Author Topic: Why I don't like Virtue  (Read 34727 times)

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2005, 04:31:17 PM »
Lord Alibakkar is coded in as neutral, by the way. :)

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #51 on: January 03, 2005, 05:08:33 PM »
Lord Alibakkar is coded in as neutral, by the way. :)
My Shadowkeeper lists TRFUED05.cre as being Chaotic Evil. And yes, I have Oversight installed, but I'm not sure which version.


I've just edited my Virtue list, dropping the penalty for working for Firkraag from -2 to -1, and dropping any Virtue modifier at all for handing the Mantle to Lord Coprith.

Offline NiGHTMARE

  • Idiot
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #52 on: January 03, 2005, 05:20:36 PM »
Giving the Mantle to Coprith means breaking your word to whichever noble gave you the key. But considering that you already got a -1 for agreeing to work for an Evil person, I don't think this quest deserves a -2 to Virtue. Placing the Mantle in the hands of a neutral arbiter leaves the town in pretty much the same sitation it was before, I don't see how you've really eased the Alibakkar/Luraxxol tension any. That honor goes to Coprith, not you.
Changing your mind isn't an evil act, especially if you've come to realize keeping your word would have diire consequnces.

As for getting a -1 hit for agreeing to work for one of the two nobles... they're not actually evil, or at least they're not supposed to be! :)  I'm aware that Lady Lurraxol is coded as such, and Lord Alibakkar is changed to evil by Oversight (he's true neutral in the original game), but these two characters are taken from the Lands of Intrigue sourcebook, and in that Lord Alibakkar is N, and Lady Lurraxol is CN.

But even if they were evil, how does the player character knows this? Not everyone casts detect evil over every single character they speak to, and before you agree to work for them they don't reveal any evil habits or intentions.

BTW Logan Coprith is a LG paladin (though only one of his two .cre's is coded as such), providing even more evidence that his way is the virtuous way. He hardly needs to gain more prestige for himself, since he's already High Merchant, and his family is the most prosperous in Trademeet (though of course you don't actually meet any of them in-game).

Quote
You get -1 for agreeing to obtain the deed for Firkraag, and another -1 for killing Windspear. I doubt killing him should be considered as bad as killing Drizzt.
Killing a righteous paladin, a champion of light and goodness shouldn't be considered as bad as killing a rogue Drow who just happens to be rather (in)famous? I beg to differ.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 05:43:02 PM by NiGHTMARE »
The Gibberlings Three - home to the BG1 NPC Project, BG2 Tweak Pack, Divine Remix, GemRB, Lands of Intrigue, Song & Silence, and many more!

Offline SimDing0™

  • Back In Black
  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Gender: Male
  • Word Enhancer
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2005, 05:27:44 PM »
Which is why I didn't include him on the list: I mentioned slow Virtue drops for Viconia and Korgan, but not Edwin, because he is clearly the least Evil of the three. Korgan's obviously a bloodthirsty S.O.B., and doesn't care who knows it. Viconia is a lying, poisonous slut, and takes pride in it. But Edwin simply comes off as being power-crazy.
Similarly, only Keldorn and Mazzy confer slow Virtue gains, since only they possess the strength of character to truly make the party aim higher. People like Minsc simply can't influence the party like that, glorious hamster justice notwithstanding.
The same logic applies to Korgan and Viconia as to Edwin. They're evil, and perhaps a bad influence, but unless they're actually committing evil acts, there's no reason for Virtue to fall. Similarly, taking Keldorn along with you doesn't make up for murdering tons of innocents earlier on.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #54 on: January 03, 2005, 05:39:48 PM »
I have to agree with Nightmare about Drizzt--is killing Drizzt more wrong because he is a more famous do-gooder than Windspear?  And like I said, Drizzt isn't a Realms-wide celebrity (in the end there really are no "Realms-wide celebrities"), he hangs out mostly in the North.  But the real reason is because I have to admit that Drizzt has done a lot of the things I've complaining about in this very forum.  Someone mentioned before that Drizzt pre-emptively strikes at a bunch of giants without actual evidence of them doing anything evil...this is true.  I believe it's in The Thousand Orcs where he tracks and kills a bunch of giants just so they don't have the chance to harm either his group or other travellers.  Now, those may be good intentions, but that's the same logic Galvary uses to try to imprison (if not outright kill) your PC: "You may do something evil, so I'm going to end your life now so you never get the chance."

Another example that's even better--at the beginning of Legacy (I don't remember all the little details but here is the gist), Bruenor, who has just re-taken Mithral Hall, gets word of some tunnels that have a large portion of Mirthal in them.  These tunnels, as I recall, aren't necessarily his to begin with (ie. not his by right), but they are currently controlled by a bunch of goblins.  Bruenor is all for slaughtering the goblins (or driving them out) and seizing their Mithral, and most of his friends agree.  Of them, only Cattie-Brie actually speaks up and asks if it's right to slaughter the goblins and take their treasure; I recall this gives Drizzt pause, but in the end they all decide that it's OK, and they do exactly that.  In the end, the goblins are killed and their treasure is taken, by a group of individuals who are almost entirely good-aligned.  They decided it's OK because goblins are evil little wretches whereas the dwarves of Mithral Hall are members of the "goodly" races, and because they know the true value of Mithral!  ::)  How are those actions better than those of your typical brigand?

Finally, in The Lone Drow, for about half the book, Drizzt gives into grief over his belief that his friends are dead, and essentially goes on a bloodthirsty killing spree towards every orc and giant he can find. 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 05:47:30 PM by Murdane »

Offline NiGHTMARE

  • Idiot
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #55 on: January 03, 2005, 05:44:25 PM »
And before you say "ah, but the latest Drizzt trilogy was written long after BG2 came out", it's actually set several years earlier ;).  Bioware couldn't have known about the events of those novels, but we do :).
The Gibberlings Three - home to the BG1 NPC Project, BG2 Tweak Pack, Divine Remix, GemRB, Lands of Intrigue, Song & Silence, and many more!

Offline SimDing0™

  • Back In Black
  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Gender: Male
  • Word Enhancer
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #56 on: January 03, 2005, 06:17:50 PM »
Since it apparently deserves a Virtue penalty to lie, betray, cheat, steal, or knowingly work for an Evil person (not that I'm arguing any of that), here is a partial list:
I'm going through your list spotting potential revisions for the next version. If possible, could you post bulk amendments/additions in a new post, so I don't have to keep going back looking for edits? Thanks.

However, bear in mind that, as I mention above, it's evil ACTIONS that I'm really interested in. For example, while working for Xzar may generally be a fairly questionable thing to do, unless there's any specific action involved that's distinctly evil (which there isn't, that I can think), I'm unlikely to implement a Virtue hit.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 06:25:40 PM by SimDing0™ »

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2005, 11:50:13 PM »
I've just confirmed that, as I suggested earlier, in vanilla BG2 you CAN kill Mae'Var without even speaking to Edwin.
My party just did the following:
* Paid off Gaelan Bayle
* Entered Renal's Guildhall
* Got the quest to investigate & whack Mae'Var
* Gave the documents to Gorch
* Got the quest to rob the Temple of Talos
* Killed Mae'Var
* Went back upstairs
* Immediately got gibbed by Arkanis Gath.

Now, might we have survived if we had taken the other exit from the basement and never entered Mae'Var's guildhall again? Perhaps. Might our actions not have been fatal if we had done this without siding with the Shadow Thieves first? Perhaps. But it does seem to rule out the possibility of killing Mae'Var without doing any of his unsavory sidequests, at least in 98% of the cases.

Granted, this wasn't vanilla BG2. But I doubt any of my mods would make Arkanis Gath more likely to appear.

Offline SimDing0™

  • Back In Black
  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Gender: Male
  • Word Enhancer
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2005, 06:27:56 AM »
I went upstairs into the guildhall when I tested. However, yes, it might depend on whether you side with Aran first. Strange if that's the case, though.

Qwinn

  • Guest
Great thread
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2005, 03:33:51 AM »
A -very- interesting thread.  I have to say that in most cases I'm actually most sympathetic to SixOfSpade's view - in fact, I'll surpass him and argue that killing Gethras shouldn't incur a virtue hit -at all-.  I'll explain in several phases (this is going to be a long one):

1)  Some here seem to feel that the "Lawful", for a paladin, requires strict adherence to civil laws.  I entirely disagree.  While it is true that "lawful" does generally require that one sees a general benefit to organized, civilized society, a paladin would most certainly have an overriding principle according to their oath, that being, the laws of his deity (through his or her Church).  Otherwise, in your guy's view, a paladin whose nation's government was infiltrated and taken over by a Nazi like dictatorship, which among other things started to shut down Churches (including the Paladin's own), would then still have to start carrying out this dictatorship's orders and enforcing it's laws (such as rounding up a segment of the population based on nationality/religion for genocide, including the Paladin's own) or else fall from paladinhood.  That's ridiculous.  Paladins would most certainly be expected to help topple an evil, albeit "lawful" government.  The highest law to a paladin is not civil law - it's ethical and religious law, and it just happens that -most- civil laws and civilized societies tend to reflect the tenets of religious laws (at least in good societies), so civil law is generally respected as a useful construct, but by no means should that law be considered sacrosanct if they conflict with the paladin's deity's notions of good and/or "the rules".  

In particular, I don't think that a paladin would be in even the most minimal way required to support or tolerate the obviously evil Cowled Wizards because they are supported by the civil government - in fact, I'd think that a Paladin of Mystra (Goddess of Magic) would feel especially duty bound to mow down the Cowled Wizards for what would almost certainly be against Mystra's "law" - attempting to usurp Mystra's blessings only to themselves.  I think for most paladins the "law" would be "justice" (Helm) or "honor" (Torm).  The cleric stronghold quests are a good indicator of how "law" (Hellm) and "good" (Lathander) approach things differently.  The paladin has to walk a tightrope juggling the demands of justice, honor, and mercy - and of course when confronted with conflicting demands the paladin must make rational decisions about the "greater good", rather than abdicating all thought and acting only when there's a pure-white option available, as some here seem to suggest.

2)  Another notion being bandied about is:  it's morally reprehensible to kill evil creatures unless you've caught them in the act - as in, they all deserve their day in court.  Maybe in our world that's a good notion, but that's for one reason only - we lack something called a "Detect Evil" spell, and therefore we can't know if someone is empirically evil or good.  And suffice it to say - if you don't believe in an empirical good and evil, you shouldn't even be interested in this mod.  I stipulate that YES, in fact, no paladin should -ever- fall, under any circumstances, for killing a creature if his divinely inspired ability to "detect evil" does in fact register someone as evil.  That doesn't mean that a paladin MUST kill every single evil person he meets (for example, if letting them live does, in fact, serve the "greater good" in some fashion), but no paladin's God should look at a Paladin and say "You swore an oath to root out and destroy evil, and then you dared to kill someone that I myself reported to you as significantly evil without hard evidence?!?!  How DARE you NOT doubt MY judgment?!?  Alright, you, out of the pool!"

I mean, think about it - the entire PURPOSE of the Virtue mod requires the presupposition that good and evil are both universally applicable and quantifiable, and it's entire purpose is in fact to do that quantifying.  Universally applicable in the sense that an act is considered intrinsically good or evil regardless of the viewpoint, culture, alignment, class or religion of the main character - no moral relativism here, sorry.  The only facts that matter in determining good/evil are the intent of the character given the knowledge of the circumstances available to him at the time he makes his decision, and the general social mores of Western Civilization, NOT "my parents didn't pay enough attention to me so don't blame me, blame society" or "hey, in some cultures, slavery/cannibalism/whatever is perfectly acceptable and we shouldn't be so arrogant as to judge by our standards, who's to say who's right?!".  Well, from the character's perspective, the God that gave the Paladin the ability to detect evil is.  In reality, it's the folks writing the Oversight and Virtue mod setting the standards, and when it boils down to it, playing God and precisely judging the various decisions the player makes in game, applying what are generally the social and ethical mores of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, which despite being agnostic I still personally subscribe to and am not ashamed of, nor am I suggesting anyone should be.  The point is, from the character's perspective, the result of "Detect Evil" is the verdict of his God, even if it's really the authors of Oversight and Virtue making the decisions (with our combined input).

The mod also works under the presumption that good and evil are quantifiable, and that it's literally not possible for someone to be both "innocent" and "evil".  You're basically born neutral - one can only become "evil" due to acts of evil intent, and only then does your alignment change to detectable evil (or at least, I assume the mod works that way - I haven't tried the mod yet precisely because I thought it's rules for paladins were too strict, same as Six).  They -had- to have done a lot of evil things that left a detectable "stain on their soul".  

In the real world, we can't throw someone in jail unless we catch them in the act, but in the context of the AD&D world, if someone detects as "evil", that's better than a court of law.  A judge and jury could screw up, but the paladin's deity certainly isn't going to.  If a "detect evil" isn't supposed to be good enough for the paladin, if he also needs (as Six put it) forms filled out in triplicate and a judge and jury to declare the individual guilty and deserving of the application of righteous justice, why does he even have the power to detect that stain?

So yes, it would seem to me that unless the Virtue mod is going to effectively stand in ethical doubt of it's very purpose and/or the evaluations of the Oversight mod that it explicitly depends on (either of which would seem to me quite silly), then if the paladin's deity's power detects so many stains on a person's soul that it overrides the good he's done and dubs them "evil", that should be more than good enough for the paladin to make his judgment - certainly better than any flawed legal structure created by a human civil government could be.

Actually, if you think about it, in a world such as Faerun, there shouldn't really be any such thing as courts of law in a good society.  Do a "detect evil" - did he glow?  Throw him in jail.  What did he do to deserve it?  We don't know, but then, we don't really need to, do we?  The criminal's soul shows that this person regularly acts with malicious destructive intent, and we do all acknowledge that -intent-, not outcome, is the real issue, otherwise we wouldn't rightly be saying that metagaming knowledge shouldn't be considered in our quantification.  Thus, being a person of regular and intentionally malevolent intent, the person is clearly a threat to both the common good and society in general (there's "lawful" again, if you still insist on thinking about "law" as civil society).  The stain is detectable, and the only valid defense should frankly be that his "aura" was somehow magically tampered with - otherwise, we KNOW you're guilty, we KNOW you're predisposed towards evil intent -and- acting on it, and thus we know you're a very real threat to society and the common good.  But requiring a court of law to decide someone's guilt when a detect evil is available is actually to hold "reputation" as a deeper construct than "virtue", and that seems a silly assumption to make in this mod.

3)  In the argument that a paladin should fall for killing Gethras, it was explicitly argued that a paladin (paraphrased) "cannot commit an evil act even if he believes it to be for the greater good", supported primarily by a shallow interpretation of a cliche about the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".  So what if the "good intention" is to ignore the "greater good" for the sake of personal virtue?  Why is that good intention exempted from the possibility of leading to hell?  Is it simply not possible that being so sanctimonius that one permits a tremendous evil to flourish when it could have been prevented by something like a calculated deception is the real "road to hell"?

The hard fact that performing the Mae'var quest requires "deception, theft and murder", it is argued, is why a Paladin's God would kick him out of the pool for doing it.  Well, here's the funny thing.  One day, my character actually walked into the very heart of Paladinhood in Athlatka, the Order of the Radiant Heart, and was asked to A) infiltrate an organization using deception.  Upon doing so, and B) successfully lying to Reynalt, someone who is certainly a good man (especially in light of the Quest Pack), you must then agree to C) steal something from that very same Radiant Order.  Note that the only successful way to complete this quest and rid Athlatka of the Anarg's evil is to agree to "steal" the Chalice for Anarg - before knowing whether or not the Order will in fact give it to you - and in fact in the conversation with the Order it's clearly a close call, they almost don't.  And when you return to Anarg with the cup in unmodded BG2, he catches you, Reynalt (a good man) realizes you've betrayed him, and you have to kill him, which under the circumstances (you certainly provoked him to attack you) could be argued as murder.  Well, at least Anarg's evil had been ended, and his future victims saved.

When Anarg asked my paladin to get the cup, I said to myself, "Okay, I'll agree to this for now, and I'll go back and ask the Order for the Cup.  If they don't give it to me, well, I'm -not- going to actually steal it, that would be unjust, so I guess I won't get to meet Anarg and I'll just have to tell the Order that without the Cup I can't complete their mission of ending Anarg's evil".   Similarly, when Mae'var ordered me to work for Edwin, and Edwin assigned me to kill Gethras, my paladin's first thought was "Okay, I'll agree to this for now, and I'll find this Gethras guy and see if he detects as evil.  If he isn't, well, I'm not going to actually kill him, that would be unjust, so I guess I'll just have to go back to Renal and tell him I can't complete his quest of ending Mae'var's evil.

But according to some, apparently, the greater purpose of killing Anarg, which involves killing a good man (even if unintentionally), is ultimately all moral (I've certainly never seen anyone suggest that completing it should get a virtue hit), but the greater purpose of bringing down Mae'var is not sufficient to render killing Gethras, an evil man, a moral act.  Apparently, it's not the good or evil of the person you're killing that makes the killing just, it's who you're doing it for and why - whose cause you're advancing.

But hey, if the good/evil of a killiing is determined not by the criminality or guilt of the person being killed, but rather who asked you to kill him, doesn't that effectively put "the greater purpose" as the priority in determining if an act is good and evil?  If so, how can one then say that the "greater good" is irrelevant?  It's basically just leaving the determination of whether or not an act is good and evil to the questgiver - which I think is silly.  It's the paladin's intent that should count.  The good or evil of the act should have two bearings - one, is there an injustice in the act in and of itself?  IMO, since Gethras is deity-certified as evil, no.  And then there's the greater purpose.  The greater purpose a paladin would have in this quest is not to advance Edwin, but to get evidence on Mae'var so that Mae'var can be disposed of without risking alienating the entire Shadow Thief guild, which at best could cut off access to Imoen and at worst could bring certain STDEATH.

So.  Does killing Gethras violate "justice"?  No, he's evil, my deity says he is.  Does killing Gethras violate "honor"?  Again, not in any way I can see, unless my "honor" is dependent on only good people making me aware of evil people's existence.  Does it violate the Ultima 7 precepts for a paladin - "truth" or "courage"?  Nope.  But I'm supposed to risk losing Imoen or leaving Mae'var to continue terrorizing the docks or risking commiting suicide by taking him out, all because I can't consider ending those evils to justify killing a guy who my own God assures me is an evil scumbag?

The notion in the argument that "the paladin cannot commit a questionable act even for the greater good" makes it seem to me that a paladin isn't allowed to think.  He can consider no context to his actions, he has to ignore the report of his own deity-given power to detect evil, and he is not permitted to commit a lesser evil like deception or killing a deity-certified-evil Cowled Wizard even if inaction would enable a much greater evil to flourish.  

If that's what a paladin's forced to do, I won't be calling any paladins to help save my town anytime soon.  I don't want to be saved by someone who's literally incapable of eliminating the greatest of evils unless it's replaced with 100% pure goodness.  If my hero is going to act on the notion that acting to replace a great evil with a much lesser evil is an evil act itself, and beyond the pale at that... well, I can't think of a faster way to pave "the road to hell" than to insist on being pure as driven snow in the microscopic sense and wilfully ignorant of the greater consequences of one's actions and inaction.

That's the secular argument.  Here's my theological one (note that I myself am agnostic):

The Roman Catholic Church itself, the religion that spurred our very foundation for our concepts of Paladinhood, says that in a moral quandary, a Catholic's moral obligation is to act in the way that they evaluate "does least harm", and the Catholic -does- have to consider the harm that will occur in the instance of inaction.  Yes, in the Catholic faith, one is not only allowed but obligated to act in accordance with what they believe is "the greater good" and "least harm" as they perceive it and as informed by the tenets of the Catholic faith.  Yes, each individual -is- entrusted and charged with the duty to evaluate the moral quandaries they encounter and seek to do the greatest good/least harm, they are NOT expected to be automatons that are required to follow a strict legalistic code that is supposed to apply in absolutely all situations and regardless of mitigating circumstances.  A "Catholic Paladin" would likely be -more- entrusted and duty-bound to make such decisions for the greater good wisely and correctly, not -less-.  I'd give examples of how this RCC obligation to work towards "least harm" applies in practice, but the ones coming to mind are politically rather charged (namely, surrounding whether one can vote if they have to choose between two pro-abortion candidates) so I'll just leave it out unless someone wants to specifically argue that they think the Catholic Church would in fact NOT permit a Catholic Paladin to encourage a lesser evil if it would successfully prevent a greater evil from taking place.  And if they're willing to cede the point, then I ask why their perception of a Paladin is not willing to accomodate an application that would be consistent with the notions of good and evil that gave us the concept of Paladins in the first place.

Qwinn
« Last Edit: January 24, 2005, 04:06:14 AM by Qwinn »

Offline Eral

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2005, 03:58:22 AM »
This is a well-thought out argument. Nice work.   :)
(Now for the however.) However, although Maevar is clearly an evil thief - he tortures people, etc - isn't the reason Reynald sends you to get rid of him purely personal? i.e that Mae'var is a threat to him. For a paladin to assist a thief in a struggle for personal power would break the paladin's code -hence the virtue drop seems logical.
You are asked to eliminate Gethras because he stands in Edwin's way - again purely personal reasons - not those of the greater good. Again, the virtue drop is deserved.
The Fallen Paladins are pretending to serve justice and right when they are only serving themselves - eliminating them causes no conflict.
Virtue makes you really role-play a paladin - instead of just picking up all the experience points you can on every quest. It reminds me of BG1, in that you got more experience points on some quests when you did evil stuff, than when you chose the good option.
If you see anything mysterious or unusual, just enjoy it while you can.  - Michael Leunig.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2005, 04:06:46 AM »
@ It reminds me of BG1, in that you got more experience points on some quests when you did evil stuff, than when you chose the good option.:

*sniff* I miss that option. Never happens in BG2 really. :(
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Qwinn

  • Guest
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2005, 04:37:02 AM »
"However, although Maevar is clearly an evil thief - he tortures people, etc - isn't the reason Reynald sends you to get rid of him purely personal? i.e that Mae'var is a threat to him. For a paladin to assist a thief in a struggle for personal power would break the paladin's code -hence the virtue drop seems logical. "

I totally, totally disagree.  Just because Renal's motive for sending you to get rid of Mae'var is personal doesn't mean that has to be YOUR motive.  My motive when I did it was because virtually every commoner on the street was terrorized by Mae'var (and NOT by Renal, incidentally), and he needed to be gotten rid of.  The most logical way to infiltrate Mae'var's guild and get rid of him without cutting me off from Imoen and/or bringing STDEATH down on my head was to do it with Renal's assistance.  Lastly, Renal may be a thief, but he -isn't evil- by an alignment check, so he -must- do enough good to compensate for his evil.  It should indeed fit within a Paladin's code to ensure that the local thieves are controlled by a non-evil thief, if the only alternative at the moment is that an evil thug like Mae'var gets to continue to terrorize the entire district.

Similarly, in the course of working to get rid of Mae'var, Edwin sends you to kill Gethras.  HE wants me to do it for personal gain, sure, but given how often evil is at each other's throats it'd be silly to assume that his target isn't just as evil as he is and deserve wiping out as well.  My paladin would go and check Gethras out, and if Gethras is evil as confirmed by my own deity, then my paladin would have no compunction about killing him, not because Edwin wanted me to, but because he's an evil rat bastard and deserves it and it also forwards the greater good of bringing down Mae'var.

By your logic, if evil Cowled Wizards (who are simply evil, and IMO obviously so) had approached my character and said "Irenicus has taken over Spellhold, we're going to ship you to Spellhold to get rid of him for us", the player would have to say no because that would "assist an evil wizard in a struggle for personal power".  Similarly, once Aran asked the paladin to clear out Bohdi's tomb, the Paladin would have to say no, because it would "assist a thief in a struggle for personal power".

And yes, that's how the logic works out.  Kish even confirms it with the following:

Quote
Killing the kuo-toa for Ardulace: Bad.  If you have a right to kill anything because you want one of its parts, Irenicus certainly has a right to kill the child of an evil god because he wants a soul, and you have no business going after him at all.  Poisoning the kuo-toa tadpoles: Beyond the pale, again.  They're completely innocent.

Killing the beholders for Ardulace: Bad.  Killing more beholders than you have to to defend yourself while leaving their city if you stumble into it: Bad.  Going out of your way to kill intelligent creatures when you don't have to is wrong.

Killing the illithid for Ardulace: Bad.  Killing them to escape their city and/or rescue the slaves, if you get to their city some other way: Not bad.

But here's the thing - what if the player had just done the drow city quests before wandering into the beholder/kuo toa/illithid caves?  Apparently, simply becoming aware that it would benefit Ardulace makes freeing the illithid slaves/killing beholders evil. 

The moral logic seems to be that an evil person and a good person CANNOT, by definition, ever want the same thing.  I think that's just bizarre.   Hitler was evil.  Stalin was evil.  Stalin wanted Hitler dead.  Does that make FDR evil for also wanting Hitler dead?  Should FDR have stopped attacking Hitler upon finding out that Stalin wanted him dead too?  Did it make the fight against Hitler less virtuous?

Evil people are always backstabbing each other - it's evil's primary weakness.  If you're going to refrain from interfering with anyone evil upon becoming aware that it may help another evil person, well, then, you're going to be completely paralyzed because virtually every evil person is going to have another evil person competing with them.

Qwinn

Offline Rastor

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 271
  • Author of the book, "Being a Jerk for Dummies"
    • RPG Dungeon
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #63 on: January 24, 2005, 12:20:00 PM »
Yes, the good/evil drops do seem to be highly subjective.  However, to be frank, there's really no way for a mod of this sort to be otherwise.  You'll always have people that say, "Well, this is evil but you don't think it is" or "This is good, but I lose virtue!  WTF?"

Offline Mikayel

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 9
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2005, 12:39:22 PM »
Very well done Qwuinn, that was one uber-posten.

Offline Ebon

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #65 on: January 24, 2005, 01:53:48 PM »
Evil stain detected by a righteous god as a true reason for conviction - that's so true. But since evil can be redeemed, then jails oughta become comfortable asylums treating the convicts. But this leads to an extremist, utopic and boring world. Could be LG-ish but not at all for NG (who want convenience to everyone) or CG (nice but not goody-goody). What I mean is that players who use paladins should accept this fate. If you don't like it, choose another class, they are so many.

Of course, this 'world' is not easy to rule. A paladinic king needs to keep a powerful army in order to maintain this law. Just think of rebels of any alignment - especially CG - who'll run rampant. Not to mention the likes of Harpers - a more or less TN/NG community - who'll object. Their purpose is upholding the humanity balance - which can only be between anarchy and boredom. The fact that Jaheira (harper) frowns on high reputation/virtue is likely caused by boredom. Besides that she has a particularly sarcastic attitude towards 'sissy' LG chars. I love when she does it ;D. She pauses her romance when she notices you as 'goody-two-shoes'.

So don't trust paladins in everything they wish and NEVER let one take the throne. They're only good as superheroes not rulers.

Cowled Wizards as an obviously evil organization - if their rules are harsh it doesn't mean every member is evil. They are humans (or maybe humanoids) not extraplanar, and their alignment varies, good members taking duties less harsh. Also, at least without Oversight, Rayic Gethras is not evil, he's unaligned. Not to doubt he's still evil...that is, let's hope not to restart this disturbing dilemma.
(sorry for my English...)
Good night.

Offline Eral

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2005, 03:46:36 PM »
Qwinn, my comments are intended to be game-specific. :)

Perhaps the consideration of each act is not whether it is good or evil, but whether it is lawful. Under that umbrella the virtue drops are consistent.
If you see anything mysterious or unusual, just enjoy it while you can.  - Michael Leunig.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2005, 05:43:10 PM »
It's true that paladins don't merely follow civil law, but I still don't agree that killing Gethras is justifiable for a paladin.  I've been over my reasons for believing this already. 

Paladins are supposed to believe in mercy as well as justice--it is supposed to be their hope that a bad guy can perhaps be turned around to the side of good via the paladin's example.  Many have argued that killing Gethras is fine because he is evil and belongs to an evil group, but as stated before many times, there is no proof in the game that Gethras has done anything especially evil or harmful (and he isn't evil in the unmodded game), and comparing the CWs to "nazis" is problematic (be careful there).  Just because Edwin is evil doesn't mean anyone who he wants to kill is most likely evil (remember Dynaheir?  Are the leaders of Rashemen evil because the mostly evil leaders of Thay would love to have Rashemen wiped off the map?).

I believe that with a paladin, the ends don't justify the means.  That's the point of playing one.  I don't like Gethras or Mae'var personally, and I don't think killing them is such a bad thing...it's the means of destroying them that I have a problem with, mostly.  I've killed both these characters before (though not as a paladin), but as I said in another thread--just because I played certain characters that way doesn't mean I feel they acted "virtuously", or that a virtue penalty for such actions as they took would be unjustified.

An evil act "for the sake of good" is still an evil act.  And nobody ever said that the paladin class was supposed to be an easy class to play with a lot of room for flexibility.  You don't have to ignore Detect Evil, but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly.  I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2005, 06:37:06 PM by Murdane »

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #68 on: January 24, 2005, 05:49:45 PM »

But here's the thing - what if the player had just done the drow city quests before wandering into the beholder/kuo toa/illithid caves?  Apparently, simply becoming aware that it would benefit Ardulace makes freeing the illithid slaves/killing beholders evil. 



And I would be the first to agree that doing the drow quests in the deceptive manner that the game encourages you to is also unpaladinlike, and perhaps even evil.

PS: I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me, as well.  Insulting me isn't going to change my mind, not by a long shot.

PPS: I don't necessarily consider the paladins in the game to be good examples of paladin-like behavior, either.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2005, 06:41:10 PM by Murdane »

Offline Ebon

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2005, 01:41:27 AM »
You don't have to ignore Detect Evil, but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly. I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.
Just what I've been saying, you don't have to kill evil but to redeem it - as by closing an 'evil' person in an asylum, not one like Spellhold, where skilled priests are to reeducate him/her, not by amnesy, but by lessons of wisdom. As soon as the individual shows no sign of bad manners, s/he's free.
Of course I'm not quite fond of this... There's also need for skilled priests and administration or else guards will start arresting people for every single act of insubordination...
Good night.

Qwinn

  • Guest
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #70 on: January 25, 2005, 03:10:20 AM »
Quote
Paladins are supposed to believe in mercy as well as justice--it is supposed to be their hope that a bad guy can perhaps be turned around to the side of good via the paladin's example.

And the problem I see is that your vision of a paladin, as far as I can tell, is 100% mercy and 0% justice.  I don't see a Paladin as a roving social worker the way you do.  This is a world in which frontier justice can and must rule if good is to even survive the continuous onslaught of evil.  I believe a paladin's role can be and is for many players to seek out and destroy evil -before- it claims any more victims.  Can that paladin also attempt to redeem evil rather than destroy it?  Sure, if he feels there's significant hope that the evil creature in question -can- be redeemed, but is it an actual evil act to not attempt to redeem every single last creature he comes across?  No.

Quote
Many have argued that killing Gethras is fine because he is evil and belongs to an evil group, but as stated before many times, there is no proof in the game that Gethras has done anything especially evil or harmful

Yes, there is.  He registers as evil (within Oversight, anyway, and as Simding0 has clearly stated, Virtue relies on Oversight).  The entire concept of the Virtue mod, as I said, is that alignment isn't just something you pick like your character's name - it's a result of the actions you've taken.  Now, explain to me how, in the context of the Virtue mod, someone can actually register as evil without having done especially evil things?  Maybe the problem is that since you want to give everyone a virtue hit for practically breathing, it's no wonder you feel that something that registers as evil doesn't deserve death.

Quote
(and he isn't evil in the unmodded game)

I actually wasn't aware of this.  I guess I presumed in my first game taking him out that he was evil based on the fact that he has demonic familiars.  My good and neutral mages can't summon demonic familiars, can yours?  If Oversight had retained him as neutral, I would have definetly asked how that decision was justified based on all the in-game evidence.  At any rate, based on his attitude, his membership in the Cowled Wizards, and his demonic familiars, I definetly think that Oversight makes the right call in changing him to evil.  Hey, I also think they make the right call in changing Vithal to good, his attitude and honor in keeping his word do demonstrate him to be, and paladins should incur a heavy virtue hit for killing him - and it's a heck of a lot more profitable for the character to kill Vithal than to kill Gethras.  The point is, Virtue relies on Oversight's decisions on the alignment of NPC's, and if Gethras does in fact detect as evil, then there should not be a virtue hit in killing him, regardless of who asked you to do it, and especially if it's being done in order to advance the larger goal of freeing the citizens of the Docks from Mae'var's tyranny.  If you believe that Gethras should NOT be listed as evil, for whatever reason, then fine, argue with his alignment.  But once it's established that he -does- detect as evil, then he's fair game for a paladin.

Quote
Just because Edwin is evil doesn't mean anyone who he wants to kill is most likely evil (remember Dynaheir?  Are the leaders of Rashemen evil because the mostly evil leaders of Thay would love to have Rashemen wiped off the map?).

Straw man.  No one has ever said that the paladin would be justified in just -assuming- that someone Edwin wants dead is evil.  But neither must they assume they're an innocent victim - which DOES seem to be YOUR argument, since you keep insisting it's wrong to kill him even if he detects as evil.  I say the paladin would absolutely be required to make sure that Gethras is evil before killing him.  But if he does, and he can see the guy -is- evil, then by all means, whack away!

Quote
I believe that with a paladin, the ends don't justify the means.  That's the point of playing one.

The end that my paladin seeks is to kill an evil person (Mae'var).  The means my paladin employs in order to kill that evil person is to kill another evil person (Gethras).  Why is killing evil people okay as an end but not as a means?

Quote
I don't like Gethras or Mae'var personally, and I don't think killing them is such a bad thing...it's the means of destroying them that I have a problem with, mostly.

The means?  The means is my sword.  The fact that someone evil pointed another evil person out to me is not my "means".  It's just a source of information.  What -should- matter is the intent behind it.  You assume that a paladin's motivation for killing Gethras must be the motivation of the person who gave him that quest.  That's like saying the only possible motivation for a paladin killing beholders MUST be that he actually really wants Ardaluce to summon a demon lord to go rampaging through the surface world killing Elhan and the rest of his elves.  I would be saying that sarcasticallly, except that this really does seem to be how you feel.  I find this really bizarre.

Quote
An evil act "for the sake of good" is still an evil act.

Agreed.  I disagree with your insistence that killing a provably evil person is an evil act.

Quote
And nobody ever said that the paladin class was supposed to be an easy class to play with a lot of room for flexibility.

Agreed.  Most people can get away with killing Vithal.  A paladin can't.  Those are some pretty tasty 9th level spell scrolls the paladin has to give up.  I agree with the Virtue mod's calls in -most- places, but not on this one.  (actually, if anything, I believe the virtue hit for killing Vithal should be increased.  I'm actually in favor of the idea that a paladin should fall if his virtue falls below 18... and I think killing Vithal should incur at least a -3 virtue hit.  That's definetly a single act worthy of causing a paladin to fall).  If Gethras were not evil and there weren't as much in-game evidence that he is, then I would be in agreement with you that the paladin can't kill him.  But there's plenty of evidence that he is, Oversight agrees, and therefore paladins can kill him guilt-free.  I agree that paladins don't have the flexibility other classes have.  But I don't see your vision of a paladin as simply "not flexible".  I see it as railroading into a single, solitary vision of what the class is supposed to be.  Not just not flexible, but overwhelmingly rigid.  A vision that denies paladins even the flexibility to kill evil people - and even extending that to illithids and beholders (!!!) - is a bit over the top.  Okay, it's WAY over the top.

Quote
You don't have to ignore Detect Evil

But I can't act based on it?  According to you if I actually act on it I no longer deserve to be a paladin.  My definition of "having to ignore" something is that I can't act based on it.  Just telling me that I'm allowed to notice it but I must then dismiss it as insufficient reason to kill him doesn't mean much.

Quote
but knowing that a creature is evil doesn't always mean the best thing to do is to slaughter it mercilessly.

Straw man.  I actually said myself that a Paladin is NOT required to slaughter every evil person he meets (when the greater good suggests that they should not be killed, for whatever reason).  But not being -required- to kill them (what I'm saying) and saying it's actually evil if he does (what you're saying) are two entirely different things.

Quote
I honestly don't recall any source about paladins advocating such an action.

I've read a million sources that have said that a paladin's primary role is to root out and destroy evil.  What I have rarely seen is a paladin's role described as marauding social worker attempting to redeem every evil person he sees, and only being permitted to destroy evil as a defensive measure.  That would actually be far more appropriate a role for a cleric than a paladin.

Quote
And I would be the first to agree that doing the drow quests in the deceptive manner that the game encourages you to is also unpaladinlike, and perhaps even evil

You mean in the way a silver dragon encourages you to.  So is the silver dragon evil for asking some adventurers to infiltrate the drow in order to get back her eggs?  Is the "good" alternative to ignore the Silver Dragon, let her eggs be used to summon a Demon Lord that wipes out the elven armies, or just let the eggs be destroyed?  Is infiltrating the Fallen Paladins evil?  Were Frodo and Sam evil for dressing up as orcs in Mordor? 

Quote
I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me, as well.  Insulting me isn't going to change my mind, not by a long shot.

I fail to see where I have insulted you even once anywhere in this thread.  I have criticized your ideas.  Learn to tell the difference.

Quote
I don't necessarily consider the paladins in the game to be good examples of paladin-like behavior, either.

Clearly, since as far as I can tell your vision of paladin-like behavior is to set up a "Evil?  Just say no!" encounter group in the Underdark.

Qwinn
« Last Edit: January 25, 2005, 04:09:11 AM by Qwinn »

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #71 on: January 25, 2005, 07:40:04 AM »
Evil people are always backstabbing each other - it's evil's primary weakness. 

  and good's primary weakness?  come on, i know you can get this one... ;)
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Qwinn

  • Guest
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #72 on: January 25, 2005, 08:05:11 AM »
Quote
and good's primary weakness?  come on, i know you can get this one...

Heh... I've been avoiding any Spaceball quotes for a while now, but needless to say I do NOT concur with Dark Helmet's position that "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb".  There do seem to be an awful lot of advocates of that idea, though  :-\

Qwinn

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #73 on: January 25, 2005, 08:20:14 AM »
 actually, my contention is that good has the burden of actively setting an example.
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2005, 12:37:53 PM »
Qwinn, it's not a matter of seeing paladins "my way" or "your way".  It's a matter of them behaving the way they are supposed to according to the actual D&D sources about paladins.  You can think whatever you want, but the class is the way it is.  If you think it's too restrictive, play a different class.

Being a paladin isn't just about being good, it's also about being lawful and acting according to a code of chivalry.  There are some things that paladins aren't supposed to do that aren't necessarily "evil", but they are unbecoming for a paladin.  For example, they aren't allowed to insult people or act rudely, even though having bad manners isn't necessarily "evil".  Bringing Frodo into this is irrevelant, because he isn't a paladin.  Bringing any non-paladin character into the discussion (which I presume is about how paladins are supposed to act) is irrelevant.

And for the record, no, I don't much care for the heavyhanded way the player is forced to act in Chp 5, whether the questgiver is a silver dragon or not (again, being a LG silver dragon still doesn't make you a paladin).  Do I have to mention yet again what paladins have to do in the Yuan-ti temple in IWD2???

Any mage of any alignment can end up summoning evil creatures.  Those mephits in Gethras's home may not be his familiars (remember, you can only have one familiar ::) ).  A good aligned mage casting a summon spell may end up summoning evil creatures (ogres, goblins, ogrillons, kobolds), yet I've never read about anyone questioning this aspect of the game, or suggesting that the caster is somehow evil just because these critters pop up instead of pixies, grigs, nymphs, etc.

Anyway, it seems to me that you haven't read my arguments in my previous posts that carefully.  do I really have to repeat every point I made before?  Not only are you gleefully misinterpreting many of the points I made, you continue to have a snarky attitude while insisting that you aren't insulting me. ::)  I don't need it.  You don't know me and there is no need for such rudeness.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2005, 12:40:09 PM by Murdane »

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?: