Pocket Plane Group
BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: SimDing0™ on May 26, 2005, 04:01:08 PM
-
Somebody's firmly demanded that I post something to this effect to prove my manhood, or, uh... something. I forget. Anyway...
Players' thoughts are welcome! Given the growing tension around criticism of mods in some communities (although I haven't noticed any such problems here at PPG), I feel it's worth clarifying that:
- You do not need permission to comment on my mods, although I'd be appreciative if you could inform me if you've posted any off-forum criticism that I haven't seen. That's not to say I need to hear every time somebody says "don't bother playing any of Ding0's mods", but multi-page criticisms of Improved Goodberries, I'd like to read.
- Criticism does not have to be nice. If you really, seriously, hated something I've done, then I'd like to know why. Speak your mind, however negative it may be-- so long as there's some reasoning behind your opinion, that's fine.
- Disagreeing with me is welcome. No decision I make is final, so if you feel you have something to add to an argument, go ahead and post it. I don't guarantee that I'll agree with your proposal, but I'm always ready for a good fresh discussion.
- Argument does not have to take place in private. The forum's here for a reason. Sure, if you're shy or whatever, I'll be just as glad to speak in PM or e-mail, but a public discussion gives more people the opportunity to voice their views, so I encourage this where possible.
I hope that's cleared up any doubts about etiquette here. Thanks to Domi for suggesting this post, and thanks to anybody providing feedback.
-
Your ugly and you smell like fish. Oh, wait you were talking about your mods. Sorry. ;D
-
While I haven't played Virtue yet, the name of the author inevitably draws my attention to this forum (bow). Now,
to the point. What really confuses me is the idea of alignment changes due to PC's actions. I agree that change of
alignment may happen sometimes, but hardly more than once in a lifetime, and to few people only, and under extreme
circumstances only, etc. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to restrict PC's dialog/action options, depending on
his/her alignment? I'm finished for now, but do not expect to get away with it easily, SimDing0
P.S.
Your ugly and you smell like fish [...]
Just curious what this is supposed to mean
-
What really confuses me is the idea of alignment changes due to PC's actions. I agree that change of
alignment may happen sometimes, but hardly more than once in a lifetime, and to few people only, and under extreme
circumstances only, etc
Your actions shape your alignment or better they are a manifestation of your alignment. Virtue revives the idea that your actions actually matter which they did not oh so often in the plain game. There is always a vivid discussion about some actions (Whacking Rayic G. for Edwin for example), but as a whole I think it is THE quintessential addition to the game.
When it comes to dialogue choices I think that it would be nice, but is a lot of extra work so probably not worth it.
-
I don't agree with restricting dialogue options based upon alignment (stats yes, alignment no). I think that actually restricts role-playing since you are almost being forced into the most "appropriate" reponse.
-
While I haven't played Virtue yet, the name of the author inevitably draws my attention to this forum (bow). Now,
to the point. What really confuses me is the idea of alignment changes due to PC's actions. I agree that change of
alignment may happen sometimes, but hardly more than once in a lifetime, and to few people only, and under extreme
circumstances only, etc. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to restrict PC's dialog/action options, depending on
his/her alignment? I'm finished for now, but do not expect to get away with it easily, SimDing0
If a character ends up changing alignments multiple times, it's most likely because the player isn't properly roleplaying said character
-
After 3 forced Alignment changes the playes alignment should instantly, unchangably become Chaotic Neutral :P
-
I don't agree with restricting dialogue options based upon alignment (stats yes, alignment no). I think that actually
restricts role-playing
I hope it may actually add to role-playing, making the player more responsible for his/her choices. E.g. choosing
a lawful good character but acting like an evil bastard doesn't look like role-playing to me
Your actions shape your alignment or better they are a manifestation of your alignment
But my question is, the former or the latter? If your alignment is formed by actions, then what's the meaning of
starting a new game with a determined one? On the contrary, if your actions are a manifestation of your alignment,
then, methinks, it makes sense to restrict player's options
-
I hope it may actually add to role-playing, making the player more responsible for his/her choices. E.g. choosing a lawful good character but acting like an evil bastard doesn't look like role-playing to me
(Using a very baisc BG2 example.) Perhaps I have in my mind a story for my CHARNAME. I start out as a Paladin but slowly succumb to the evil of the taint. Without dialogue options to do this I have to kill innocents to lose virtue which kind of destroys my role-play.
-
Forgot to finish my previous post and have no idea how to edit it, sorry
When it comes to dialogue choices I think that it would be nice, but is a lot of extra work so probably not worth it
But how much work? It hasn't been considered yet
Probably or definitely not worth it? The answer is important, I think
-
I'd say that your character has to have done something before the game begins to justify the starting alignment. He/she can't just "be" a certain alignment without having done anything to warrant it. However, a character's actions ingame are going to be far more significant than anything that happened in their childhood (or even in BG1), and as such, I'd argue that these ingame actions should shape a character to a greater extent than whatever took place before the game started (which is represented by the alignment chosen at character creation).
If we consider, on the other hand, that alignment shouldn't reflect actions at all, but rather an innate tendency, I think the events that happen ingame are sufficiently out of the ordinary to make any PC consider their options in any situation and potentially alter how they react and think. Even good characters are bound to consider evil opportunities (and in most cases reject them), which is what the presence of the dialogue options signifies. And as Idobek says, I think it's quite reasonable that the taint corrupts a noble character, or a malicious one recognizes the error of his ways. Star Wars wouldn't have been much fun if Anakin hadn't been able to say anything evil because he started off chaotic good. :)
I hope that made some sense.
-
Your ugly and you smell like fish [...]
Just curious what this is supposed to mean
Not really supposed to mean anything. I just think I'm funny, but Sim did say any and all criticism.......
-
Actually, I only have one question, all the rest were simply meant to illustrate it. And the question is:
alignment vs. (re)actions, what is primary and what is secondary? Quoting Jester: "better they [actions] are
a manifestation of your alignment", and I dare suggest that the word "better" means some agreement between the
two of us here (though I never know when Jester is serious)
Anyway, I have a feeling that BioWare authors mean that alignment (i.e. mindset, philosophy, outlook -
you name it) determines character's course of actions, not vice versa: "Your alignment determines how your
character interacts with his environment" (Baldur's Game Gate Manual, p.9). So I'm afraid that making alignment
easily shifting goes too far away from the spirit of the original game
But I've never suggested that say, good persons should only be restricted to good options, have I?
In real life a good person can choose smth that is/seems/turns_out_to_be evil, same should be in a CRPG
-
I don't find "deviating from Bioware intent" a terribly compelling argument, I'm afraid. Some of their design decisions weren't terribly good, and I don't think contradicting developer intent counts for much unless there's a reason the change is inferior to the original design.
But if you're not saying good people should be restricted, I don't understand what you are saying. Your argument seems to focus around the idea that alignment *should* dictate your actions, which by extension means limiting dialogue choices. Or are you saying that good people should be able to do evil things but not have their alignment change? In which case, I disagree just as firmly, because alignment's worth nothing if it doesn't reflect your behaviour at all.
-
"Should affect your choices" is not the same as "should dictate your actions". "Limiting dialog choices"
doesn't necessarily mean "restricting to one option only". I hope it's clear now
As for the first part of your post, I agree that nobody's perfect. However, the changes you mean to bring
into the original game seem crucial to me, and I'm not sure whether it may add some lovely furniture into
the "red brick house built by BioWare" (using JC's image), or damage the house
As a whole, it wasn't my intent to suggest any specific changes to the mod, but I rather meant to reveal
some doubts about what I think is really critical
-
I like the alignment changing aspect of virtue as it allows a few things that you otherwise wouldn't get in the normal bg2 experience.
First of all, you get feedback. When you kill people that annoy you (Nalia's aunt, that jackass artist from the temple district, weimer's Solaufein(?)) your alignment is going to shift reflecting that generally killing people just because they piss you off is not considered a nice thing to do, thus showing that you either aren't roleplaying your character properly or your character is actually doing something people can normally do in life or pnp rules, namely, to change. The question that needs to be asked is if alignment dictates action or vice versa. In reality, alignment is just a label telling you how a character is likely to act in a given situation. If you put a bottle labeled "grape juice with a little yeast" in a cellar and leave it there long enough you'll probably want to change the label. Hence why you wouldn't want to limit options. People can become maniacal bastards. Grape juice, a little yeast and some time become whine. That's life. At any rate, if you properly role play your character, your alignment is unlikely to change anyway with virtue installed. :)
-
To Drew:
I simply don't understand why a good person would want to kill someone who annoys him/her. Truly, I don't
understand why an evil person would want to do it either. Beeing a crazy maniac is not the same as beeing
of evil alignment, IMO
if you properly role play your character, your alignment is unlikely to change anyway with virtue installed
It's not for sure that SimDing0 and a player see alignments alike. So one may play say, CG character the
way (s)he feels it and have all of a sudden alignment changed
Somehow missed it before (from Idobek):
Perhaps I have in my mind a story for my CHARNAME. I start out as a Paladin but slowly succumb to the evil of the taint
I'd rather call it metagaming, not roleplaying
-
How is it metagaming, people can fall in the game world and it doesn't relly on out of game knowladge.
-
I was being a little tongue in cheek when I was talking about killing people because they piss you off! ;D The point I'm trying to make is that with virtue installed you are unlikely to experience any alignment shifts because having a 20 virtue score isn't really important to keep your good alignment. You may run into problems playing a paladin, but a paladin isn't a paladin if he isn't a pain in the ass to play!The tolerances for alignment shifting are actually set quite high so unless your idea of a good character likes to make the occasional unwilling human sacrifice to Tyr I'm pretty sure you won't be seeing your alignment change much, probably never. (except possibly at the very beginning of the game where your virtue is set right at the border line for an alignment shift, but at that point of a typical game it's unlikely you'll be given much of a chance to see an immediate virtue drop short of killing random commoners or siding Lehtinan in the copper coronet.) In truth, virtue is pretty damn seamless. My only real complaint is that I still would like to see more opportunities to lose virtue but gain reputation and vice versa, but those kinds of situations don't happen too often in vanilla BG2 so it really isn't Sim's fault. I'm hoping to see some situations like that added to quest pack.....but this is the wrong forum for that.
-
"Should affect your choices" is not the same as "should dictate your actions". "Limiting dialog choices"
doesn't necessarily mean "restricting to one option only". I hope it's clear now
Not... entirely. So you'd advocate, for example, cutting out the really evil options from a good character, but leaving the neutral or slightly nasty ones in? I think here it'd tend to come down to player discretion-- perhaps you'd roleplay your character in such a way that the really evil stuff wouldn't apply, in which case you wouldn't choose those options, but I don't think it's inconceivable that somebody else's good character would suddenly do something truly unpleasent (pressure of the taint, confusion of loss of soul, any number of explanations), and so it's legitimate to have the option available.
Incidentally, Bioware were enormously inconsistent in the places they restricted options based on alignment. In vanilla BG2, your good character would have been able to say some ridiculously evil things with no repercussions, and a few perhaps less significant ones might have been restricted. So, in effect, the manual's still inaccurate because they didn't properly implement a system of alignment determining your behaviour anyway. I think Virtue's method, while still relying to an extent on the player behaving sensibly, is superior to a situation where a good character can behave horribly throughout the game and get away with it.
It's not for sure that SimDing0 and a player see alignments alike. So one may play say, CG character the
way (s)he feels it and have all of a sudden alignment changed
And similarly, there's no guarantee that Bioware and a player would have seen reputation alike in the original game, so you could be trying to roleplay your chaotic good character and suddenly find yourself with a reputation of 3. They had to make certain decisions on where reputation changes would take place-- and I'd dare say did so with substantially less discussion than various Virtue changes undergo now.
But, as has been mentioned several times, Virtue changes are incremental enough that if you're going to change alignment, it typically will be because you've performed a number of actions reflecting that alignment, so one situation where the player wasn't thinking along exactly the same lines as me isn't going to wreck a character. But it would, perhaps, encourage the player to think more about the BG2 would, and consider why they lost that single Virtue point-- either that, or uninstall the mod in disgust. :)
-
Perhaps I have in my mind a story for my CHARNAME. I start out as a Paladin but slowly succumb to the evil of the taint
I'd rather call it metagaming, not roleplaying
The only metagaming (perhaps) going on here is that I have assumed that BioWare isn't going to remove the Bhaalspawn/taint thing from CHARNAME (it being the only point in keeping the same main character). All this was present in BG1 and I think I'm justified in using that experience to base a character's path on. If suddenly it was revealed I had no taint then, of course, I wouldn't use it as part of my story. I can, for example, use drinking to affect my PCs personality change, I still need the dialogue options to affect a non-violent fall. And I do mean all of them, drunks are erratic.
-
Not exactly a quote
Lu: I hope it's clear now
Sim: Not... entirely
Looks like trying to be brief makes my posts obscure. Let me explain what bothers me, imagining the following situation:
An evil bastard gave money to a homeless child and let the child go. Why would he do it? I see three possibe
explanations:
A) He knew/thought that it would profit him better
B) He acted against his alignment. In this case, the EB will start to regret it soon, saying to himself
smth like "Why did I do that? Was I out of my f******* mind?"
C) Something is going on, his attitude towards the world is changing to non-evil
In cases A and B he remains an EB has always been
Assuming that the meaning of the term 'alignment' in your vocabulary is the same as in BioWare's (though it may
be not so), case C is what Virtue mod deals with. The fact is, there is no story in the game that explains these
changes (critical changes, I may add, for alignmet = personality, IMO). If you think it's no big deal, than fine.
But I think it a big deal
I hope it's clear now
To Idobek:
What about BG1, where you don't know that you are a Bhaalspawn? I know that Virtue is a BG2 mod, but it affects
the concept of the wole game
Anyway, making up and playing not a character but a story can be thought as metagaming, IMO
-
Looks like trying to be brief makes my posts obscure. Let me explain what bothers me, imagining the following situation:
An evil bastard gave money to a homeless child and let the child go. Why would he do it? I see three possibe
explanations:
A) He knew/thought that it would profit him better
B) He acted against his alignment. In this case, the EB will start to regret it soon, saying to himself
smth like "Why did I do that? Was I out of my f******* mind?"
C) Something is going on, his attitude towards the world is changing to non-evil
In cases A and B he remains an EB has always been
Assuming that the meaning of the term 'alignment' in your vocabulary is the same as in BioWare's (though it may
be not so), case C is what Virtue mod deals with. The fact is, there is no story in the game that explains these
changes (critical changes, I may add, for alignmet = personality, IMO). If you think it's no big deal, than fine.
But I think it a big deal
I hope it's clear now
Under certain circumstances, Virtue has to guess the player's motivations, yes. But, as stated above, this is also the case with Bioware's decisions regarding reputation. I endeavour to minimize situations where the player can realistically be given inaccurate Virtue changes. While occasionally they may be given one that hasn't quite guessed their motivations accurately, this isn't going to make a whole lot of difference unless they persistently act this way (also mentioned above), and I doubt there are enough "unclear" situations in the game to totally alter somebody's alignment based on mis-assessment of obscure motivations.
I'm also still curious as to how vanilla BG2's behavior works better than Virtue's. As already mentioned, an evil character can play through the original game picking all the good options and suffer nothing for it-- thus, there's just as much (arguably more) scope for alignment to fail to reflect personality in BG2 without Virtue as there is with. And as you say, alignment should = personality.
So, thank you for clarifying, and I think I understand what you're saying now, but I think my previous arguments still cover it fine. :)
I'd also like to ask a question based on your concept of static alignment determining actions.
My character is of a noble spirit, doing good along the Sword Coast. Upon learning of his Bhaalspawn taint in BG1, he endeavours to suppress it, and is regardless proclaimed a hero in Baldur's Gate. However, in BG2, when he is kidnapped and sees his friends tortured before his eyes, rage, and the overwhelming taint stimulated by Irenicus, begin to consume him. He descends onto a path of destruction and evil, exacting his revenge on innocents around him, and ultimately ascending to godhood with the domain of vengeance, wreaking terror throughout the realms.
What alignment is he throughout the series? Without Virtue, you can choose one answer.
(Note that this is the obvious case. If we're distracted by the semantics of the story spanning two games, I'll create a similar scenario compressed entirely into the timescale of BG2.)
-
And I'd also point out that Virtue would cover both B and C in your example, not just C, since any evil character who's prone to outbursts of generosity probably has some goodness hidden within him anyway-- and if he really is just "out of his fucking mind", then he should be moving towards chaotic neutral in either case.
-
Taking up thr metagaming argument again.
What about BG1, where you don't know that you are a Bhaalspawn? I know that Virtue is a BG2 mod, but it affects the concept of the wole game
Having no idea what the plot of BG1 was when I first played it I used a NG fighter and reolplayed a NG figher to the best of my ability. I may or may not have succeed if a virtue system is in place but we'll never know. I gave him more of a personality than BioWare provided though. (See below.)
Anyway, making up and playing not a character but a story can be thought as metagaming, IMO
I am playing a character, my character. You appear to be saying that because I have already played the game then I must be meta-gaming if I give my character a personality.
Let's remove this entire conversation to a RPG I've never played. I create a PC if the game hasn't given him a background, I do it. If the game has given him a background I still add a few personality quirks. While I am doing this I think about how his background and these quirks will affect his decisions, his ability to handle stress in the short term, his ability to handle stress in the long term, etc. I could go on. I then make some broad decision about how an adventure would affect him and try to roleplay him in that manner. I have never played this game yet I have outlined a a PCs personality and decision making process. Is this metagaming? Should I not do this and make it up as I go along?
Sometimes I play as myself and react as I think (or hope) I would when presented with a given situation. I know my personality, I know how stress affects me and simulate that in-game too.
In my Paladin succumbing to drink situation I look at his background (BG1), think about his quirks, think about that whole host of other things I consider, and make a broad decision on where this character is going to go personality-wise during the course of BG2. If this doesn't prove possible because of the course the game has taken then so be it.
We are never going to agree on this point for the simple reason that once you have played a game once you can easily end up metagaming. I try very hard not to but I still find myself buying certain pieces of equipment before I embark on a quest because I know they're useful. My PC doesn't know he's going to need them and I only realise what I've done when I notice Keldorn's had the Shield of Balduran all the way through the Unseeing Eye quest. Damn!
That is what I consider metagaming. Not defining my PCs personality and possible future paths to take with it.
-
I'd also like to ask a question based on your concept of static alignment [...]
To satisfy my majesty, there should be a story in the game, with a possibility of taking the path of destruction
and evil at the end, for every possible change of alignment from good to evil. Like BioWare did it in case of Anomen.
I hope there's no need to answer your question about that paladin explicitly
probably has some goodness hidden within him anyway
Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Anyway, case A is neglected, unless you give the player an opportunity of explaining
the said EB's reason for generosity. If so, then it would surely be great. But I think 1) it requires way too
much work 2) it's not what you're going do
To Idobek:
You appear to be saying that because I have already played the game then I must be meta-gaming if I give my
character a personality
Not a personality, if you give your character a future story
(btw, do you guys ever sleep? It must be about 3a.m. in UK now)
-
There is also another question I'd like to ask SimDing0. Let's use an example again
To save or not to save (Viconia, I mean)? Some people see rescuing her as an evil action, others think that not to
save her is evil (some may even think that these decisions are neither good nor evil). You definitely have to make
a decision here. Perhaps if you are a lawful person (you, Sim, not a PC), you'll decide that saving her is evil
(like Keldorn sees it), while if you are of chaotic alignment (like Minsc or myself), you may think it evil to let
the mob burn her. Either way, it becomes sort of too subjective
So what's the solution here? Not on this special occasion, but in general, I mean
-
Or maybe Keldorn lost a virtue point for not trying to uphold justice and protect the weak. Just as I'm sure he loses a virtue point for trying to off Viconia when she's in the party.
-
I'm not sure that lawful people care as much about laws as they say they do. Perhaps it's something like
"strict laws are necessary, because it's the only way to benefit the majority of the people" (LG alignment)
or "the safest way to benefit me" (LE) or "the only way to assure that trains run on schedule" (LN). I have
a feeling that this is the way BioWare see it, at least. If so, then Keldorn reacts according to his alignment,
meaning that he would surely sacrifice an innocent child, if it brought happiness to mankind
Never liked them commies, I mean pallies
Sorry if it's off topic
-
I rather think he wouldn't, but that's getting off track.
-
To satisfy my majesty, there should be a story in the game, with a possibility of taking the path of destruction and evil at the end, for every possible change of alignment from good to evil. Like BioWare did it in case of Anomen.
There is. It goes like this: At first, you pick the good options. Then, you start picking the evil options. That IS scope for the story I propose, and the possibility is there both with and without Virtue.
So yes, there is a need to answer my question explicitly.
Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Anyway, case A is neglected, unless you give the player an opportunity of explaining
the said EB's reason for generosity. If so, then it would surely be great. But I think 1) it requires way too
much work 2) it's not what you're going do
And again, see above: one case, while unfortunate, isn't terribly significant in determining a character's alignment, and is still handled infinitely better than Bioware's inconsistent and meaningless reputation changes.
Not a personality, if you give your character a future story
Yet, if, as you argue, alignment represents how the player will act, rather than reflecting how they have in the past, then when you select alignment, you're creating a story for your character, rather than the personality, which by your argument is metagaming. Not to say I agree, but I think you're tripping yourself up. :)
To save or not to save (Viconia, I mean)? Some people see rescuing her as an evil action, others think that not to
save her is evil (some may even think that these decisions are neither good nor evil). You definitely have to make
a decision here. Perhaps if you are a lawful person (you, Sim, not a PC), you'll decide that saving her is evil
(like Keldorn sees it), while if you are of chaotic alignment (like Minsc or myself), you may think it evil to let
the mob burn her. Either way, it becomes sort of too subjective
So what's the solution here? Not on this special occasion, but in general, I mean
Law and chaos have no impact on good or evil, so your point about my alignment is irrelevant.
I don't believe good/evil issues are subjective, but the reason we have multi-page threads here is to ensure that I don't take a completely arbitrary decision which nobody else agrees with.
And, just one more time, Virtue's decisions make infinitely more sense than Bioware's reputation choices in the original game, so when considering the "subjectivity" of some of my decisions, please also bear in mind that somebody's always had to take those decisions (and in PnP, it'd be the DM)-- difference is, Virtue's get a helluva lot more discussion than Bioware.
-
I think I shot myself in the foot by not framing my original argument particularly well but, yeah, what Sim said.
-
To SimDing0:
By the definition of this thread, as I see it, my job here is to ask questions, your is to answer them. But to
answer a question, you have to read it carefully first, like:
Law and chaos have no impact on good or evil, so your point about my alignment is irrelevant
Please, sir! In my previous post, it's clearly stated that I have no idea what alignment you are. If I thought it
was lawful, then I would have said "As a lawful person, you..."; saying "If you WERE a lawful person, ...." would
mean that I thought you weren't. But I said "If you ARE a lawful person (you, Sim)... ", which definitely reveals
that I have no clue what your alignment is
My original question was: why do you choose changeable alignment system over statical? Well, basically I have the
answer. The next question is: how do you intend to implement this system? Just a general idea, if you please, or a
good example. IMO the system of changeable alignment inevitably forces the author to make very subjective decisions
on ambiguous situations
Law and chaos have no impact on good or evil, but they have impact on what people call on good or evil
Let me explain it with an example. If I see a thief in a small store next to my door, where I shop every day and
the owners are almost my friends, I'll definitely try to stop him. However, seeing someone stealing goods in Macy's
(it's the largest department store in New York City), I'll say to myself smth like "Lu, it's none of your business.
Besides, he may be in need". In both cases, I'd call my decisions good, otherwise I'd act differently. But someone
else will think that letting a thief go is always an evil act. The problem is, we often judge choices as good/bad,
but they really are simply lawful or unlawful. And imagining that what I've just depicted happens in the game,
you will be my judge here
I've just remembered that Bioware implemented in NWN the system of changeable alignment (same what you intend to
do in Virtue, I believe), and IMO they failed much worse than in BG, with the good ol' system
-
To Idobek:
I'm beginning to think that strictly speaking, some elements of metagaming are unavoidable in principle. The
player's choice is where to draw the line (s)he wouldn't want to cross. Hmm, never thought of that before
I'd love do discuss it more, but looks like it's off topic. Thank you for your comments
-
Please, sir! In my previous post, it's clearly stated that I have no idea what alignment you are. If I thought it
was lawful, then I would have said "As a lawful person, you..."; saying "If you WERE a lawful person, ...." would
mean that I thought you weren't. But I said "If you ARE a lawful person (you, Sim)... ", which definitely reveals
that I have no clue what your alignment is
I understood exactly what you were saying. You suggested that I'd consider different things to be good/evil depending on whether I was lawful/chaotic. I disagreed.
The next question is: how do you intend to implement this system?
You speak as if Virtue's a mod in progress. It's been released for years.
IMO the system of changeable alignment inevitably forces the author to make very subjective decisions
on ambiguous situations
<snip some more examples and stuff>
I've addressed this in previous posts, but you seem to just be restating your original question at this point. Have you read my responses?
I've just remembered that Bioware implemented in NWN the system of changeable alignment (same what you intend to
do in Virtue, I believe), and IMO they failed much worse than in BG, with the good ol' system
Perhaps you've also played PST, in which the dynamic alignment system worked amazingly well. I don't know how it's implemented in NWN (I'd hazard a guess at "fairly sloppily"), but PST is what Virtue's based loosely around in some respects.
-
I don't know how it's implemented in NWN (I'd hazard a guess at "fairly sloppily")
Summat arbitrarily in the original OC. Much better in the little of the first expansion I've actually played, with lawful/chaotic shifts as well.
And I'd like to venture a teensy criticism of my own that isn't directly related to the debate at hand.
Ahem.
It's REALLY BLOODY HARD to maintain a neutral alignment with Virtue installed, short of going on the occasional blood-thirsty rampage, which never seems quite in character for, say, an ordinary druid.
That said, I personally have no problem with good druids. Jaheira should certainly already BE one. However, I have noticed that a lot of druid-only items from various mods will be deemed unusable once alignment shifts from true neutral. This doesn't happen with Bioware's druid-only items.
Anyway, this is more of a "thought I'd point it out" than a genuine complaint. I don't know that you'd even see a lot of crossover between people playing Virtue and... Munchmod. I'm just compulsive about checking out everything.
(BTW, if you incorporate GB's Thief Keep into Quest Pack, you might want to tweak the restrictions on the druid buckler in the added rogue shop.)
-
I'm aware that it's fairly hard to maintain neutral with Virtue. I'd hoped that the slightly looser alignment boundaries would fix this in recent versions, but still. The problem tends to be that the game puts you through a series of situations where there isn't really a satisfactory neutral path that has a reasonably advantageous outcome. You can probably take the other approach to being neutral (performing both good and evil deeds arbitrarily) which is slightly less satisfactory, but still. That said, I think neutrality should be something that's difficult to maintain, especially in the situation the PC's been thrust into, so I don't consider it all that bad.
If there are any items in the original game whose restrictions go wrong when your alignment shifts, then let me know and I can fix those. However, while I'd like to maintain compatibility and consistency, it's not really convenient to start patching usabilities on mod items, and I think you'd be better taking it up with the author of the mod(s) in question.
-
To save or not to save (Viconia, I mean)? Some people see rescuing her as an evil action, others think that not to
save her is evil (some may even think that these decisions are neither good nor evil). You definitely have to make
a decision here. Perhaps if you are a lawful person (you, Sim, not a PC), you'll decide that saving her is evil
(like Keldorn sees it), while if you are of chaotic alignment (like Minsc or myself), you may think it evil to let
the mob burn her. Either way, it becomes sort of too subjective
So what's the solution here? Not on this special occasion, but in general, I mean
This is a flawed example. Viconia is not breaking any laws. A priest of Beshaba (Chaotic Neutral god of f***ing things around for the fun of it) decided she'd do nicely as an example of 'Beshaba's will.' In this scenario, it is virtuous to rescue the unlawfully detained prisoner. In fact, upholding the law requires you to take action against the priest because he (priest) is breaking the law.
It's REALLY BLOODY HARD to maintain a neutral alignment with Virtue installed, short of going on the occasional blood-thirsty rampage, which never seems quite in character for, say, an ordinary druid.
Neutral is supposed to be the most difficult alignment to play because it is so difficult to maintain true neutrality in all things. However, I feel your pain. It is a fault of BGII that there are so few 'neutral' options, unfortunately.
Looks like trying to be brief makes my posts obscure. Let me explain what bothers me, imagining the following situation:
An evil bastard gave money to a homeless child and let the child go. Why would he do it? I see three possibe
explanations:
A) He knew/thought that it would profit him better
B) He acted against his alignment. In this case, the EB will start to regret it soon, saying to himself
smth like "Why did I do that? Was I out of my f******* mind?"
C) Something is going on, his attitude towards the world is changing to non-evil
In cases A and B he remains an EB has always been
Assuming that the meaning of the term 'alignment' in your vocabulary is the same as in BioWare's (though it may
be not so), case C is what Virtue mod deals with. The fact is, there is no story in the game that explains these
changes (critical changes, I may add, for alignmet = personality, IMO). If you think it's no big deal, than fine.
But I think it a big deal
I hope it's clear now
He did act against his alignment. Evil characters are not charitable; they are self-centered. Law/chaos in this case determines HOW they go about serving themselves. What could he possibly have stood to gain from assisting the anonymous homeless child?
Finally, the BGII manual is wrong. Taken from the AD&D 2nd edition player's handbook:
"The character's alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idae of how the character will handle moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally or behaving out of character."
-
If there are any items in the original game whose restrictions go wrong when your alignment shifts, then let me know and I can fix those. However, while I'd like to maintain compatibility and consistency, it's not really convenient to start patching usabilities on mod items, and I think you'd be better taking it up with the author of the mod(s) in question.
Nah, I didn't mean it that way. I don't expect any responsibility for that kind of thing to be on you. Just started rambling a bit. I do that. Don't mind me.
-
This is a flawed example. Viconia is not breaking any laws. A priest of Beshaba (Chaotic Neutral god of f***ing things around for the fun of it) decided she'd do nicely as an example of 'Beshaba's will.' In this scenario, it is virtuous to rescue the unlawfully detained prisoner. In fact, upholding the law requires you to take action against the priest because he (priest) is breaking the law.
Actually, Beshaba is Chaotic Evil, which makes it even worse...
-
I don't see the point in arguing in trivial matters like rescuing Viconia, so my so-simple recommendation is this: don't do anything whatever happens. :-yin
-
I just really really really wish it worked with Tutu, Other than that its the greatest addition to the roleplaying aspect of this game to date.
-
Two points (hmm, maybe I should join the forum eventually).
1) Alignment shifts CAN be frequent over the course of a game. Go play Planescape Torment
2) If Keldorn did two unvirtuous actions against Viconia, he shouldn't be a Paladin anymore under the current incarnation of the virtue pack.
K
-
Viconia is a priestess of the most evil deity in Faerun. A simple Detect Evil will tell you that she's evil. Whether or not she's done it in your presence, it's pretty much garaunteed that, if you kill her or let her die, she's done something to deserve it. I think that the "to save or rescue?" question is more one of law vs chaos. A chaoti good character is usually willing to employ any method to accomplish good, where a lawful character is not. Therefore a chaotic character might not care why someone he feels deserves death is being killed. A lawful character, however, would have other ideas.
-
Or the CG character wouldn't think twice about leaping into the fray to save someone, whether it's because it's unjust or to try to redeem her later or whatever. Motivation can be arbitrary in basically every situation, when it comes down to it.
-
That, too. A CG character could go either way.
-
Hey SimDing0,
Any thoughts on making a Virtue Pack for BG1&TotSC?
Thanks,
LoneRogue
-
Ah, the never-ending argument over how alignment should affect your actions. Personally, I don't think it determines actions so much as what the character values, and the motivations behind the actions that the character takes. But then that's me.
It occurs to me that if you feel Alignment should determine your actions, rather than that your actions should determine your alignment... you should probably play that way. Therefore, even though you have the OPTION to be an evil bastard, you don't take it because you're a lawful good upholder of all that is right and honorable. Bada bing bada boom... problem solved. On the other hand, people have a tendency to like playing dynamic characters. I happen to be one of those people. I believe that all people, and therefore, all characters, are capable of both great good and great evil.
Take, for example, elven berserker Jarek, Bhaalspawn, Neutral Good. He's been fighting for his very life since his foster father was killed. He's just managed to escape from the clutches of a mad wizard, and had his childhood friend and close companion taken from him, not to mention two other close friends murdered. Enter Belmin Gergas, elf-hater.
Jarek is at the end of his rope. Belmin makes it snap, and loses his head. Is he still, at heart, a good person? Most likely. After all, a single evil act does not a villain make. But it is also entirely possible that the experience, on top of all that has already happened to him, affects him deeply. He begins to choose the morally questionable path more and more often, letting his deep-seated rage and pain overrule his moral compass.
By the time he finally faces down Irenicus, he can no longer be considered Good.
The question raised is... how does Bioware address this? They don't. Not really. Sure, if you take the evil path through hell your alignment gets booted to evil for Throne of Bhaal. Whoopty doo. Doesn't change the fact that you can then about-face, be a paragon of virtue, and still be Neutral Evil.
This mod addresses that. Kudos to you, Sim.
'Course, I don't have it installed right now, because I want my CN character to stay CN, regardless of the fact that he is mostly doing good things. He travels with Minsc, Jaheira, and Aerie, after all, and allows himself to be influenced.
People should keep in mind that Virtue, like all mods... is optional. I personally thinks it great for when I need to watchdog my actions, or am planning a redemption or fall for my character.
One shortcoming of it, in my mind, is the lack of ability to switch between lawful and chaotic. The alignment change system is already there. But, of course, to implent such changes, you would have to go through and decide which actions were lawful, and which were chaotic, and that is even more of a clouded issue than what is good and what is evil. Would it be lawful or chaotic to aid Valygar instead of turning him in to the Cowls? Lawful or Chaotic to go after Rejiek without first turning over the evidence to Aegisfield? Plus there's the rather regrettable fact that this part of your alignment has pretty much no effect on the game.
So the question here is... would you even consider the possibility? I'm not asking for it, I just think it would be an interesting addition, and I want to know if anybody thinks it would be at all feasible.
-
Okay, I this might have already been suggested as I haven't read through the rest of the comments (I'm in a rush, but I wanted to do this anyway) but I find it a bit odd the way that sacrificing a wizard eye to the erm... statue near the exit to the Underdark (the one that spawns the Demon knights, one of which has the Soul Reaver and a strength girdle) or for that matter a skeleton earns you a drop in virtue... I mean neither of them are actually alive in the first place, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with killing them.
Okay, I know that the game engine is probably too limited to do anything about that (I got round it my uninstalling virtue, commiting said act and then reinstalling virtue... I'm a paladin, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered), but one other weird thing that i noticed is that with a positive reputation, at least popular, both imoen and kelsey complained about not disapproved (they said it in game as voice clips, rather than dialogue)... although this seems to have gone with the fresh install of virtue, so all's well that ends well... Very nice idea. My compliments to the chef. :P
-
It comes down to playing styles, bur basically I think this mod is excellent BECAUSE I think that the concept of alignment in AD&D is basically over-simplistic for most characters. I prefer it as a stricter code for religiously powered/motivated characters and in essence these are the characters that are most challenged by this mod.
The concept of reputation was again over simplistic (and I think the pc should have some fame/notoriety in neighbouring Amn) - basically this mod should have been part of the original game.
Cheers
G
-
Hey, I think having "virtue" as something separate from "reputation" for this game is a great concept and this mod implements it pretty well.
Anyway, all reverence aside... I enjoy playing as "chaotic good" characters; as such said <CHARNAME>s like to take the law into their own hands - herein lies my issue...
There are certain people <CHARNAME> should be permitted to kill without taking a hit to virtue (yes, I realize, this sounds more "chaotic neutral", but they aren't just random people I'm talking about, so hear me out til the end).
There are a few despicable people who's untimely deaths (with my <CHARNAME> being the one to whack 'em) cause my virtue to plummet. I'm not really proficient in coding or whatever the process for writing stuff that makes stuff happen in the game and its constraints in this game (i.e. my competence in this particular area is like that of the current waning era of the American Presidency), but I think the reason is that said people are being classified as "neutral" or "innocent" or whatever that group is. Anyway, I just think they should be disassociated with the "innocent" group (if possible) so I can whack them without the virtue-related consequences.
Now, I'll give you some examples:
1. OmG, like the grave-keeper guy (surprisingly located in the Graveyard District!) who tries to cover up for red-footie-pajama guy (in the south end of the Bridge District) burying some guy alive (victim's name is "Tirdir" according to my brief research). At the end of my conversation with grave-keeper guy, there's actually an option to say something on the lines of "you deserve to die" (okay, I don't remember what it is exactly, but it's a very appropriate line one would say before whacking a guy) though sometimes I decide letting him *get raped* I mean rot in a prison cell would work too. Either way, that son of a mother decides to run off, so I just off'ed him there. As a side note, I take care of red-footie-pajama guy and third-involved-guy-in-the-house-who's-short (in the house adjacent red-footie-pajama guy in the Bridge District). They apparently kidnapped some woman on top of that. Keep in mind that at this point, my <CHARNAME>'s experience in Athkatla has led him/her not to trust their bureaucracy - guards taking bribes from slavers, letting a crazy fanatic burn someone in the street, having a whole section of the city reserved for thieves, Isaea Roenall (scum affiliated with Nalia), etc. Not to mention, <CHARNAME> is the one who has to deal with all that junk. (keep in mind, my <CHARNAME> is chaotic good, so he/she's like 'screw the law' anyway.
2. Random second example is one of the de'Arnise Stronghold dilemmas where this overweight couple tries to scam me out of my money. I ordered them to be executed, but frankly, I don't trust the guards to do it right, so I executed them on the spot- OmG, that caused my own guards to attack me (the nerve), resulting in the "load saved game" spell; that time, I had to (reluctantly) resort to divine intervention to kill them.
3. Okay, another example is this maniacal freak in Watcher's Keep that controls some uber machine. If I kill him, suddenly I'm evil. This one I admit may be because of my "meta-gaming" makes me "let him go" because the reward is better (what's with the goodie-goodie favoritism (i.e. I'm differentiating between being "good" by forgiving and being "good" by getting rid of the crazy dangerous jerk who's already put other peoples' lives at risk)); not to mention if I really let him go and he wreaks havoc somewhere, that'll be considered my fault for letting him go in the first place. Either way, even if I said I'd let him go, then killed him (meta-gaming aside), I'd understand a little hit to virtue for straight out lying, but not for killing him.
Anyway, I'm not saying <CHARNAME> should be rewarded virtue for said examples, but I don't think he/she should be penalized either. I mean would having the arbitrary legal position of "official executioner of Athkatla" suddenly give someone the moral right to off them, while not having such a legal position make it immoral?
(if authority is an issue, I think "Bhaal-spawn" would count as a valid authority on the topic of "murder" (but seriously what requirements are there for "executioner"? Do you need a high school diploma or Amn equivalent to know chopping one's head of will lead to one's death))
(also, please keep in mind the setting (i.e. please try and keep what I'm saying in the context of Amn with adventurers not a modern "real world" context (anyway, if we have to go there, "adventurers" there seem more similar to what we'd consider "vigilantes" here - which is already morally ambiguous territory anyway; however in Amn, one can slit a thief's throat without the moral police going off about it, but here, same situation, you gotta go through red tape (I think there was this guy that had actually gotten fired for shooting an armed robber at his job) - the point is to remember the correct context).
As a side note to my whole post, I can definitely understand a drop in reputation for killing one of these people (as mentioned my only issue is the drop in virtue); I mean I could see the headlines: "BHAAL-SPAWN MASSACRES MULTIPLE MEN involved in burying man alive and ransoming woman - Page 6"
Anyway, to summarize:
"Virtue" should not be penalized for the murder, as a form of vigilante/adventurer justice, of certain individuals in the game such as the grave-keeper and red-footie-pajama guy who have themselves have engaged in behavior deemed as effectively antisocial. On the same token, a penalty in "reputation" would be understandable and justifiable if implemented.
Note: "behavior deemed as effectively antisocial" is purposely worded ambiguously because it would be your call as to which crimes would be heinous enough to count. For example, you may decide that grave-keeper's covering up what is essentially murder, not to mention the appalling means of the murder is severe enough to allow no virtue penalty for whacking him; but at the same time, decide that the overweight couple of frauds in de'Arnise Stronghold did not commit a serious enough crime to allow freedom from virtue penalty.
I hope my post isn't too long. Hope to hear back from ya soo- some time. Cheers.
-MMC
-
The briefest answer I can think of is this - virtue is not as subjective as you think - we all think we are virtuous (to a degree - even the 'evil' especially those that hide behind religion - obvious modern examples). Look at it like this - there is (in the programming) a divine 'grouping' of peoples - that gravekeeper may ultimately have redeemed himself oneday after his escape from you... Who are we to know? By killing him you may have crossed some arbitary line of fate. Not the most satisfying or philisophical answer I know call it the 'Christmas Carol' school of thought.
G
-
For easier viewing, one should look at "fate" from a past point of view rather than a present point of view: "fate" is what will happen in the "future" period. The present would be classified as part of the future from a past point of view. If I kill the gravekeeper in the present, then that means his fate was for him to die then. Because his fate is to no longer exist in the same form in the present, it would be pointless to consider alternate possibilities because those alternate possibilities don't exist. (remember we are in the dynamic present tense in which I kill the gravekeeper now or the last time I said "now", by which I mean the first time I said that word within this parens) This is similar to a brand of statement that irks me off: the "(s)he was so smart, (s)he could have cured cancer". "Could have" implies that that event did not and does not (and in this case because he's dead- will not) happen, so to say "he cured/cures/will cure cancer" is a false statement meaning it's not true meaning it is a subset within the set of "Not Truth". "Not Truth" of course is the set of all sets excluding those sets contained within the set of "Truth" (trying to state it without repeating the word "not"). Obviously by definition that means that a set cannot exist in both the set of "Not Truth" and the set of "Truth" concurrently. This means, given that 1) he is dead, 2) cancer is not cured, 3) he could have cured cancer, one can conclude that the events of "he cured/cures/will cure cancer" and the "Truth" are mutually exclusive. "could" implies possibility, while "could have" implies impossibility (in terms of actual reality from the time it is spoken - and he's dead, so it's just impossibility period) or that which cannot be absolutely disproved (e.g. if the statement is "could have found a cure to cancer" and saying he came up with the cure in his head, didn't write it, then died; or he has it written in some secret location - these cannot be absolutely disproved); however one could easily say "he could have become the next Hitler" or "he could have found a new way to blow the whole world in a single blast".
While he "may have redeemed himself oneday" he cannot have redeemed himself oneday because he's already dead.
By the way, I mention this in my previous post: if he went on and committed more crimes, people would find me culpable for letting him get away. To add something new: if you wanna talk probability, people are less likely to choose an option involving a major change in lifestyle, especially one that involves a higher level of difficulty, so he's more likely not to change than to change.
In conclusion, it's pointless to bring up hypothetical possibility because one can easily bring up a counter-hypothetical possibility resulting in no definitive answer, so it's better to stick with what is factual and what is known.
-
Lol - thats me told! :D
-
Alright, here's how I feel about virtue.
It's a REALLY awesome idea. I feel though there's more negatives about it than positives, so I removed it :/. I'll admit, I didn't play with it on very long, maybe halfway through the story of BG2, then said "ew."
What I feel is wrong about it is... You don't necessarily get 'benefits' only 'disadvantages' from it. Such as; if you're a Paladin and you accidentally do something bad, you INSTANTLY become a Fallen Paladin. Which kinda upset me, cause I hadn't saved in a bit, so I had this useless Fighter wanna-be with me now. (Started a new campaign).
Like Reputation had Bonuses and Negatives by doing both good and bad. *Thumbs up to that* What I realize is that people often don't balance things like that. It could be something simple or complicated. Example: Different rewards/punishment in hell for various virtue. IF you have bad virtue but do good things in hell you get bigger bonuses, or if you have good virtue you get little to no bonuses (for that was what you would've done anyways.)
So that's it right there! That's what I'd like to see, reactions/rewards/punishments based on your virtue. Low virtue gives higher Reputation Bonuses if you do something to boost Reputation. To suggest people see this evil individual as a 'Heart-of-Gold' kind of person, so "awwww, we misjudged him." +2 Rep! Then one thing that I always dispised was the Demon Form you get always took 2 Reputation points away. So, high Virtue would either nullify this draw back (giving use to good players to use it) or lessen it to -1 Points lost. Where as, Low virtue players wouldn't suffer anything from using the Demon, because that's what their 'villainous heart' would desire to do, so to be expected by the general public.
-
Well, since you say you're interested in ANY criticism :p
I liked the concept very much, and gladly welcomed it at first, because of the lacks of the reputation system. But I found that too many actions were lacking virtue consequences (which is less true with more recent versions I suppose). And the second flaw is its incompabilities with many mods or bugs depending on order installations (which are very much likely to not occur if you follow the readme instruction of course)
I don't know how Virtue is implemented, but in my opinion, it would be better to pack some Virtue macros so modders could themselves use the Virtue points in their script, and try to have a less agressive less heavy way of implementing Virtue in the game.
-
Wow, that's a load of long comments to read
Awesome Mod
But could you make the starting virtue for Evil characters a bit lower?
I switch to Neutral too easily sometimes, even though I can choose evil paths but I benefit more with the good sometimes, then I'd have to do some slaughtering to turn back to evil...
So aye, perhaps make it harder to stay neutral as well (By setting the virtue in between good/neutral and neutral/evil a bit closer), since being neutral should be the hardest alignment to play~
-
I have never tried the Virtue mod in the past. But there are many holes in the alignment that needs to be arranged in order to understand it well.
The question is : What is the alignment based on? Is the alignment based on actions (Deontological ethics)? Is the aligment based on the intents that command the actions (Virtue ethics)? Or is the alignment based on the consequences of your actions (consequentialism).
For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior.
Is it based on actions at all? Do you need to be a zealot to be good? Or is it all about respect for life and respect for ethics?
As you can see, the alignment itself is much more complex than it seems. Here is a few definitions that might help you.
Good/Evil
Good :
1) Believing in creature rights, and that every creature has the right for relative freedom and happiness. Cruelty and suffering is undesirable. Based on respect for life
Under definition 1) of “Good”, most humans are Good
2) Placing others above yourself. Based on actions
Neutral :
1) Following an ethos (using both good and evil as Tools to reach their goals such as some lawful neutrals, true neutrals and chaotic neutrals). Based on actions
Note : good and evil are irrelevant beside it's purpose to bring order (lawful neutral), ultimate balance (true neutral) or chaos (chaotic neutral).
2) Represents a lack commitment one-way or the other (good and evil). Based on actions or respect for life
Note : The purpose is limited. Neither good or evil shall be actively seeked.
Under definition 2) of “Neutral”, most humans are Neutral
3) Seeking a balance between good and evil. Neither must become prominent over the other. Based on actions
4) Those who cannot judge what a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act is are considered neutral.
Note : Like animals for example.
Evil :
1) Placing yourself above others. Based on respect for life
2) Actively seeking to harm and destroy weather for fun or profit. Based on actions
Law/Chaos
Law :
1) Promoting the group over the individual. Based on actions
2) Placing ethic above conscience. Based on respect for ethics
Neutral :
1) following an ethos (using both law and chaos as Tools to reach goals such as some neutral goods, true neutrals and neutral evils.). Based on actions
2) A middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Based on actions or respect for ethics
3) Seek a balance between law and chaos. Based on actions
4) Those who cannot judge what a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act is are considered neutral.
Chaos :
1) Promoting the individual over the group. Based on actions
2) Placing conscience above ethic. Based on respect for ethics
Good/Evil
Definitions that goes together (respectively from good to neutral to evil) for respect for life : 1), 2) ,1)
Definitions that goes together (respectively from good to neutral to evil) for actions : 2), 1), 2) or 3), 2).
Definition 2) from “Neutral” in Good/Evil and definition 1) from “Neutral” in Law/Chaos are rather special. By definition, good/law or evil/chaotic are irrelevant which means that hey would normally be classified as evil/chaotic instead of neutral on the respect for life/ethics category. They would be classified neutral on actions since their actions are not specifically good/lawful or evil/chaotic.
Law/Chaos
Definitions that goes together (respectively from law to neutral to chaos) for respect for ethics : 2); 2); 2)
Definitions that goes together (respectively from law to neutral to chaos) for actions : 1); 1), 2) or 3); 1)
I also found out that there could be more than 9 different alignments (involving 2 forms of neutrality). I could write and write forever about the alignment system. But I got responsibilities :( .
If anyone has any questions, critics, disagreements or comments; please feel free to post them. I would be very pleased to read or answer them.
-
Since this board was kind enough to let me post, let me tell you why I am here:
Every assassin (starting with the ones in Candlekeep) dropped me 2 virtue until my Cleric/Ranger was Neutral Evil (starting with Neutral Good) by the time I was in Beregost.
I only installed this because it came with Big World. I am now here because I wanted to make sure it didn't do anything I don't want to get rid of. It does not, so I am uninstalling it.
I'm sorry if you expected a debate on morality but quite honestly I see what you were trying to do here but all it has been for me is a bewildering handicap. I think a programmatic approach is far too generalized and it would take ages to hand-select which ones give morality and don't - but that is what it would take to truly make it seamless.
-
I believe Virtue is/was supposed to work for BG2 only, so it's not to be installed with BGT/BWP/EasyTutu - it's simply not designed to work with BG1 (http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,26562.0.html). So, yep, you're doing the right thing by uninstalling it.
-
Is there going to be an updated Virtue mod for BG:EE and/or BG:EE 2? I really love the mod and would love to play it on these! Thanks and good work.
-
Virtue works for BG2 only, so IF there is EVER a BG2:EE, and Weidu is updated for the said BG2:EE, yep, it should. But BG2:EE is a long way away from happening, if ever. :)
-
Well, BG2:EE is already being worked on. BG1:EE is running off BG2's engine just doesn't have TOB wich is required for Vitue.
The Weidu is already being worked on by CamDawg and others I believe. Already they have workarounds for a few gibberlings3's mods.
It's all on http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/6967/bgee-mod-compatibility-thread/p1
So, I was just wondering if it would ever be possible for the Virtue mod to work on BG:EE since it's running off a BG2 upgraded engine. I think it's an awesome mod
and will continue to support it and speak highly of it.
That's all. Thanks.
-
It's not the engine that's the issue; it's the mod. Virtue is written for the BG2 storyline, taking into account specific choices you make during quests. The mod is not just a set of mechanics that can be easily ported to another game that uses the same engine.
Someone could make a BG1 version of Virtue, but it would be a decent amount of work, on the scale of making a new mod. The original Virtue author is no longer actively modding, so this would probably have to come from an eager volunteer.
-
Ah ok I got ya. lol Well that sucks :P
Oh well thanks for the information.
-
I agree that Virtue is a great mod.
It'd be fantastic to have a BG1 version of it but I don't have the know-how to do such work.
-
DAMMIT, Sim. COME BACK!
-
DAMMIT, Sim. COME BACK!
-
Any luck? Bastard probably ran like there's no tomorrow after all the bullshit that ensued... In which case: I love you, baby!! Despite the fact I am lesbian, well, anyway, go baby!!
Black Sails, anyone?