Pocket Plane Group

BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: SixOfSpades on June 22, 2004, 05:56:34 PM

Title: Grave Robbing
Post by: SixOfSpades on June 22, 2004, 05:56:34 PM
Stealing from tombs just plain isn't nice. True, the idea of people trying to cling to their material posessions is rather unrealistic, and if they're not using the stuff, why shouldn't you....but that doesn't really excuse violating the sanctity of a tomb.

Suggestion: Give every crypt in the Graveyard District that doesn't contain Hostile Undead (and maybe a couple that do, such as the one where you meet Stein and his buddies) an invisible, unkillable observer, who reacts in much the same way as a Commoner: You can disarm the trap, you can pick the lock, but if you actually open the container, *BAM!* Virtue hit. Maybe even a spawn of some low-level Undead.

Also (and I know this is straying from the point of Virtue, but it's related), some flavor might be added by populating the graves with their rightful inhabitants: It's not like the game lacks any "Dead Body" items, plus you've got Amauna's Bones, and Kangaxx's body parts could be recolored and combined with a Skull to complete the set.....etc.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SixOfSpades on June 24, 2004, 08:19:50 PM
Boy, did I pick a winning idea here or what! No thoughts on this at all?   :-\
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 25, 2004, 04:47:21 PM
Sorry, I've been on work experience so I've been largely ignoring Virtue for the week.

I largely operate on the premise that an evil act requires a victim. Who's the victim in taking stuff from the graves? It's disrespectful, and mildly upsetting at worst. I think it's a fair stretch to say it's as evil as anything else that shifts Virtue.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Ruben on June 26, 2004, 06:16:29 PM
Well I think it was Eye of the Beholder 2, but you can dig up graves in it and if you had a Paladin in your party it would give you a little message about him complaining and refusing to have any part in it but he wouldn't leave. Though you never did lose any characters in those games.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: icelus on June 26, 2004, 07:27:06 PM
IIRC, the Eye of the Beholder games did not have any kind of reputation system, nor did party members leave/not get along.  I do recall, however, that the paladins did complain about desecrating the graves outside of the citadel (or whatever that building was called).

As for having a victim--I dunno.  I'd think the family of the deceased might not be pleased.  Whether that makes them a "victim," however, is debatable.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Ruben on June 27, 2004, 12:03:08 AM
Yeah just pointing out from a Paladin's stand point in that game it was treated like stealing.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on June 27, 2004, 07:16:42 AM
I think you get a +3 weapon from doing that graverobbing.
Quite an incentive, especially in those games where such plus-es were extremely hard to find.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Lord Kain on June 27, 2004, 05:28:56 PM
well its kind of a spirtual thing to be have some of your things in your tomb. I mean when an old war veteran dies sometimes they put his medals in his coffin. In the world like D&D a warrior might be burried in his armor with his prized sword at his side.

Of course D&D characters raid dungeons of long forgotten people. It really depends on the reason. If you go into a grave yard break open a tomb to steal some stuff for gold is a loss of virtue.

However going to the tomb of a long forgotten hero in order to reclaim his sword to use to fight the forces of evil is a heroic quest. Of course the honorible thing to do in that case is return the sword when your done.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on June 28, 2004, 06:33:40 PM
Just came in from the Forgotten Wars Imoen Romance forum, wanted to ask a relevant question about Virtue:
Does Virtue get affected if you take your sweet time to go to Suldanessellar?
Because 1) You hurried to get Imoen back, so couldn't take the quests
            2) More lives than Imoen's at stake
I'm just saying when you straightjacket the time in it, it doesn't make sense, it becomes a long drawn marathon like UFO: Aftermath. Of course, in that game, if you didn't get your technology up to speed all your squads would be killed - a tangible incentive for action. Here it doesn't seem that way.
Sure, you could always say: Install Planar Sphere WeiDU, but think about it: in TOB there's a massive slaughter, and you must move quickly, yadda yadda.
Wasn't this game meant to be enjoyed?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Lord Kain on June 29, 2004, 02:07:29 AM
the entire timing thing was removed.
If i remember correctly it was because you can't assume the PC's motives for the delay. Wanting to be prepared to save Imoen and live to tell the tale
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 29, 2004, 07:07:44 AM
Fallout 2 made you a grave-digger (good or bad, I don't know if it had any affect), PS:T must have done something too.  Uh.. hmm (well, it should have at any rate).

But wait a minute - you don't think grave-robbing is evil, Sim?  :o  I do.  Aside from that, if it's disrespectful, how is that not non-virtuous?

The victim is the sanctity of death, the dead, the grave, and the belongings that are supposed to stay with them.  ..and yes, the living would have quite a bit to say about it.  It's a crime, then as well.

I realize we must think in terms of degrees of evil for this Virtue mod, else you'd have to address quite a bit of behavior, but think about the real-life scenario of digging up a grave and tell me you still wonder.  :(
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 29, 2004, 07:32:15 AM
Being disrespectful isn't the same as being evil. I'm regularly rude to teachers at school for whatever reason, but I'm fairly confident this doesn't make me an evil person.
As for sanctity of death... I'm not quite sure how FR treats afterlife. But still, they're dead. Taking their belongings isn't going to have any effect at all.

Quote
Does Virtue get affected if you take your sweet time to go to Suldanessellar?
Virtue no longer includes timers. They weren't very satisfactory.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 29, 2004, 07:51:04 AM
While rudeness represents a degree of disrespect, disrespect is much more and varied; imo, disrespect is a degree of evil (especially willfull disrespect).  yes, I'll figure it out later (after I've gotten sleep) unless someone has said it better by the time I get back.   ;)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: icelus on June 29, 2004, 08:05:24 AM
But... wouldn't someone who acted like a prick to everyone (for lack of a better word) be considered less virtuous than someone who showed other respect? 
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on June 29, 2004, 09:23:50 AM
No.  Being rude has nothing to do with alignment; a character can be polite and evil or obnoxious and good.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 29, 2004, 04:15:08 PM
Virtue and alignment are different how, again?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on June 29, 2004, 06:25:12 PM
Virtue changes Alignment.
Money Donated changes Reputation.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on June 29, 2004, 06:29:32 PM
Isn't Mr. T. an example of an obnoxious person doing good (Shut yo' mouth foo'!)?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 30, 2004, 04:10:09 AM
(I never said being rude was evil - reread, please)  But do I want to see the difference between alignment and virtue before I start down this mine-laden path.  I'm having a hard time understanding how grave-robbing is not non-virtuous and not evil.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on June 30, 2004, 06:29:26 AM
..and before we start a total play on words, let me try and clarify what I am talking about:

Sim calls his teacher a bitch - that's rude, and strange if the teacher is male  :P
Sim calls a cop a pig - that's rude and a bit disrespectful, and likely to get a rise out of the cop.
Sim calls ..well, I can't think of anything (because I need sleep again) but it suffices to say that I was thinking of disrespect on a larger scale as opposed to merely grammatical - the whole sticks and stones thing, aye?

However, Icelus makes a point akin to my thought process - being a prick, encompassing much more than the verbal, implies another degree of evil.  (But that could just be my f*cked up values again, hmm?  :-*)

(and before anyone else tries to say what the diff between virtue and rep is, I was asking Sim  :))
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on June 30, 2004, 07:31:48 AM
Quote
It all started in chat a while back, when Kish remarked that Reputation served
a dual purpose in the game. Not only does it indicate how other people in the game
think of the player, but also how morally "right" his actions are.

This mod sets out to remedy this by splitting it into two separate variables:
Reputation, which represents how people in the game feel about the party; and
Virtue, which represents how morally correct the party's actions are.

Virtue is pretty much alignment on a finer scale.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 01, 2004, 09:57:27 AM
well grave-robbing is certainly not amoral.

The victim, I still say, is the sanctity of death; after-life or no.. and, uh.. if they're dead and who cares, then what's so wrong with necrophelia  :P   ::)  :D

yup, it's like that.  To me, anyway.  A violation of ..something personal.  A corpse, and it's resting place, is still 'personal'.  I realize it's just a shell but it's also a symbol of life and the life they lived, and the living (relatives or whomever) chose what to send that shell with; these things are ..just supposed to stay there.  Do you think if that corpse could object, it wouldn't?  Why does bioWare have wraiths appear every time you open a coffin?  Is that not an expression of dissapproval?  BioWare does have one spectre spouting the line about the santity of the grave being violated, the offender must now be dealt with - Amuanator's bones aren't where they should be; there are other points of reference for this argument.

Ultimately, the victim is the idea that people hold about some things being sacred and should remain that way.

I do rather like the idea that opening all the graves/coffin's/sarcoffigi in the Graveyard district will net you a point or 2 in negative Virtue at the very least.

<shrug> I'm sure if I crafted it over a day (or two) I could make it more coherent but, for now, and because I'm not going to have much time in the next few days and am not further motivated, I'll leave it at that. 

Did I say it was a crime already?  Yes, I'm sure I did.  :P
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 10:03:54 AM
The victim, I still say, is the sanctity of death; after-life or no.. and, uh.. if they're dead and who cares, then what's so wrong with necrophelia  :P   ::)  :D
What IS wrong with it? It's sick, not evil.

Quote
BioWare does have one spectre spouting the line about the santity of the grave being violated, the offender must now be dealt with - Amuanator's bones aren't where they should be; there are other points of reference for this argument.
So presumably in the cases where they do care, they make it known?

Quote
Ultimately, the victim is the idea that people hold about some things being sacred and should remain that way.
By eating certain types of meat, I go against some people's religious beliefs, but this doesn't make me evil. I'd disagree that going against someone's beliefs is anything but moderately disrespectful.

Quote
Did I say it was a crime already?  Yes, I'm sure I did.  :P
So are plenty of other things that I wouldn't classify as remotely evil. I'm sure it's illegal to drop a sheep out of a plane in America somewhere. Hmm. Wait a minute...
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 01, 2004, 10:24:31 AM
Uh.. now I'm speechless.

Give me the name of one religion that does not hold life and death sacred.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 10:26:27 AM
...atheism?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 01, 2004, 10:37:21 AM
You are taking an object that isn't yours.  This is theft, this is illegal, this should result in a virtue hit.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 10:39:18 AM
Whose is it? And is it really any worse than looting the De'Arnise keep or wherever in passing?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 01, 2004, 10:49:05 AM
..is not a religion.

bah - atheism is not a religion.  It's missing the required object of worship.  ;)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 10:51:35 AM
Why does that matter? Religion does not dictate whether something is good or evil.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 01, 2004, 11:06:31 AM
but it does determine the morality.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 11:10:04 AM
Um. Why does it?

There are practical problems for a start. Which religion has sovereignty? One might say eating certain types of meat is immoral while the others don't. Who is right?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 01, 2004, 11:13:49 AM
Okay - I'm a leetle too tired to finish this, but I'll start it:

Meat has what to do with grave-robbing again?  And this is FR.. I'm fairly certain that the FR dieties could care less whether you ate the cow or its dung.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 01, 2004, 11:16:16 AM
Meat has exactly as much to do with grave robbing as religion does. Just because some person's religion says that something is sinful, that does not mean that it IS without question immoral. I need reasons beyond "religion says so".
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 01, 2004, 12:38:19 PM
Without grave robbing many museums would be empty.

Religion never had anything against desecrating graves of another faith. RP a paladin and you wouldn't do it, if not for that worshipper of Talos that rests here in pieces. Hell, even his god wouldn't want him to rest in peace, go get his stuff, tinhead.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: neriana on July 01, 2004, 03:27:20 PM
The only way grave robbing is immoral in my opinion is when someone takes artifacts and knowledge away from future generations (and museums) by stealing from a grave and selling to private collectors or melting down the gold. But I can't see this applying to FR.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 01, 2004, 04:20:19 PM
Whose is it? And is it really any worse than looting the De'Arnise keep or wherever in passing?

Whose it is is irrelevant, it's not yours, and since it's kept in Crypts it's someone elses property as well.  This is theft, and of course it's worse.  The items you take in the crypt may well aid in completion of a quest you were asked to carry out by the owner, that's a ridiculous comparison.

You wander into a crypt inhabited by the dead who are buried with their posessions and you leave with them.  It's theft, simple as that really.  Goodness, this is hardly one of the more challenging or thought provoking situations, and I'm amazed it's causing you so much trouble.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: neriana on July 01, 2004, 04:52:49 PM
Dead people can't own anything, they're dead.

For something to be wrong in the context of "virtue", it has to hurt someone else. There may be a circumstance or two in FR, like the little halfling boy who needs his teddy bear to rest, in which it would be wrong to take an object that could help a ghost or something. But the vast majority of dead people have gone somewhere else and they don't care about the material world; and if they do, relieving them of that worry would probably be the kindest thing.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 01, 2004, 06:26:45 PM
As Katherine Hepburn, who told their heirs to sell off all her stuff, once allegedly said: Nobody likes stuff, everybody likes money. I would not go so far to say that personal property is theft, but after your demise, as put forward above, you should really let go.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SixOfSpades on July 02, 2004, 02:59:13 AM
It's perfectly sensible to say "You can't take it with you" and ask your relatives to sell your clothes and keep the casket closed--as long as that's your decision. It is not OK to impose that same unattachment to material things on someone else, especially when there's very little they can say about the matter. If Deadman Joe wanted to be buried with his boots on, then removing them, even after he has no earthly use for them anymore, is denying him his eternal rest. Why do you think Revenants are so grumpy all the time?

I'm of the opinion that taking things from graves is all right provided it's done for reasons other than personal gain: Samia's purported intent of historical research on King Strohm III, for instance, or the aforementioned borrowing of the gear of some historic warrior to defeat some danger that threatens the land (and then putting the gear back), or for study. Storing relics in a museum, though, is of dubious morality if their original owner would miss them--making facsimiles and putting the actual relics back where they came from is the best bet.  I also believe that if the person has been dead for so long that nobody even remembers who was entombed there, their attachment to this earth has faded so much that their former possessions are pretty much up for grabs.

Now that I look back on that last sentence, I just justified the almost comlete lack of Virtue hits for looting the Graveyard District, since the only tomb with a name on it is Jeeves's. So I'm going to have to clarify my ideals through the lens of BG, and say that taking stuff from people like Kangaxx, the Crypt King, and Bob the Lich (in the Crooked Crane) is all good, but there's really no way to feel morally righteous about nabbing the Staff of Curing.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 02, 2004, 04:00:54 AM
Aha, the plot is thinning! :P
By museums I of course meant the countries to which historically the loot erm heritage belongs. Europeans take note. I always felt that Daystar was only hidden in the Crooked Crane, since it is not in the tomb, but in a nearby chest. The Improved Crypt King is such a handful for low level parties that you really earned the blade grave robbing or not.

I still fail to see the difference between looting the house with the Horn in the Bridge district and any of the graves.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: neriana on July 02, 2004, 04:11:26 PM
Dead people have no will, no choice, no anything. They're dead. A bunch of bones and dust. Corpses are objects. Imposing your will on a dead "person" is like imposing your will on a hat. Someone who is already dead cannot be hurt.

If, in the FR world, a particular person is a ghost or whatever who believes s/he needs an object for eternal rest, then taking that object if it is not necessary to you as a living person may be wrong.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 02, 2004, 05:52:07 PM
Ah, they're dead, that makes it okay.  I mean, the fact that it's tucked away in a tomb is irrelevant... the fact that it has to have been purposely put there and not on sale is irrelevant... the fact that the family of the deceased would have a greater claim to anything than you would is irrelevant... the fact that they may have stated in a will they wished to be buried with this item is irrrelevant...

Ah, but I forget, they're dead, and you got there first, so that's all right then.

Honestly, is this forum just having a stupid attack or something?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on July 02, 2004, 07:09:09 PM
You're in the City of Coin for BG2:SOA, and Trying to stave off an invasion and the attendant pillage and plunder in TOB...
Between the shady criminals selling their wares, the bribe-able guards, the foppish nobles who won't help save De'Arnise keep, the wizards who want to send someone to their death, and a place for the insane that does no rehabilitation?
come off it already...
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 02, 2004, 07:48:06 PM
Ah, they're dead, that makes it okay.  I mean, the fact that it's tucked away in a tomb is irrelevant... the fact that it has to have been purposely put there and not on sale is irrelevant... the fact that the family of the deceased would have a greater claim to anything than you would is irrelevant... the fact that they may have stated in a will they wished to be buried with this item is irrrelevant...

Ah, but I forget, they're dead, and you got there first, so that's all right then.

Honestly, is this forum just having a stupid attack or something?
Consequently you should be arguing against anything you take from anywhere in the game which belongs to someone which is quite obviously most of the stuff. Then I must say that we then need a virtue hit (perhaps in very small increments) for anything you take from chests and tables in all the houses you 'visit'. On the other hand it is pefectly ok to kill somebody for the loot right. :P
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 02, 2004, 08:11:56 PM
You're in the City of Coin for BG2:SOA, and Trying to stave off an invasion and the attendant pillage and plunder in TOB...
Between the shady criminals selling their wares, the bribe-able guards, the foppish nobles who won't help save De'Arnise keep, the wizards who want to send someone to their death, and a place for the insane that does no rehabilitation?
come off it already...

Ah, how could I not realise this, it's fine because the player has judged it to be fine.  Gosh, that's not a road to evil deeds...
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 02, 2004, 09:45:41 PM
Then I must say that we then need a virtue hit (perhaps in very small increments) for anything you take from chests and tables in all the houses you 'visit'.
BG1 made this quite difficult, if you'll remember - it is stealing.

Alright folks, I can't believe this discussion is continuing like it's perfectly fine to go out for a night of grave robbing, so let's try this: Your mother/father/lover (whomever you are closest to in your life right now) dies.  You bury them with a few artifacts they cherished while alive - a wedding ring, or anything equally endearing.  You're telling me you're not going to have a problem with someone cracking that coffin open and taking it?  You're telling me that once it's put on that body (and buried) it's up for grabs?  We'll forget the fact that Christianity deems this sacrelige, because this is the FR - Talos is evil and chaotic, it stands to reason they would condone the act; Lathander, however, would surely not.

Religion, to me, is the 'founding father' of morality - that's what religion has to do with grave robbing.  Religion uses the terms good and evil, Morality uses right and wrong.

edit: oops, a bit too tired - It's also certain religions that make the grave, and corpse, sacred.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 02, 2004, 10:24:10 PM
Consequently you should be arguing against anything you take from anywhere in the game which belongs to someone which is quite obviously most of the stuff. Then I must say that we then need a virtue hit (perhaps in very small increments) for anything you take from chests and tables in all the houses you 'visit'. On the other hand it is pefectly ok to kill somebody for the loot right. :P

You should take a virtue hit every time you steal something outside of monster filled dungeons; it's theft, regardless of whether or not you get caught. Killing people who attack you and then stripping them of their arms and armor is a different issue (though there should be a virtue hit for say pickpocketing someone until they go hostile, then killing them and looting the body).

Maybe you could make a case for stealing from the Slavers or the Shadow Thieves, and maybe Nalia's keep, but that's about it.

The path of the righteous man is lined with thorns. ;)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on July 02, 2004, 10:37:34 PM
It's bad to steal from Slavers and Cyricists(Shadow Thieves)?
On the one hand, we reduce the gold they have on hand to continue their illegal/destructive ability...
And on the other hand we're not the paragons of virtue...
So, you're either black or white. Way to go for roleplaying.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on July 02, 2004, 10:39:35 PM
Sorry, apologise for the previous post.
Open mouth, remove foot.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 02, 2004, 10:42:45 PM
There is no grey area in law.  There is no grey area in religion.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Ghreyfain on July 02, 2004, 11:48:56 PM
I just came up with what I think is a good explanation of a compromise, although this may not be the case, since I'm running on four hours sleep, and that was a long long time ago.

Anyways, I tend to agree with some of the arguments that grave-robbing from tombs of the "innocent" is not virtuous.  It's like stealing from the rich and keeping it for yourself.  Sure, the rich may not've been using it, but that doesn't mean it belongs to anyone who has the means to take it.

But Virtue works on a relatively large-scale... uh, scale.  A petty pickpocket might be TN.  He steals stuff for a living, so his virtue should, theoretically, drop continuously, making him NE.  He doesn't murder people or anything, doesn't beat his wife, doesn't do any truly abominable stuff, but he's still a thief.  I don't see people thinking he's as diabolical as Irenicus because he steals stuff.

On the other hand, if a Paladin steals something in such a manner, he'd fall, yeah?  A priest of Lathander would probably lose his granted powers, too.  Huh.  Okay, my idea has morphed from what it originally was (thievery incurs no virtue penalties, because it's not large-scale enough to be warranted), to something entirely different: Certain virtue hits only drop you into the "neutral" scale of things.  If you steal something and are good aligned, you take a virtue hit.  Once you've fallen to neutral, you only lose virtue by doing truly nasty things, like murder, rape, and graffiti.

Sounds like a lot of work for very little gain, though.  First of all I'm not sure how Virtue's implemented, exactly, so I don't know how hard it'd be to add separate types of crimes, and second of all, I forget what's second, and now the weariness has kicked in and I'm fading fast.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: neriana on July 02, 2004, 11:55:22 PM
Ah, they're dead, that makes it okay.  I mean, the fact that it's tucked away in a tomb is irrelevant... the fact that it has to have been purposely put there and not on sale is irrelevant... the fact that the family of the deceased would have a greater claim to anything than you would is irrelevant... the fact that they may have stated in a will they wished to be buried with this item is irrrelevant...

Ah, but I forget, they're dead, and you got there first, so that's all right then.

Honestly, is this forum just having a stupid attack or something?

Apparently it is, when someone can't distinguish between the rights of the living and -- dead people are dead! If their families wanted their possessions they wouldn't have stuffed them in a tomb. Dead people are objects. They aren't PEOPLE, they aren't even animals. They have no motivations, no brain patterns, no emotions, no thoughts, no nothing because corpses are things. You're talking about the rights of objects here. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 12:24:22 AM
No.  He's talking about respecting those "objects"; and, in my case, giving them the reverence they deserve.

(and am I just babbling to myself?)  Why are you honing in on the theft (THEFT) of objects from objects.  Surely the symbolic has a place in this arguement.  Is it selective ..reading? ..disrupted thought patterns?  Why is it okay to steal from a grave??  Would you do it in real life?

Where did that moral compass go?  And I am now completely depressed that I have to try and justify, in words, why grave robbing is so amoral.  :(

(edit: "amoral" at best)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Aristothenes on July 03, 2004, 12:38:36 AM
Beyond a certain period of age, as I understand it, the property/item isn't yours anymore. Let's say a person owning a house dies. House not been used, no living relatives. You move in. A crime? Not virtuous? Depends on who you ask.
It's like saying a stone has feelings.
It gets even more ridiculous the further back you put it. Should you use Foebane? It isn't even yours. Better return it to Suldanessellar.
Religion and morality have always been flexible. That's why we have the leaders we deserve...!
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 12:43:47 AM
oh, for ____'s sake.  Different religions have different beliefs and codes, but within each, they are not flexible.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 03, 2004, 08:33:05 AM
I agree with you on the grave robbing, but I am saying that theft is still theft, so the Horn of Valhalla and Ras (IIRC the sword from the Crypt King) should not be treated diffrently. Also there should be a virtue hit for anything you steal for MaeVar or the Horn in Brynnlaw. You take it. It is not yours. Boom. There goes your paladin. Besides a paladin would not engage in grave robbing anyways.  ;)


mmmh righteous...thorns you say. This reminds me... ::)
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

(Funny sidenote on this here: http://www.webspawner.com/users/ezekielpulp/)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 03, 2004, 10:23:24 AM
Apparently it is, when someone can't distinguish between the rights of the living and -- dead people are dead! If their families wanted their possessions they wouldn't have stuffed them in a tomb. Dead people are objects. They aren't PEOPLE, they aren't even animals. They have no motivations, no brain patterns, no emotions, no thoughts, no nothing because corpses are things. You're talking about the rights of objects here. It makes no sense.

Oh, yes!  Of course!  Now I remember!  Dead people are objects!

Well, I suppose because it's sociably acceptable (in most circles) for people to use sex toys, why not go dig up your neighbors dead body and f*ck it 'til you die in turn?  After all, if your girlfriend can use a dildo, why can't you "use" your friend's mom's corpse?

Really, neriana.  Let's pay some respect to the dead, even if their final request was a bit silly.  Though someone probably won't care about whether or not they have their wedding ring on after they die, they probably will when they were alive.  Because their dream in life was to exist dead with their ring on (or their bathrobe, or whatever), wouldn't you be honoring their life by not defiling their grave?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 03, 2004, 10:24:40 AM
Where is it sensible to draw the line? Do we treat all skeletons we dig up with respect, or is there a certain time frame within which you have to respect the dead?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 03, 2004, 11:56:16 AM
Quote
Well, I suppose because it's sociably acceptable (in most circles) for people to use sex toys, why not go dig up your neighbors dead body and f*ck it 'til you die in turn?  After all, if your girlfriend can use a dildo, why can't you "use" your friend's mom's corpse?

And the argument contained therein was what exactly? A virtue hit for necrophilia?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 03, 2004, 04:37:34 PM
Quote
Well, I suppose because it's sociably acceptable (in most circles) for people to use sex toys, why not go dig up your neighbors dead body and f*ck it 'til you die in turn?  After all, if your girlfriend can use a dildo, why can't you "use" your friend's mom's corpse?

And the argument contained therein was what exactly? A virtue hit for necrophilia?

If, based on the assumption that neriana proposes in which dead people are objects, then necrophilia wouldn't be necrophilia.  It would be self-fulfilment.  In order to actually understand my post, please read neriana's post above mine.  The argument contained therein was that dead people aren't objects, or necrophilia wouldn't be so socialy unacceptable.  It is true that my post was disturbing, but please attempt to think.   :P
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 04:46:14 PM
(Can we please stop entertaining the most shocking 'exceptions to the rule' or word-play games or whatever that was?  It would have been sufficient to say that if dead people were only objects, then necrophelia wouldn't exist - aka, what you just said.  :-[)

I agree with you on the grave robbing, but I am saying that theft is still theft, so the Horn of Valhalla and Ras (IIRC the sword from the Crypt King) should not be treated diffrently. Also there should be a virtue hit for anything you steal for MaeVar or the Horn in Brynnlaw. You take it. It is not yours. Boom. There goes your paladin. Besides a paladin would not engage in grave robbing anyways.  ;)
But, stealing the horn is preceeded by agreeing to go along with Saemon's plan.  imo, Any self-respecting Paladin would not go along with Saemon's plan after what he pulled on them - and, to add insult to injury, if they do (go along with his plan) he drops the stolen blade in their pocket and 'turns you in' to the Sahuigan [sp?] underscoring the ..humiliation.

I never play Paladins because they are ..supposed to be beholden to a set of unyielding ideals, but theft.. my neutral characters, even my good theif, has no problem with stealing from most (living) people; only my evil characters would steal from the poor.  My neutral/good characters would need a damn good reason to steal from the dead; even my evil characters (CE/CN being the only exception) would be ..uneasy.  Justice?  Morality?  Common-sense?  Virtue?  Probably a bit of each.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 05:00:33 PM
Where is it sensible to draw the line? Do we treat all skeletons we dig up with respect, or is there a certain time frame within which you have to respect the dead?
Which quests, exactly, take you into the tombs.  Do any require that you open the tombs?  I honestly cannot recall any but Korgans.  Think of the dialogues associated with that one.  "Sure, I'll help you plunder.." or "I need to raise a lot of money.." and afterwards, you're immediately presented with the option to drop Korgan.  Like I edited my earlier post to reflect - grave robbing is amoral AT BEST.

Imo, there is no time frame on that set of bones.  Sure the tombs are there, but just because they're there doesn't mean we should go in and loot them all.  There's lots of innocents walking around - do we just arbitrarily kill them because they are there?  No.  Or, at least, not unless we are evil.

Museums: The greater good.

Do any quests, taking you into the tombs, meet that criteria of being 'for the greater good'?

(edit) Theft deals more with Law, which is why I tried to stear clear of that "angle".  I'm not a lawful person - I hate law, in fact; my approach, in all things, has been more one of common sense and spirituality/morality. (/edit)

Virtue defines what is right and wrong.  What is right and wrong?  I'll conceed that it depends on what your PC believes.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: cliffette on July 03, 2004, 05:01:16 PM
Grave robbing is a non-virtuous act, no matter how you dress it up ('artefact for my museum' doesn't really cut it). Yes, dead people have no feelings, but as Cybersquirt said, it is a symbolic form of respect not to disturb them. Otherwise we would not have funerals for our loved ones (though yes, funerals are as much for the attendees as for the star).

An important quality of virtue is respect and an appreciation of symbolism - otherwise you're just going through the motions of goodness without actually appreciating why they are good; and the act of avoiding evil is just because you want to stay out of jail, not because you are virtuous. In other words, I am not sure if pragmatism (he's dead, so I can take it!) and virtue go together.

However, it would make roleplaying a Paladin extremely difficult in the context of the game.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: cliffette on July 03, 2004, 05:03:48 PM
Museums: The greater good.

Heh.. it is highly dependent on your view... Taking things from graves for study purposes is ok to me, provided that it is returned after you extract all the info you can from it. Then again, how do we know when all the information has been taken from it?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 05:09:18 PM
Heh-heh.. well, I've always been the trusting sort, so I tend to trust that those archaeologists are acting from the stand-point of gaining knowledge (which is always a good thing, imo).  They don't deal, strictly, with corpses though some are bound to be found; blah, blah. 

It's a valid, and tricky, exception.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: cliffette on July 03, 2004, 05:12:29 PM
It's a grey area. :)
I would prefer to see a real egyptian casket in a museum than a photo or replica of one, for instance, so I'm not particularly virtuous. My first response was not actually to your post - we must have posted fairly close together. :)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 05:25:44 PM
Heh-heh.. well, I've always been the trusting sort, so I tend to trust that those archaeologists are acting from the stand-point of gaining knowledge (which is always a good thing, imo).  They don't deal, strictly, with corpses though some are bound to be found; blah, blah. 

It's a valid, and tricky, exception.
Was in response to your response about "museums: greater good". <goes to take a break from speed posting now>  ;)

Yes, it's a grey area.  Good thing our adventuring party is not a group of archaeologists (before someone tries that angle  :P)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: St. Josephine on July 03, 2004, 05:54:40 PM
Having been involved in quite a few archaelogical digs, I can safely say that the difference between RL archaelogy and this game is that no one is absonding with artifacts and using them to smite their enemies in RL.  ;D

Most countries have laws against that, anyway.  The artifacts have to be used for knowledge, not for personal gain, and cannot be sold to enrich any one person.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 03, 2004, 06:04:44 PM
@ cliffette: Otherwise we would not have funerals for our loved ones

I lean towards the thought that the rites of passage are as much or even more for the living than for the dead.

I guess the Pharaos also where buried under the assumption that they would rest in peace for eternity. My fav quote was that they (past archeologists) defiled (of course they called it salvaged in the real quote) most graves so that grave robbers (sic!) would not do it.

Another angle would be that anything that is not a quest item and not a loot from a dead enemy would include a virtue hit. Graves would be included, but not overemphasized like the initial proposal was.


Hehe ....and Sim would have to code it all. :P
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 06:27:41 PM
I guess the Pharaos also where buried under the assumption that they would rest in peace for eternity. My fav quote was that they (past archeologists) defiled (of course they called it salvaged in the real quote) most graves so that grave robbers (sic!) would not do it.
I may have seen the documentary from which that quote originated - it was quite disturbing to see the skulls of the dead laying all over the place.  But yes, they were buried under the assumption that their corpses would remain undisturbed as I thought it was well-known that they believed in the after-life; there's a very real difference between stealing those artifacts and pawning/selling them and taking/stealing those artifacts to learn about their culture and, subsequently, put them on display (I happen to think the artifacts should go back, but once they're found they are vulnerable/bound to be looted; let's be realistic about it).  However, our PC is neither an archaeologist nor a curator.

I like your idea, though, Jester.  ..and maybe Virtue should be as complex as it really is in life.

edit: Besides, it's not like there's only one grave in the entire game - there's a whole area, and subareas, of them.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 06:32:40 PM
(just notices Kish's ..uh ..noticable absence from this "debate".)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 03, 2004, 06:50:19 PM
An important quality of virtue is respect and an appreciation of symbolism - otherwise you're just going through the motions of goodness without actually appreciating why they are good; and the act of avoiding evil is just because you want to stay out of jail, not because you are virtuous. In other words, I am not sure if pragmatism (he's dead, so I can take it!) and virtue go together.
  Very well said.  My definition of Virtue starts with pragmatism, but goes on from there to incorporate other factors - not the least of which is the system of belief (aka religion) the PC is following. 

(That's why I shouldn't speed post, because I gloss things and I completely glossed over this.  ::))

Quote
However, it would make roleplaying a Paladin extremely difficult in the context of the game.
How so?  Religion is specific, but it would definitely make coding a nightmare.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 04, 2004, 07:06:04 AM
To me, all this "dead people are a symbol" crap doesn't matter to me.  Simply fact is you're going into a place that isn't yours, taking something that isn't yours, and all the while you know that there's a good chance that someone else out there has a rightful claim to said item, or that it was the wish of that person to have the item put in this place.  The item didn't get in the tomb by itself, there is a reason it's there.  It's not like a coin on the street or in a barrel which might have fallen there.

What this does reveal is the flaw of the current virtue system whereby your current alignment and virtue have no effect on any penalties or gains you get later.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: cliffette on July 04, 2004, 07:30:53 AM
@ cliffette: Otherwise we would not have funerals for our loved ones

I lean towards the thought that the rites of passage are as much or even more for the living than for the dead.


True, on second thought. However, the fact that we don't recycle gravesites 100 years on when the relatives who most benefit are all dead (we don't, do we?) points to some sort of symbolic respect for the life they once had.

Quote
How so?  Religion is specific, but it would definitely make coding a nightmare.
I meant from a general, non-deity-specific pov. It would be hard to roleplay a paladin, as you would be forced to make money the hard way- by completing quests and gaining the rewards that way. Looting the corpses of those you killed (even against your desire to do so) is merely an extension of grave robbing, as somebody pointed out before.

And Qutch makes a good point, though I still think symbolism is an important component in virtue.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 04, 2004, 05:22:43 PM
True, on second thought. However, the fact that we don't recycle gravesites 100 years on when the relatives who most benefit are all dead (we don't, do we?) points to some sort of symbolic respect for the life they once had.
No, we don't.  When (most commonly highway) construction will interfere with graves, they (the graves) must be relocated.  It's out of RESPECT that this is done.

I figured you thought the symbolism was "crap" Quitch, that's why I wasn't asking you - I knew early on that we were debating this from 2 different angles.  ;)

But if dead people aren't symbolic of the life they lead, then they are just objects.  Yes, it is still theft, but then so is the scenario in ToB - the woman stealing from the guards (?) to feed her children.  There's a vast diffence.

edit: And how virtuous is it to let those guards (thugs) kill her for that theft?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 04, 2004, 05:48:17 PM
I meant from a general, non-deity-specific pov. It would be hard to roleplay a paladin, as you would be forced to make money the hard way- by completing quests and gaining the rewards that way. Looting the corpses of those you killed (even against your desire to do so) is merely an extension of grave robbing, as somebody pointed out before.


Actually, the right of the victor to the horse, arms and armor of his attacker is built into the western codes of Chivalry on which the Paladin class is based. As long as he is honorably defending himself from attack, a Paladin would have no problem looting bodies.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: cliffette on July 04, 2004, 05:50:48 PM
I meant from a general, non-deity-specific pov. It would be hard to roleplay a paladin, as you would be forced to make money the hard way- by completing quests and gaining the rewards that way. Looting the corpses of those you killed (even against your desire to do so) is merely an extension of grave robbing, as somebody pointed out before.


Actually, the right of the victor to the horse, arms and armor of his attacker is built into the western codes of Chivalry on which the Paladin class is based. As long as he is honorably defending himself from attack, a Paladin would have no problem looting bodies.

D'oh! My lack of FR/chivalry rules/lore is showing... I concede your point. :)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 05, 2004, 04:09:31 AM
There's that; there's also not much on a lot of those bodies to worry about looting.

I see that whole thing a bit differently, but the slope's getting a little slippery and I'm not sure I want to start down it, so I'll say: Yeah, what Bob said.   ;D
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: _Data_ on July 09, 2004, 04:46:18 PM
Hi all

I rarely post but after reading this thread i felt compelled to add my point of view.

Remember that we are not talking about the real world here. This is FR where magic is common and people can rise up from the dead as undead if disturbed.

I would remind you of a certain encounter in BG1 where we meet a revenant(a dead person) who has risen from the dead to become undead because a thief has stolen his +2 dagger from his grave. In this case grave robbing had the consequence of denying the "soul" of the dead person his eternal rest and forcing him to exist as an undead monstrosity for who knows how long.

In this way i would say that in some cases grave robbing most definetly HAS a victim. Given how many graves you loot in the graveyard its very possible that in doing so the protagonist dooms atleast one dead person to a horrible existence as an undead creature for possibly centuries. I would call that evil.

Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 09, 2004, 05:03:23 PM
I always figured the Crypt King was dead. So imagine I kill the living merchant and conman the Drunken Ronaldo just to find out that he now roams his tomb with his new title as Crypt King. I got hit for killing him in the streets, when still drunk, happy and blue circled. Do I deserve another hit for killing the undead Ronaldo erm King?

In this unfair game everybody and I mean everybody other than me has a shot at resurrection. Mr. Anchev has so many comebacks it is hard to tell, if he needs any armour at all. So there is the option to argue that there are no real dead (humanoids at least) in the FR. My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: _Data on July 09, 2004, 05:45:29 PM
I always figured the Crypt King was dead. So imagine I kill the living merchant and conman the Drunken Ronaldo just to find out that he now roams his tomb with his new title as Crypt King. I got hit for killing him in the streets, when still drunk, happy and blue circled. Do I deserve another hit for killing the undead Ronaldo erm King?

Well i would say that killing the undead is not evil an act at all since in doing so you might actually allow the poor soul to rest in peace. However doing something that you know has a good chance of dooming the innocent soul of someone who has died into undead existence is certainly evil i think.

I think it a question of knowledge of the possible consequences of your actions. If the protagonist knows that taking a dagger from a grave of another person might cause that person to rise from the dead because of the crime then yes that act is evil. However if the protagonist is under the (mistaken) impression that taking the dagger wont harm anyone then the act might not be as evil. In the first case he knows that his actions could seriously hurt an innocent victim(the soul) and yet he does it anyway. In the second case he thinks that its ok since no one will be hurt. In both cases the results might be the same but the intent is not.

Quote
In this unfair game everybody and I mean everybody other than me has a shot at resurrection. Mr. Anchev has so many comebacks it is hard to tell, if he needs any armour at all. So there is the option to argue that there are no real dead (humanoids at least) in the FR. My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.

I understand that the whole Guarded compound building was somehow related to some slavery quest where entering might have been acceptable. However that quest was removed so right now what the protagonist does is:
1.Enter a private house.
2.Slaughter the inhabitants of that house for protecting their property.
3.Steal all the loot from that house.

So yes that whole thing should give you a massive virtue penalty. There is no evidence that the people in that house are anything but law-abiding citizens and you simply barge in and slaughter them.

And yes i agree with you that entering the house of an innocent person and taking items for yourself from that house is without a doubt stealing and quite wrong. Infact i recall that there are places where stealing like this if someone sees you gets you attacked by guards and a reputation penalty to boot.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 09, 2004, 06:29:05 PM
Quote
My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.

Everytime you take something from a private house, you should get a virtue hit. No, I'm not joking. It's thievery.

Nalia's kidnapping will give you a reason to enter the Guarded Compound. If you've done that quest, you have a dialog exposing the inhabitants as the Slave-lords. If you've had that dialog, you should be able to ransack the compound without a penalty. If you haven't, then CHARNAME is a common murderer and should lose virtue accordingly.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 09, 2004, 06:41:24 PM
Well i would say that killing the undead is not evil an act at all since in doing so you might actually allow the poor soul to rest in peace.
You could say that of killing anyone.  There are good liches.  A lich could be Lawful Good, love pursuing and gaining knowledge, and enjoy beind undead as much as anyone ever enjoys being alive--and would you still say killing the lich for being undead would be "not evil at all"?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: _Data_ on July 09, 2004, 07:19:13 PM
You could say that of killing anyone.  There are good liches.  A lich could be Lawful Good, love pursuing and gaining knowledge, and enjoy beind undead as much as anyone ever enjoys being alive--and would you still say killing the lich for being undead would be "not evil at all"?

Well i would be the first to admit that my knowledge of FR lore is limited so feel free to correct me if i am wrong but i believe that there is a big difference between the two.

A lich that has managed to remain good through the transformation WANTS to be a lich correct? He has done all the rituals to transform himself out of his own free will. He wants to remain a lich and is happy as he is. If the lich wanted release he could simply kill himself since this is something he is capable of. If this lich did not hurt anyone then i see no reason why he should not be allowed to remain in peace.

A revenant on the other hand is someone who has risen from the dead because his physical remains have been disturbed correct? He does not WANT to be an undead and wishes rest but cannot do so until he regains the item that has been stolen from him. In BG1 you encounter a thief who has grave robbed a dagger which he then proceeds to give to you, you can then enter the grave and give the dagger to the revenant and when you do he says something about being able to rest and be in peace now and collapses.

The difference here is obviously free will. The revenant is forced into undead form against his will. A protagonist that robs a grave might be responsible for an innocent soul being enslaved into undead form for who knows how long. It would be comparable to a powerfull necromancer somehow capturing the soul of an innocent and transforming it into undead.

In any case the presence of revenants proves that in some cases there remains a link between the possessions and the spirit of the deceased. In my view this makes grave robbing quite wrong since you are not only stealing from another being (the soul) but also risking that being returning from the dead in an effort to recover what has been stolen from him.

And finally lets not forget that even if the deceased did not care about his mortal posessions anymore grave robbing would still not be a victimless crime. Consider the wife of a soldier that was a good and kind person. Now consider that this soldier dies. It should be obvious that the wife who loved his husband dearly would be quite bereaved at his death. Now consider if this wife were to make sure that the very valuable wedding ring who was worn by the soldier remained in his hand while he was buried, something that gives the grief stricken wife some measure of comfort. Now consider the emotional and mental turmoil this poor wife would go through if she learned that someone had callously robbed this wedding ring from the hand of her husbands dead body? I would say that in this case there is most certainly a victim to grave robbing. The wife who is unable to grieve properly because of the actions of a cruel grave robbing adventurer.

This does not even consider the fact that according to law that valuable wedding ring might very well belong to the widow and as such taking it from the grave where the widow has stored it would be no different from stealing from a shopkeeper. Stealing may not be as big a crime as murder or creating a revenant but it still a crime, something that a paladin for instance should not be able to do.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 09, 2004, 07:58:10 PM
Well, I should mention that technically speaking, revenants are rather badly misused in both BG and NWN.  A revenant is supposed to be obsessed with one thing--finding its killer.  Not finding the thief who robbed its body, and certainly not (as in NWN) acting as a general-purpose mook who attacks random adventurers.

Not that that exactly affects BG.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: crayon on July 10, 2004, 05:04:37 PM

Religion, to me, is the 'founding father' of morality - that's what religion has to do with grave robbing.  Religion uses the terms good and evil, Morality uses right and wrong.


Religion is an invention of man. Morality, which in it's most basic form - a sense of fair play, is innate. Morality existed long before religion came on the scene.

--
crayon
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 10, 2004, 05:15:08 PM
Thinking about what Kish said above I think you should get a Virtue hit for killing VanGoethe in Amkethran (please excuse my spelling), since there is a peacefull and righteous solution to this. I dunno, if you already get one, because I never kill him, but it is possible IIRC.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 10, 2004, 05:25:04 PM
Vongoethe?  A Virtue penalty for killing someone who attacks innocent people and steals their souls?*

*Yes, he had a bargain with Marlowe.  What does that have to do with Marlowe's wife and daughter?

You don't have to be religious to be moral--quite the contrary.  The most moral people I've known were/are agnostics and atheists.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 10, 2004, 05:43:24 PM
I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.

I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature. The specific context and the content of both is up to the society and history, but the transcendent principle is always there.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 10, 2004, 05:56:45 PM
I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.
That's...nice. What does it have to do with anything?  What did she do to justify Vongoethe stealing her soul from her?  You are aware of her as a separate entity with, you know, rights, and not a piece of her father's property, aren't you?  (Nobody even think about saying something like, "Well, she's actually just a bunch of pixels.")

(For that matter, Vongoethe doesn't ever return her soul to her--as if it matters.  He gives it to you and says, "Here, do whatever you want with it, it can be quite useful to you.")

Quote
I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature.
I'm afraid you've completely lost me.  Many things are part of human nature; that doesn't make it any less inaccurate to say that religion is the foundation of morality.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 10, 2004, 06:50:34 PM
I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.
That's...nice. What does it have to do with anything?  What did she do to justify Vongoethe stealing her soul from her?

(For that matter, Vongoethe doesn't ever return her soul to her--as if it matters.  He gives it to you and says, "Here, do whatever you want with it, it can be quite useful to you.")

Obviously he does not have any means to get hold of Marlowe himself. Why he can do this to his family, but not to him escapes me and is another minus in the endless misery that is TOB, but he has a big problem (not unlike Shylock). As a lich he cannot do much in normal human terms like asking local authorities. Justified?? By no means, but isn't Marlow really the one to blame for entering into such a bargain without consideration what might happen, if he does not keep his end of the bargain? I know that killing VG is the quick fix for the situation, but isn't it a bit easy to just kill the lich? After all Marlowe had a quite selfish plan behind this IIRC, personal wealth. Shouldn't he be held reponsible too? I see your point about his wife and daughter, but the poorly drafted scene does not give me enough background info why the situation is as it is ATM. As for the soul. Yes you get it and you can always give it back. Where is the problem? BTW: Do you get a hit for keeping the soul? You are definitely going to hurt or rather kill somebody.


I am just a bunch of pixels to you for that matter. :D

Quote
I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature.
I'm afraid you've completely lost me.
As always. :P Crayon argued that religion was an invention of man whereas morality was innate. I think morality and religion are both achievements of our brain and our existance as social beings. Even an agnostic or an atheist recognizes religion as a category, morality is a basic human conditio-sine-qua-non for human coexistance (i.e. you have to have it). I think it has been around forever as simple code-of-conduct. Its special traits may vary from society to society or century to century, but they always existed in a certain form. That is why I rejected that distinction. Neither is a prerequisite nor foundation for/of the other.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 10, 2004, 07:13:23 PM
Obviously he does not have any means to get hold of Marlowe himself. Why he can do this to his family, but not to him escapes me
He explains that.  He could take Marlowe's soul by force, but a soul taken by force is worthless for his spell.  So he tortures and kills those close to Marlowe as a means of convincing Marlowe to offer his own soul.
Quote
Justified?? By no means, but isn't Marlow really the one to blame for entering into such a bargain without consideration what might happen, if he does not keep his end of the bargain?
Why does there have to be only one to blame?  Argue that not killing Marlowe should carry a Virtue penalty, if you like, but not that there should be a Virtue penalty for killing a murderer and thief of souls!

Quote
I see your point about his wife and daughter, but the poorly drafted scene does not give me enough background info why the situation is as it is ATM.
You know, by Vongoethe's own word, that he took the soul of Marlowe's wife (killing her) and means to do the same to his daughter unless he gets something from someone who isn't either of them.  Don't make the situation more complicated than it is.  It's not evil to kill someone who freely admits to having killed innocent people by stealing their souls.
Quote
As for the soul. Yes you get it and you can always give it back. Where is the problem?
You had said:
Quote
I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain.
That's no credit to Vongoethe.  He didn't give her her soul back, or even express any concern whatsoever as to what you did with it once you had it.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 10, 2004, 07:31:38 PM
Ok, I admit having been completely wrong about VG. :( I shall break his almost decaying body into pieces next time I see him. Promised. A hit for not killing Marlowe would be an overreaction even for me. :D He can still fullfill his side of the contract. For me Marlowe is still partly to blame, if he knew about the circumstances and the special requirements of this spell. He put his family in danger in my eyes for he knew his soul was save (as argued above as being useless, if taken by force), but with the slightest imagination he could always assume that VG would try to force him and hurt his  family. VG is not Louis Cipher, but Angel Heart is a good example of somebody who tries to trick his counterpart. You are right about it though and I admit it wholeheartedly. ;)

Do you get a hit for keeping her soul?

I am glad you had no complaints about the second bit  (religion vs. morality) this time. :) Either I made myself clear (which is rare) or I confused you beyond any valid responses.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on July 11, 2004, 03:54:11 PM
You spend a great deal of time robbing the dead in BG2.

Also: There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pocket. Why should robbing the dead be more evil than robbing the living?
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 06:01:13 PM
You spend a great deal of time robbing the dead in BG2.

Also: There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pocket. Why should robbing the dead be more evil than robbing the living?

There should be a virtue hit for using pick-pocket on most targets.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Kish on July 11, 2004, 07:29:14 PM
I am glad you had no complaints about the second bit  (religion vs. morality) this time. :) Either I made myself clear (which is rare) or I confused you beyond any valid responses.
Yes, I understand what you mean now.

There is no Virtue hit for using Pick Pockets only because it's impossible to tell when someone successfully uses Pick Pockets.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 14, 2004, 02:33:48 PM
Whoever said you had to successfully pick-pocket someone for it to be a bad thing?  A virtue hit should incure whenever you use pick pockets, not just suceed.  However, someone brought up the very valid point of "is a pick-pocket really Neutral Evil" (which, after picking pockets many times, they would become)?  In the scenario this person set up (who I can't remember their name; sorry!), the pick pocket doesn't kill people, doesn't beat his wife, and is generally only bad in the sense that he steals things.  That doesn't sound like a neutral evil person.  So, perhaps a cap could be applied to virtue loss through pick-pocketing (you can't fall below CN etc.).
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Quitch on July 14, 2004, 07:01:46 PM
As I've said before, Virtue needs to allocate points depending on your current virtue.  A scale of 20 simply isn't enough to allocate them blindly.  Virtue should try level you out at the right virtue, rather than just adding and removing.  It should decide that a pickpocket is around a virtue 12, then aim to take you no lower unless you start commiting more serious crimes, etc.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: rreinier on July 15, 2004, 03:27:21 AM
I can imagine a CG character pickpocketing...
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Ghreyfain on July 15, 2004, 01:14:45 PM
I can imagine a CG character pickpocketing...

But only from bad guys.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Caswallon on July 16, 2004, 04:42:24 AM
"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D

I hate starting a new page with a post like that. :-\
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 04:51:47 AM
"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D

I hate starting a new page with a post like that. :-\

Especially as "rich" pickpocket targets in BG2 are generally merchants, and you never give more than a few gold to the poor unless you count buying up your rep at the temples. It's more a case of "Take from the middle class and keep it."

Not that I'm looking to turn this into a politics thread . . .
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: jester on July 16, 2004, 08:30:39 AM
Pickpocketing the guards who IIRC sometimes just carry useless gems, but sometimes scrolls they can't use, is not that bad. He probably got it at his turn at the City Gates anyway. :D Giving to the poor doesn't pay off virtue-wise. It is just market mechanics at work. ;)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 09:06:15 AM
Pickpocketing the guards who IIRC sometimes just carry useless gems, but sometimes scrolls they can't use, is not that bad. He probably got it at his turn at the City Gates anyway. :D Giving to the poor doesn't pay off virtue-wise. It is just market mechanics at work. ;)

I wrote a fan-fic explaining those scrolls . . .

;)
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 09:31:38 AM
"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D
rich + greed = bad
rich + charity = good

greed + charity = parse error

rich2 + greed 2 = politician
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 17, 2004, 10:26:58 AM
"Take from the rich and give to the poor."
Rich = bad? ;D
rich + greed = bad
rich + charity = good

greed + charity = parse error

rich2 + greed 2 = politician

I'd have to say it equals a capitalistic politician.  A Socialist or Buddhist or Ascetic (even though ascetic politicians can't really exist) politician would certainly not be.
Title: Re: Grave Robbing
Post by: Ghreyfain on July 17, 2004, 01:31:27 PM
Please to be talking about grave robbing, not real world politics.