at an attractive person without desiring to use them sexually...?

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.
Isn't there something in the Bible about the mote in your neighbor's eye and the beam in yours?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Buck Naked on July 22, 2004, 12:44:35 PM
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.  However, I do not think I will have the time to keep up with all the posts that will be further spawned by my most recent rebuttals (just look at how long it took me to come back and see if anyone hade even made a new post to this thread, lol).  Besides, it is rather difficult to adequately address such complex matters online, due both to the various shortcomings of the media, and to the seriousness and depth of the topic.  That, and I am sure some people would rather see this thread used for its intended purpose, rather than a discourse on theology.  ;)

Some of you, though, really do need to think through your rather stereotypical view of religion, Christianity, the Bible, and probably a whole host of other things.  I can understand if someone takes a look at Scripture, then walks away and says that they do not believe what it says; 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.

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. 

Anyone sincerely interested in discussing this more can feel free to E or IM me, whether to clarify some point or to try and convince me that I am wrong, etc.  Best of luck to the rest of you, and remember: if you want others to respect your right to your opinion, then you also have to have just as much respect as you desire.  If you want to be treated civilly, then you need to be at least as civil to those with whom you disagree.  Otherwise, you may as well admit that you'd rather line people up against the wall and shoot them rather than try to sincerely convince them to come around to your point of view based upon reasoned argument and their own free choice.... 
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Imrahil on July 22, 2004, 01:06:05 PM
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.

What you're missing is that you're the Troll here.  One off-hand comment along the lines of "Yes, and that's one reason so many real-world religions are utterly ridiculous" gets us a page of your spam, when Christianity wasn't even specificially mentioned.  When you spam a gaming forum with post after post of irrelevant rhetoric, you shouldn't be surprised when you encounter a little hostility.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on July 22, 2004, 02:42:32 PM
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)

I know the Bible. I can quote it at you all day. Interesting that you can't address the quotes. Perhaps you're the one with "misconceptions" about the theology, "Buck Naked". I never said anything mean about anyone in particular, and you turned around and accused me of a whole swath of terrible junk. Criticizing institutions is one thing, telling individuals they're horrible for believing what they do or do not is another.

By the way, there is nothing more annoying than people who write nasty things then follow them up with "nice" smilies.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on July 22, 2004, 03:22:26 PM
I hope you all die of cancer.   ;)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on July 23, 2004, 01:28:02 AM
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....
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.

Quote
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.

Christian fundamentalist are indeed the curse of this century. :( Who hates religion? I do not know anyone who opposes religion (taking into account that even atheists have their POVs on religion which is not the same thing as hate something). You are talking about understanding Islam here right?

After reading the 'I apologize, you stupid MFs* and will never return here again' post I wondered about your RL christian approach, but after reading that you encounter trolls and flamers outside the internet I think I can understand your fervour when it comes to other people's religious feelings.

@off-topicness: I do not feel that religion is off topic here. (I don't mind at least)

I hope you all die of cancer.   ;)
What a benevolent christian thought. I'd rather die of shellfish.

*Mindflayers of course
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Almostfaceman on July 23, 2004, 03:04:50 AM
Christian fundamentalist are indeed the curse of this century

I would submit, with the whole host of Islamic fundamentalist homicide bombings and 9/11, blah blah blah, that it would be easier to make a case that Islamic fundamentalists are the curse of this century, and that more people died at the hands of Nazism and Communism than any Christian group in the last century.

Not that I would put much effort into making that case, since it's not right to put folks into neat little moulds and tiny little boxes. That's the easy way out.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on July 23, 2004, 03:46:08 PM
Sorry, I must have misread that fundamentalist line. It is of course the OTHERS. Die, die, die. This reminds me of a cute story from a siege in medieval France IIRC against an heretic christian sect. (There may be other versions of this story floating around, because at THAT time this thought must have been widespread.) After the walls had been broken the subcommanders asked the big guy what to do with the population and how to tell the heathens apart from the good ones. His reply: Kill everybody inside. God knows his own.

I would settle for fundametalists as a whole. Waddayasay? ;)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 23, 2004, 06:08:46 AM
Kill everybody inside. God knows his own.

  it was the [4th?5th?] crusade, and the words came from Pope Innocent III (wow, what a name); the question came from a commander who was on the heels of a group of Cathars (ascetics who crazily managed to get a fair number of nobles on their side) who were claiming sanctuary within a church. i think 'god will recognize his own' was more the literal trans., but of course i've never done the legwork myself.  {and it's since been 'boiled down' by a variety of military outfits to "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out".}
  one of the most culturally destructive of the crusades (all of which divert my animosities somewhat away from 20th or 21st century fundies, frankly), and it was white-on-white.  the one that sacked constantinople (just a bit earlier) and the first occupation of jerusalem (1095) are the 'ties' for such destruction, but the anti-cathar crusade decimated a far larger territory.

Quote
I would settle for fundametalists as a whole. Waddayasay? ;)

  best.  nationalist fundamentalists, fundamentalists Of The Book, all absolutists who whittle down what little perspective they began with to a wicked transfixing one-dimensional point. (am i redundant much?  oui.)


 ALMOST on the Thought Police topic / definitely Virtue-related / laying low from changing topic titles  ::) or starting whole new bits:
 
 First Question (to determine whether the Second Question is valid): i have not researched what happens >after< a paladin (or ranger, but i don't really give a damn about them for now) Falls.  is it strictly a permanent class change to Fighter?  can they then [apart from certain mod components] put 5 slots in any weapon?  cavaliers then may use ranged weapons, etc.?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on October 23, 2004, 06:27:07 AM
No. You keep the penalties of the paladin class, but lose the bonuses.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 23, 2004, 06:38:11 AM

  sweet.  and it's permanent?
 
  so my Little Minor Idea which is probably obscure enough to brush aside indefinitely is - how could Atonement (particularly a la 1st edition but certainly valid in any version) be introduced for those paladins who fell only by not-strictly-evil violations of their Code?  an extra sidequest or two, depending on what deity you can feasibly go to for help...  and then the restoration of class privileges.
  totally unfeasible?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: SimDing0™ on October 23, 2004, 06:39:44 AM
Virtue only affects actual good/evil actions, rather than anything to do with the paladin's code. This means that, whether correct or not, they'll only fall for actually performing evil deeds, rather than obscure violations of their code.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 23, 2004, 06:48:25 AM

 oh, okay.  the only thing i could really think of off-hand was failed pickpocketing (i saw kish mention somewhere that it's impossible to "detect" successful p'p'ing), and that simply sticks with a flat Rep drop of 1, right? (as far as reps over 10 go...)
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: GetCool on October 28, 2004, 01:49:33 AM
One thing I'm curious about: are the gods in the Forgotten Realms universe supposed to be omnicient?  Meaning, can a certain paladin's or cleric's god know what's going on inside of his head?  If so, I can see how that would allow a paladin to fall simply by thinking something with which his god disagrees.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on October 28, 2004, 02:47:18 AM
I can see that only if the god in question is evil, which precludes it for paladins.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Joe on October 28, 2004, 03:20:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: GetCool on October 28, 2004, 09:54:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: GetCool on October 28, 2004, 10:01:58 PM
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.

But, of course, I don't know if Helm or any of the other deities can go inside your head, so this is pure speculation.  But if they do have this power, then certainly I can see how characters can be judged by their thoughts.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: jester on October 28, 2004, 10:20:50 PM
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on October 28, 2004, 11:53:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: GetCool on October 29, 2004, 01:31:52 AM
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.

Of course, like you said, our real life religion is not like the religion of FR.  I used my example of Helm hypothetically; I don't know enough about FR lore to know exactly what the role of the deities is and how much power they have, so I was speaking theoretically about what a FR deity may be able to do.  I was trying to find a theological explanation that could possibly justify the problem that this thread introduced, since paladins are so closely linked to theology.  I could of course be wrong about all of this, but I'm just trying to figure it out.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: fallen demon on October 31, 2004, 07:41:28 PM
Besides, as a bhaalspawn you should never be lacking the urge to kill someone.  Unless someone wants to disable paladin as a pc class, I don't see how thinking about doing something wrong should cause falling.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Kish on October 31, 2004, 08:54:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: neriana on November 01, 2004, 04:52:11 AM
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.

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.

The gods of Faerun do not work for a complex theology. In the D&D world, gods actually exist and they make their wills very clear. People don't have to war with each other over what Lathander "really" wants; he tells them. If you want parallels, ancient mythology has more, but it's still not the same, because again, in Faerun the gods exist, and prove their existence every moment.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: GetCool on November 02, 2004, 02:23:43 AM
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.

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.
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.

In any case, I want to make this clear: when I equated thought with sin, I was treating it as part of the body of beliefs, not the entirety.  I am fully aware that forgiveness is a basis as well, and I never said that you are damning yourself eternally for thinking an evil thought.  I'm not a theologian, so I'm not claiming to be an expert on any branch of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.  But I made the previous statement because I have encountered it, and I have seen evidence to back it up (which I will try to provide, given some time... see below).

Additionally, I said that this idea is "reflected" in Shakespeare (and Spenser), not that it dominates their work.  I'll admit that I probably shouldn't have added "and Spenser," because I cannot, off the top of my head, think where any examples of this are in Spenser, but then again, I don't remember a whole lot of The Faerie Queene, and I was more or less assuming that, because it is a Protestant epic, that it would contain the same theological ideas as Shakespeare.  But in any case, this idea is in Shakespeare, because I know I've encountered it.  I know that it is in Hamlet for example, but I will have to take a look at the play again to provide examples.

On the subject of Hamlet, it is a deeply theological play.  I bring this up because you made the point that Shakespeare (such as your example of Othello) is often deeply psychologically rooted.  I agree with this point entirely.  However, we also can't overlook the fact that Shakespeare often contains a lot of religious content as well, and it can be true that a given play is both psychologically and theologically rooted.  Hamlet is a good example, for Hamlet's psychological problems that he deals with throughout the play are firmly based in a Protestant theological context.

Anyway, anything I say is worthless without textual evidence, so I will be back.
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: fallen demon on November 03, 2004, 07:35:05 PM
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.
And i'm sure GetCool has somesort of point, but i fail to see what Shakespeare's (or anyone else's) view of what one does reflect their thoughts has to do with whether or not sim should judge our characters for thoughts. 
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: Andyr on November 04, 2004, 12:17:29 PM
I don't know about 2E, but in 3E...

Deities have class levels. Those with spellcaster levels tend to know all spells they can - and there are spells to look into the minds of others.

So, I'd suggest that most deities could in theory look into someone's mind if they wanted to.

I don't know that any of them could automatically, though. Possibly. In 3E, deities can sense events linked to their portfolio, so if thinking about doing Evil things falls into a deitie's portfolio then maybe? This could cover Shar and Cyric, I guess. Helm could perhaps sense it since his is Watching, though taken to an extreme that'd mean he'd automatically sense everything...

So, I dunno. :P
Title: Re: Thought Police?
Post by: roidesfoux on December 14, 2004, 12:21:44 AM
I think people need to make a distinction between thought and desire.

"Ho hum, I wonder what would happen if I were to kill that person over there."
vs.
"It would really be convenient if that person over there wasn't alive anymore."
vs.
"Ohhhhh, I just wanna plunge my knife into that person's chest! Feel it go in again and again and again and again.

An idle fancy doesn't mean you really want something to happen.

-RdF