Author Topic: Why I don't like Virtue  (Read 25893 times)

Offline Ebon

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2005, 01:56:59 PM »
If you like summoning evil (or better said, mischievous) creatures, it may simply mean you're a) making 'social' experiments with them or b) just trying to 'have fun' with trickier monsters than the placid puppy. :P Not that you're making a pact with Evil...or something ridiculous like that. :)

And don't believe a paladin would waste his/her money on beggars! Giving money for free is not the right thing to do. That will only make them beg for more... The right thing is to give one, say, 1 copper for food, then counseling him/her where to work for money. Just consider paladins as fantasy superheroes. ;)
Good night.

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: Great thread
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2005, 04:49:50 PM »
I'll explain in several phases (this is going to be a long one):
*high-fives Qwinn* Woohoo! New best friend!

Rather than go through the insanity of trying to quote everyone, I'll just make some general points.


"Detecting as Evil means there should be no Virtue hit:" True for the most part. Yes, showing up as Evil means that you have done enough Evil things in the past to no longer be considered Neutral, and/or you have plans (or at least tendencies) do to such things in the future. Now, Rayic Gethras turns red in response to a Detect Evil. He is a member of the Cowled Wizards (a throroughly Evil organization), keeps classically Evil-aligned pets (and no Good-aligned ones, the Imps and Mephits do not seem to be the product of random chance), and is currently investigating (i.e., looking for "reasons" to abduct and imprison without parole) a Mage who is currently not bothering anybody. Now, Joluv also turns red in response to Detect Evil. He is a merchant. Difference being: Rayic Gethras shows signs of commiting crimes against "good society" in the future,[/u] and thus killing him means doing the world a favor. Joluv, however, shows no discernible malice, and therefore his Evil deeds appear to exist solely in the past, therefore whacking him doesn't really do any Good. Note: I am not arguing that punishing crimes is a fallacy. A rapist, for example, absolutely must be strongly discouraged from ever attempting the same again. But this does not appear to be the case with Joluv: From what we see in the game, it seems that his great crime was stealing all these historical and religious artifacts from the area of Icewind Dale, and taking them south to sell for his own personal gain. Now that he has made his fortune (Nobleman avatar & all that), he has no incentive to commit further Evil.


Until/unless Virtue deals with the Law/Chaos axis, I think we should keep things confined to the Good/Evil arena. Trying to fudge the boundaries has already caused confusion: "Why is there a Virtue hit for being caught stealing from any store EXCEPT the ones in the Underdark?" As long as Virtue handles only the difference between Good and Evil, it's kind of silly to nail someone for being Chaotic. Under the rules of this mod, that Chaotic Evil guy sitting in the shadows there is none other than Robin Hood, the victim of too many Virtue hits. Sure, killing Saladrex might not be the Paladin thing to do, but that doesn't mean that my Chaotic Good Cleric/Thief should get penalized for not acting like a Paladin.
I'm not arguing for a separate set of Virtue flags for every class and kit in the game, but it seems that some Paladin-specific flags might be worth considering. Introducing a Law/Chaos variable ("Citizenship?") is even more worthy of consideration, though.


Achieving Good through questionable means: I think it was Baunhoffer who said, "It is better for a good man to tell a lie, than for a bad man to tell the truth." In the context of the Virtue mod, that translates to, "If a Paladin accepts Edwin's assignment to kill Rayic Gethras, the DM is obligated to assume he is doing it for Lawful Good reasons." So, unless there's at least an in-game suggestion that killing Gethras would indeed advance the cause of Evil, it would not in the slightest way show that the PC is killing him with Evil intent.
Now, killing Gethras can indeed be called a Chaotic action (although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it Lawful or Chaotic to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"), but that of course means delving into the confusion of talking about Law/Chaos in a mod that's currently limited to Good/Evil.


About Paladins being limited to an absolutely rigid, puritanical standard of conduct: All right, so the D&D books say that a Paladin will Fall if he wears the same underwear two days in a row, or fails to dispose of trash in the specified container. But I prefer to operate on the assumption that BioWare intended the class to be sort of fun to play. That is, after all, why they included it in a game. Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class. There's no reason that a person whose most remarkable character feature is the hatred of Undead should suffer permanent, crippling penalties for, say, killing Nevazaiah.


Is a Paladin is forced to exercise pacifism and restraint as long as there's even the slightest chance of redeeming someone? That strikes me as a darned inefficient way to clease the world of Evil, if you ask me.
"Aha! Now I have you at last, you abhorrently cruel Lord Foulfang, master of Evil! Take THAT! And THAT! And THAT!!!"
"OW! Aieee! Okay, okay, you win, Sanctimonia! Obviously, the white flame of your righteous wrath burns hotter than my branding irons."
"Well, I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason. Any last words before I dispatch your soul to the Nether Realms?
"You know, perhaps I have been wrong all this time. I thought becoming an iron dictator was the only way to bring my people together, but maybe you have shown me a better way."
"Really? Hm. Well, maybe I won't kill you after all. Say, I get extra credit for every Evil soul I redeem, would you mind signing and dating my list? I've got it somewhere in my backpack here."
"Sure, take your time." (draws his boot dagger) "heh, heh, heh...."

As far as in-game redeeming goes, here's my example. Entering the first cave of the Windspear Hills, you are confronted with a group of Hobgoblins. If you get the Shaman to Near Death without killing him, he pleads for mercy (overhead text), turns blue-circled, and runs outside. Without exception, I kill him every time, even if it means going back outside to do it. Further on, you meet Derg and Flaylan, two Orcs who are sitting in a room by themselves, and who also plead for mercy if you talk to them. If I'm playing a LG or NG character (Paladin or not), I always let them go, because they never attacked me. Now, I don't care if that example follows the ruler-straight Paladin guidelines or not, because in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.


About Vithal: He always struck me as Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good. His motives are unaligned (the acquisition of treasure / knowledge), and just because he's polite (and was attacked by Drow) doesn't mean he's Good. I agree that killing him is Evil, though, but he's definitely not worth a whopping -3 to Virtue. And then there's the problem of ALL of the items being pickpocketable, etc.
What the Vithal encounter really needs is a conversation revamp: Instead of being stuck with an absolutely worthless Rod (ever hear of anyone ever using it? I sure haven't), with the only way of getting something worthwhile being through pressuring and/or killing a nice, non-Evil guy, I'd much prefer a conversation tree that enables the PC to choose his/her share of the loot.

Offline Ebon

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2005, 01:21:34 PM »
BTW, mephits are mostly neutral in pnp. They simply represent one of the 4 elements (if you were wondering, Dust and Ice are from air, Ooze is from water and Steam is from fire).

A good short answer:
Only lower virtue for killing those people you (the player) feel emotionally guilty for (provided you actually roleplay)! But of course, lower your wrath/hate to Player Character's level.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2005, 01:30:52 PM by Ebon »
Good night.

Offline Mikayel

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 9
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2005, 01:49:21 PM »
Are there any plans to further Virtue to the point of flat out morals? Citizenship, generosity, temper, all that good stuff...?

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 #79 on: January 26, 2005, 06:54:48 PM »
 {this was the problem with 'humanity' in vampire pnp}

 the real answer is for virtue to add a personality questionnaire for charname
 
 but we'd still have to argue about what answers to each question are available to, say, paladins.
 
 any comprehensive leary-wheel therapists out there?
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: Great thread
« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2005, 09:38:23 PM »
Until/unless Virtue deals with the Law/Chaos axis, I think we should keep things confined to the Good/Evil arena.
or somebody else could do the fine-tuning and simDing0 could stick with the innovation.  if he's as busy as he claims to be :-* ...
 all i mean by that is that i'm content waiting for the law/chaos axis (and more paladin fine-tuning) and it doesn't spoil my entire [paladin's] game to pass on a few missions.

Quote
I'm not arguing for a separate set of Virtue flags for every class and kit in the game, but it seems that some Paladin-specific flags might be worth considering.
  hear, hear.
  also a good notion for druids, perhaps even rangers (both more likely to have more kit-oriented variations than the paladin).

Quote
Introducing a Law/Chaos variable ("Citizenship?") is even more worthy of consideration, though.
  i agree that, since the first >17 bites have been taken, there is plenty of room for expansion.

Quote
(although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it Lawful or Chaotic to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"
i think it was some tv actor who said "law doesn't always mean justice".  so {being, of course, programmed to submit to the punditry of tv actors/characters} my guess would be that it's Good.  NG, if you will.  those who carry it out could easily be of all three branches of good - might even be a paladin and a druid along for the ride!

Quote
About Paladins being limited to an absolutely rigid, puritanical standard of conduct: All right, so the D&D books say that a Paladin will Fall if he wears the same underwear two days in a row, or fails to dispose of trash in the specified container. But I prefer to operate on the assumption that BioWare intended the class to be sort of fun to play. That is, after all, why they included it in a game.
  yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm.  my favorite.  :-\
 
Quote
Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class. .

  indicating (as i see it) that you like having the powers of a paladin [kit].  because any charname with any stats in any class can roleplay a 'hatred' undead or dragons or evill spellcasters.  it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it?
  and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
  so why again the big deal?
 
  however, i have an issue of Dragon you might appreciate if you haven't already.  #106 iirc?  seven more paladin-types (the CE anti-paladin article was several years earlier) covering the rest of the alignment grid.  interesting (if occasionally munchkin) work.

Quote
There's no reason that a person whose most remarkable character feature is the hatred of Undead should suffer permanent, crippling penalties for, say, killing Nevazaiah
  agreed.  except for the part about hatred being non-paladinny.
  and then maybe 'virtue' should be renamed some sort of universal-field-manifesto-bite.
 
Quote
Is a Paladin is forced to exercise pacifism and restraint as long as there's even the slightest chance of redeeming someone? That strikes me as a darned inefficient way to clease the world of Evil, if you ask me.
obviously not, or the contention would be over 99% of the killing in the game.
 
Quote
. . . in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
where are the riders in that book of yours?  applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
 obviously your provisions are sensible in a cave system full of evil humanoids and worse (added to which you are either explicitly hired to remove monsters, helping the beleaguered rightful lord and/or undergoing the monty haul culmination of the order's assignments.  (and of course if you're on your way to sign up with fierkraag, there's not really anything to talk about ::))
 
  one useful reference for paladin-code (my own copy of which i'd be happy to use myself if a skeletal (or skin-level, perhaps?) assignment were to be flung at me) would be the pendragon rpg from chaosium - most comprehensive mechanical treatment of chivalry i've encountered, at least.
 
 
  EDIT: excision of excess verbiage as pointed out by SoS, and amendment to magazine reference after a refresher.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2005, 10:34:07 PM by Reverendratbastard »
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2005, 05:26:48 PM »
also a good notion for [a separate set of Virtue flags for] druids, perhaps even rangers (both more likely to have more kit-oriented variations than the paladin).
And perhaps for certain other classes as well--should Thieves be penalized for NOT behaving like a Thief, such as refusing to scheme a ransom for Lady Elgea? If so, what form would this penalty take? And then there's the issue of a Cleric not acting in accordance with the morals of his/her deity, multiplied threefold via the Cleric Remix, etc.
In short, an epic task, but still worthy of the effort.


Quote
Quote
(although I never did recieve a reply to my question, "Is it a Lawful or Chaotic action to overthrow a corrupt government with the intention of replacing it with a just one?"
i think it was some tv actor who said "law doesn't always mean justice".  so {being, of course, programmed to submit to the punditry of tv actors/characters} my guess would be that it's Good.  NG, if you will.  those who carry it out could easily be of all three branches of good - might even be a paladin and a druid along for the ride!
See? I still haven't gotten an answer! :P

Quote
yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm.  my favorite.  :-\
What sarcasm? My point was that when the gamer has to stop and consider the possibility that some modder may have decided that killing this particular Cowled Wizard is a crime that deserves Falling, that's not going to be a fun game. Roleplaying is good, but to be constantly forced to second-guess every single move (or suffer irreperable consequences) would slow the game down to a tedium even greater than Chateau Irenicus.
 
Quote
Quote
Those who say that, "If living life on a tightrope isn't for you, play some other class" would be perfectly justified in saying so, IF such kits as the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Undead Hunter--and heck, even the straight Paladin--were available as kits of some other class.
indicating (as i see it) that you like having the powers of a paladin [kit].  because any charname with any stats in any class can roleplay a 'hatred' undead or dragons or evill spellcasters.  it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it?  and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
  so why again the big deal?
I'm confused by your crossed trains of thought in your "the and it follows (as I see it)" clause. Clarify, please.
Of course the Paladin kits are not Virtue-dependent. But, given that Virtue is such a cool mod, it's a danged shame that you can't Roleplay a Cavalier who kills a Chomatic Dragon that has always been of Evil alignment (before you installed Oversight, that is). And what's wrong with liking the powers of the Paladin kits? (I've always been in favor of "sharing" the Warrior kits, such as a Fighter Cavalier or a Ranger Wizard Slayer [can you say Valygar?], but that's a separate mod.)

 
Quote
Quote
. . . in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.
where are the riders in that book of yours?  applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
No, and neither is knowingly staging a raid on a stronghold of slavery. Hey, the Slaver Ship has a couple of beds in it, let's slap on a Virtue hit for killing someone in their home.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2005, 04:51:55 PM by SixOfSpades »

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 #82 on: January 29, 2005, 10:04:27 PM »
Quote
yum, hyperbole with a double dose of sarcasm.  my favorite.  :-\
What sarcasm? My point was that when the gamer has to stop and consider the possibility that some modder may have decided that killing this particular Cowled Wizard is a crime that deserves Falling, that's not going to be a fun game. Roleplaying is good, but to be constantly forced to second-guess every single move (or suffer irreperable consequences) would slow the game down to a tedium even greater than Chateau Irenicus.
*thunk* aah.  in that light, i am slightly more sympathetic. :P
 
Quote
Quote
  . . . it's not particularly important for the class description to have that specific text, is it?  and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.
I'm confused by your crossed trains of thought in your "the and it follows (as I see it)" clause. Clarify, please.
thanks for spotting that, just a replacement that never saw its original form out the door.  :-[   here's the intended result, which i will now go back and correct:
 
Quote
and believe it or not, the and it follows (as i see it) that you don't have to have Virtue installed to enjoy said powers.

 
Quote
Quote
applied to the gethras situation, invading a private residence isn't 'being confronted'.
No, and neither is knowingly staging a raid on a stronghold of slavery. Hey, the Slaver Ship has a couple of beds in it, let's slap on a Virtue hit for killing someone in their home.
  oh, was gethras doing all of the things that make the c.w. a 'thoroughly and obviously evil organization' right in his home?  nobody told me (edwin just told me he was a cowlie and the avatar matched).
  (and don't worry about reiterating the damning presence of mephits, i've definitely seen that several times. :))
  on the other hand, respecting a 'home' that contains trolls and imprisoned abductees (and around/into/from which people in chains have been reported) is surely not high on any paladin's priorities.  {even our paladins. 8)}
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Andyr

  • Dance Commander
  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3178
  • Gender: Male
    • The Gibberlings Three IE mod community
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2005, 06:30:23 PM »
BTW, mephits are mostly neutral in pnp. They simply represent one of the 4 elements (if you were wondering, Dust and Ice are from air, Ooze is from water and Steam is from fire).

Almost right... These four types are actually from the paraelemental planes and represent two elements each.

Dust: Air, Earth
Ice: Air,Water
Ooze: Earth, Water
Steam: Fire, Water

Additionally, Magma is (I think) Earth and Fire. I don't recall what the Air and Fire combination is offhand. :)
"We are the Gibberlings Three, as merry a band as you ever did see..." - Home of IE mods

<jcompton> Suggested plugs include "Click here so Compton doesn't ban me. http://www.pocketplane.net/ub"

I am unfortunately not often about these days so the best way to get hold of me is via email.

Offline Caedwyr

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2005, 09:33:03 PM »
Smoke I think
"Knowledge is Power.  Power Corrupts.  Study Hard.  Be Evil."  - Mikka

PnP Celestials
Geomantic Sorcerer Kit

Offline Belanos

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 108
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #85 on: February 08, 2005, 08:21:28 PM »
I seem to remember reverandthatbastard mentioning something about paladins being able to commit certain non-paladin like actions (somewhat dubious morals type actions) provided that they atoned for their actions later.  Allowing virtue drops of several points would be a good idea, as it would allow for the paladin to atone for their actions (gain a few virtue points) without going below the limit that causes them to fall.
I do kinda like the idea of atonement, but I'm not sure how it'd be implemented ingame.

How about haivng him sacrifice an ability point somewhere in order to regain his virue, plus maybe also having to pay out a bunch of gold. Or have some special quest that has to be fulfilled, like a ritual that is repeated each time it happens. In IWDII, there were those trials you had to pass if you wanted to get through the monastery peacefully, something like that. Make it tough that there's a chance of failure without killing the character, but he has the option of trying it again if he does.

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 #86 on: February 08, 2005, 08:29:41 PM »
somehow i slipped by this more than once: http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php?topic=17744.0
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Imrahil

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 103
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #87 on: February 08, 2005, 09:20:32 PM »
on the other hand, respecting a 'home' that contains trolls and imprisoned abductees (and around/into/from which people in chains have been reported) is surely not high on any paladin's priorities.  {even our paladins. 8)}

But you don't know any of that beforehand, you just have Hendak's word for it to go after them, much like...

...Bodhi (for Aran)
...Fallen Paladins (for Sir Ryan)
...Illithid (for Ardulace)
...Ardulace (for Adalon)
...Firkraag (for Garren)
...Gethras (for Edwin)
...Mae'Var (for Renal)
...Priests of Talos (for Priests of Lathander)
...Shade Lord (for Mazzy/Anath - does it matter who you hear it from first?)
...Lanfear (for Coran)
...Isaea (for Nalia)
...Llynis (for Wellyn)
...etc. (for etc.)

If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt.  You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?

The person who points out an evil-doer shouldn't matter to a Paladin, only whether or not you can confirm that your "target" is truly Evil (via Detect Evil, conveniently enough, not simply by what's in their lair, although that can be an indication that you're on the right track).

- Imrahil
« Last Edit: February 08, 2005, 09:35:23 PM by Imrahil »

Offline Imrahil

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 103
Re: Great thread
« Reply #88 on: February 08, 2005, 09:54:16 PM »
Further on, you meet Derg and Flaylan, two Orcs who are sitting in a room by themselves, and who also plead for mercy if you talk to them. If I'm playing a LG or NG character (Paladin or not), I always let them go, because they never attacked me. Now, I don't care if that example follows the ruler-straight Paladin guidelines or not, because in my book, that's precisely how Paladins SHOULD behave: Be nice if it's convenient, but when confronted by a threat, you shoot first & ask questions later.

Not a big issue, but I thought it was interesting that I tend to kill them *only* if I'm playing a NG/LG (especially Paladin) character.  Derg says he ate children & kicked old people (although he was "just following orders") & Flaylan says they "hunt the feed" (which isn't real specific, and they are both CN, admittedly), so despite their protestations, I tend to condemn them based on their admitted past deeds, not let them go based on their fear of me & my party.

- Imrahil

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
uh... spoilers, in a way
« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2005, 05:35:18 AM »
But you don't know any of that beforehand, you just have Hendak's word for it to go after them, much like...
  okay, now this is all bearing in mind that paladins are (and always were) my primary concern; it doesn't bother me in the slightest that any non-paladin who is on the threshold of turning neutral can be pushed over that line by any of the acts on which i've commented or suggested adjustments.
  (in other words, if the context isn't paladins - who cares? :P)
 
  as far as the slavers - you have to *search* for them anyway, following *leads*, and 1) if you're coming from the sewers, you haven't encountered any locks (or even doors) before the captain yells at you and makes plain his unrepentant culpability; 2) if you're coming at the front door of the ship, and have any patience, the guard will attack you, which, apart from being idiotic of him, ought to throw the 'residence' under even further suspicion.  or, you know, you kill him and then just let it sit there without investigating.  seems pretty silly though.
  (and as far as trusting Hendak:  i can think of far more stupid and less-honorable moves than believing a man, not registering as evil, who has just bested hand-to-hand the man who had him enslaved for sport and profit...)
Quote
...Bodhi (for Aran)
whom a paladin has no real reason to trust other than good faith (in short supply, of course)... but one would also have had to manage never encountering one of the night-time bodhi-minion-vs.-shadow-thieves scenarios, or having encountered one, conclude "well, clearly these Shadow Thieves are a greater threat than vampires"...  ???
Quote
...Illithid (for Ardulace)
no reason whatsoever to trust, but aren't illithid worth investigating if you're resigned to spending time in the underdark?
 
Quote
...Firkraag (for Garren)
you can't be serious.  the two methods by which the windspear hills can even be on your map, of which i'm aware, are either being sent by the order (pretty straightforward from the get-go), or being hired by firkraag!  and um, where else on the map could possibly be his abode even if you refuse to deal with garren?  and otherwise, firkraag sends you a letter effectively requesting your presence.
 
Quote
...Gethras (for Edwin)
no reason to trust him, plus by the point of meeting edwin, charname's already in dubious waters (as brought up repeatedly earlier)
 
Quote
...Mae'Var (for Renal)
no reason to trust anyway, but he's not asking you to break in, he's asking you to pretend to be Mae'Var's subordinate - which some paladins, allegedly, can rationalize their way around...

Quote
...Fallen Paladins (for Sir Ryan)
...Ardulace (for Adalon)
...Priests of Talos (for Priests of Lathander)
...Shade Lord (for Mazzy/Anath - does it matter who you hear it from first?)
why would a paladin not initially trust the word of a ranking superior in the order, a silver dragon, the priest of a good deity, or a halfling(primarily LG society) virtual-paladin?
 and if you're a multi-strongholding paladin, you're not any more forced to follow through with attacking {actively evil and able to defend themselves} Talassans, than you are forced to launch yourself suicidally at Firkraag before you're ready.
 and if you even took the time to speak to Anath, you're not the kind of player i'd be arguing with in this context anyway.  :P
Quote
...Lanfear (for Coran)
let's see, in a lawless region and no time given to apply much of anything other than the benefit of the doubt?  what's the issue here?
Quote
...Isaea (for Nalia)
actually, by the time she's telling you anything of consequence, you've seen him act like a prick.  plus, all you ever do is investigate his shady dealings; the closest you come to doing anything evil is pointlessly attacking Barg or merely threatening Isaea.  you couldn't be driven to searching his house when the other evidence is insufficient?  breaking and entering with intent to search - sounds absurdly easily atoned for to me, provided you find incriminating evidence.  yes, Paladins Can Take Chances with non-evil code violations.  i have not witnessed anyone suggesting otherwise.  metagaming remains Not The Issue.
Quote
...Llynis (for Wellyn)
the ghost of a halfling child, yeah, better be really skeptical of that story (and by the time you can find llynis, where are you?  oh, a secret prostitution-slavery scam, right... yeah, that'd really be dishonorable to start cleaning house there)</sarcasm>

 virtue already matters little enough (in a strictly mechanical sense) to non-paladins (or rangers, i'm supposing). is anyone somehow arguing that it should matter even less?
 
 i also never disagreed that filling in the blanks becomes necessary (if we're bothering to roleplay at all, which we seem to be).  it's unfortunate that the designers basically didn't cater to semantic pedant-players like myself who sometimes want to roleplay a concern for knowing the truth as opposed to believing it.  ::) (or presuming it, accepting the stories of perfect strangers, etc.)  but here we are.
 
Quote
If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt.
yep, that could be a problem all right.  *if* any of the plot-critical points you brought up (i'm counting... 3 out of 14?) were somehow impossible for a paladin to resolve (by the standards you seem to think i'm applying, or that you're lumping in while quoting only me).  that not being the case...
 
Quote
You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
  if you're a particularly callous/fanatic brand of Lawful Neutral, i suppose - but i don't bother with that kind of extreme because the main plot's linearity is far harder to swallow from roleplaying that perspective than it is from [even my] paladins'.
  you seem to make an assumption based on some of the counter-argument hyperbole in which words were put in people's 'mouths': namely, that i (or anyone else) claimed that inflexibly, "paladins cannot break anyone's laws anywhere under any circumstances".  saying it's a code violation doesn't mean it can't be done or must be avoided, it just means that they should be required to atone for it if they are not forced into it.  (or unless the good achieved by breaking a questionable law far outweighs the 'chaoticness' or other disgrace of the deed.  which was also already brought up, though i didn't think it needed this many words to be clarified.  is it clarified yet? ::))
  assumptions like that (which i am inferring, quite willingly), or the potential for them, are the reason it annoyed me when SoS or Qwinn (or was it just Qwinn, uh-oh, they're blurring together in my mushy mind) threw around seemingly-harmless overstatements about filling out forms in triplicate before acting, blahblahblah.

  regardless of limited dialogue options describing why charname wants to pursue irenicus, it's pretty obvious to a charname with a concern for justice (i.e. any paladin and many others) (if not additional members of the party) that irenicus shoud be, well, brought to justice, personal feelings or no.
  and progressively just as obvious that the only 'law' around that could even be expected to do so has already failed AND whose methods and motives are very much in question.  the basics of which can be discovered quickly enough by visiting and inquiring at the government building (not too out of character for a decently roleplayed paladin, i'm thinking?), not to mention the forced chapter-transition knowledge - which i think is a nice touch, but if subjected to strict scrutiny, either has to be rationalized as dream/vision or ignored as 'outofgame'.  or we can just accept it.  or mod the cutscenes out (doesn't get my vote).
 
Quote
Derg says he ate children & kicked old people (although he was "just following orders") & Flaylan says they "hunt the feed" (which isn't real specific, and they are both CN, admittedly), so despite their protestations, I tend to condemn them based on their admitted past deeds, not let them go based on their fear of me & my party.
yeah, letting them go leaves a bad taste in my mouth unless i'm playing some N conscientious-objector type.  i would have at least put in one or two more dismissal options along the lines of "remember this mercy, yada yada yada..." or some other attempt to impress upon them the importance of their continued existence through Real Benevolence.
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Imrahil

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 103
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2005, 08:49:54 AM »
I think that going through each one & basically saying "OK" or "not OK" is kind of missing the point.  They're all based on what you were told by someone else, not (other than I guess running into actual vampires at night) based on anything CHARNAME knows firsthand.  A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.

For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC).  Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle).  Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira).  Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear).  Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).

You only know who to trust in hindsight, which is why the general approach for a Paladin should (IMO) be
- hear about "evil-doer"
- investigate for yourself
- apply Detect Evil as necessary
- if your "target" registers as Evil, feel justified in killing them

Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.

- Imrahil
« Last Edit: February 09, 2005, 01:06:57 PM by Imrahil »

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 #91 on: February 09, 2005, 04:41:03 PM »
Quote
A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.
care to make a count of this alleged 'lot'?  rereading my post, i see a lot of 'whether you have reason to trust the source when given the mission'  -type-stuff, and very little else...?  when is it ever as straightforward as
 {instigator} that thing's a baddie!
 *charname immediately kills that thing* 
  i mean, i'd like to believe that any first-time player will quickly realize that this game, with the slight exception of the skinner murder investigation, isn't in any kind of "detective mystery" format.  but...?
... meh, i address this later.  please read on.
  an extraordinary (some might even say insane) skeptic could turn down all but three of the quests you saw fit to call attention to.  again, nobody has argued against independent investigation - it's pretty unavoidable throughout the game.
  thanks for skipping all of the other points, btw. :P  in particular:
Quote
You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
  i directly questioned this line of argument, and you have nothing to say?  you can admit to not having read it, i know i ramble. ::) 
 
Quote
- hear about "evil-doer"
or whatever...
Quote
- investigate for yourself
taken as read in the vast majority of instances.  the only ones where i've noticed anyone take issue with acceptance of a mission, or dialogue options available/>how< the mission is accepted, involve renal (criminal, be wary), mae'var (evil, be more than wary), edwin (ditto) and ardulace (ditto).
Quote
- apply Detect Evil as necessary
always a paladin's prerogative.  no-brainer.  (i only took issue with the gethras case because it is a) instigated by edwin and b) involves clearly breaking a very ordinary and straightforward (and assumed) law.  weakened, yes, by the game-fact that you can wander into just about anyone's house in the city and not be accosted by guards or residents, but still valid reason for a paladin to take a small hit.  this was countered with the 'slavers having beds' argument, i countered with 'down-the-line' justification which jibes just fine with your 'investigate for yourself', and you were countering *that* argument.  i countered yours, and basically applied the same answer in the context of your other examples.
  so, sorry if i overstepped my bounds by taking on any points other than "all you ever have to go on is hearsay anyway" (which is an oversimplification, *bzz*pet peeve :P)
  or "If you're not allowed to go after any of these people simply because all you have to go on is hearsay, the game pretty much grinds to a halt."  followed in the >same< >paragraph< by the one overwhelming case in which you have far more than hearsay!  ???
 
Quote
- if your "target" registers as Evil, feel justified in killing them
1) these quests aren't all about killing.  oh, but that wasn't really your point, was it?  excuse me.
 2) non-evil entities are capable (and sometimes even guilty) of acts that a paladin may/will want to call attention to or resolve with justice.  sometimes they even confess!
 
Quote
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
  in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals?  mighty, mighty obvious.  but again, isn't it entirely suitable for a paladin to take the word of their superior officer?  or a traditional paragon of goodness such as a silver dragon?  or saying "i'll think about it" and doing their damnedest to penetrate the skullduggery of any potential doppelgangers?  (and when you're done with that, you can hurry up and Take The Quest...)
  so if you bothered making a list to drive home the point that 'people tell you things, and you can't know at that moment if these things are true', then sure, i miss the point (of doing that) entirely - completely befuddled as to how it was necessary.
  anyway, lists are made to be picked at!  :P
  and isn't it annoyingly odd that {look out, hindsight attack!} in the rare circumstance in which you are deceived, e.g. the opening of the windspear scenario, the game oh-so-helpfully prevents you from overcoming the deception until too late?  nice of them to at least give you options with VonGoethe et al. in Amkethran - maybe that was ToB designers making up for some of the SoA railroading? :)
 
Quote
For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC).  Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle).  Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira).  Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear).  Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).
  look, another list!  :pirate
  so you investigate, right?  right.  and when you've done everything besides either acquiesce to the apparent-ogre or de-populate the room:  what, if the apparent-ogre actually turns out to be an actual ogre, you're opening yourself up to an instant-death just because you hand 'it' what appears to be a sword?  be brave, paladin, be brave.
  and i really don't see the relevance of harping on that stage of the shade lord quest.  and just to help clarify, please observe how the imminent reference creates no 'in-game knowledge' conflict.  the circumstance you point out (talking to mazzy) can only occur as a result of already investigating the disappearances/wolves, and the only time a paladin would balk at (as in, object to resolving) any of the encounters in the corrupted temple (which has already been entered) up to and including the shade lord and its minions/altar, is with the imprisoned shadow (which some other party member could resolve, yes?).  go ahead and play through it skeptically - detect evil every time shadows show up.  and either don't finish the quest (sorry, mazzy) or reach the altar and do your best to give the shade lord the benefit of the doubt.  if you're still alive after that, get on with it.
  wellyn could be a lich?  sure, and that suspicion can be played out.  cast all the detections and dispels you want on him.  then investigate, absolutely.  if you *gasp* go where he tells you, you find (or had already found) cruel and illegal activity, and if you question llynis enough, he might even save you the trouble of that detect-evil-clincher.
  the fallen paladins could have the moral high ground?  i just don't see how these hypotheses would preclude (by any standards previously declared, as opposed to falsely attributed or being inferred as attributed, to someone else) getting on with the mission as delineated by the designers, which is largely all we have to go on.  and almost invariably, if you turn down the mission because you're paranoid or distrusting, the game does not grind to a halt.  there's plenty to do.
  sure, ardulace (or more likely, lolth) could have arranged an Image Switch between the illithid and the svirfneblin.  et cetera.
  nobody ever said that hearsay wasn't enough for anybody to pursue a quest.  don't you think that was blown out of proportion?  (well, by now, yes.  ::))  and to dismiss any of this on the basis of 'hindsight' is missing the point; all i'm pointing out in that context are the things that one can easily (or even inevitably) discover if one bothers to investigate, as per your laundrylist.  the only places i recall anyone ever raising the question of paladins taking hits for accepting (or rather, completing, or killing on the way to completing) missions were when instigated by evil or criminal elements.  it might be a strain to trust adalon enough to go through with the whole drow disguise and jobs for the matron, but it can be done, and i don't see anyone arguing that the good of saving the eggs (which you essentially believe is your goal *before* accepting the disguise) doesn't {shouldn't} turn out to outweigh the vanquishing of organized evil in the meantime.
  and surely even the thieves' quests can be done - but my paladins won't accept them unless/until they are addressed sufficiently on that score by Virtue (or any other decently+ crafted mod).  hooray for me the martyr who misses out on that mother lode of xp and is forever trailing their bold and shady brethren. :-*
 
 oh wait - what if renal's a paladin?  or edwin's a solar under deep cover?  :P ;D
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Imrahil

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 103
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2005, 06:56:39 PM »
Quote
A lot of your responses involve hindsight telling you that you did indeed do a good deed, but initially all you have is hearsay.
care to make a count of this alleged 'lot'?  rereading my post, i see...
I may have phrased that poorly.  What I meant to say was that you won't know whether or not you did a good deed until you have hindsight to assist you.  While you're talking to the person in question, you have nothing but their take on the issue, & I tried to show instances where the person turns out to be right (Llynis) & where the person turns out to be wrong (Madulf).

Simply put, once more, all I'm saying is that you can't (IMO) say an act is virtuous or unvirtuous based upon who gave you the information or what their motives were.  Going after Gethras based on Edwin pointing the way is, to me, no different than going after Perth based on Golin pointing the way.

Now, just so you won't claim I'm ignoring anything, I'll attempt to go through your other points, although I'm now so thoroughly confused as to what you're trying to say that we may actually be in agreement.

Quote
  an extraordinary (some might even say insane) skeptic could turn down all but three of the quests you saw fit to call attention to.  again, nobody has argued against independent investigation - it's pretty unavoidable throughout the game.
A Paladin should be required to do independent investigation, I agree.  *If* you can only accept quests from confirmed do-gooders, then yes, I think 90% of quests are going to be off limits.  And I think that is a logical extension of your contention that you can't justify going after Gethras without losing Virtue simply because it was Edwin who pointed him out.

Quote
  thanks for skipping all of the other points, btw. :P  in particular:
Quote
You can sort of go after the Cowlies who took Imoen, at least until you find out she really did break the law, I guess - then you have to abandon her (you can't very well go after Irenicus for personal vengeance, after all)?
  i directly questioned this line of argument, and you have nothing to say?  you can admit to not having read it, i know i ramble. ::) 
I read it & dismissed it as largely irrelevant.  You said you were confining your points to Paladins, then assumed I was talking about someone LN.  I believe that if a Paladin can't go after Gethras or Illithids, then he can't justify rescuing Imoen once he finds out she did break the law (especially if you're in the "Cowled Wizards aren't an Evil organization" camp).  As far as you know, Irenicus is also lawfully imprisoned & no longer a threat, so you can't go after him either.  Hence, no game.  You then went on about your assumptions about the assumptions I was making.

Quote
Quote
- investigate for yourself
taken as read in the vast majority of instances.  the only ones...
*snip*
...in the >same< >paragraph< by the one overwhelming case in which you have far more than hearsay!  ???
All of this is where you've completely lost me & I have no idea what point you're trying to make.  You seem to assume that you're right & you somehow "countered" my points.  But if I disagree with your basic premise (which, near as I can tell from all that is "Paladins must metagame"), your counters based on that premise aren't going to mean much to me.

Quote
Quote
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
  in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals?  mighty, mighty obvious.
I see hyperbole is only off limits for other people.

Quote
but again, isn't it entirely suitable for a paladin to take the word of their superior officer?  or a traditional paragon of goodness such as a silver dragon?  or saying "i'll think about it" and doing their damnedest to penetrate the skullduggery of any potential doppelgangers?  (and when you're done with that, you can hurry up and Take The Quest...)
Yes, it is.  It's also suitable to take information given to you from a questionable source & investigate that, too.  If it turns out to be accurate, a Paladin should be able to act upon it without regards to where the information came from.

Quote
so if you bothered making a list to drive home the point that 'people tell you things, and you can't know at that moment if these things are true', then sure, i miss the point (of doing that) entirely - completely befuddled as to how it was necessary.
To illustrate why I see nothing wrong with taking out Gethras (or Mae'Var or the Illithids).  If I simply say "I see nothing wrong with taking out Gethras" without any reasoning, we may as well just make a poll & leave it at that.

Quote
anyway, lists are made to be picked at!  :P
  and isn't it annoyingly odd that {look out, hindsight attack!} in the rare circumstance in which you are deceived, e.g. the opening of the windspear scenario, the game oh-so-helpfully prevents you from overcoming the deception until too late?
Not necessarily every time - see the conclusion of the Tanner quest in Trademeet or one of the Paladin stronghold quests (sometimes the girl's uncle is Evil, sometimes not) or Madulf or Aerie or Solaufein or...

Quote
Quote
For all you know when you first meet her, Mazzy could be lying to you (much like Lord Jierdan was in the CC).  Wellyn could be a Lich in disguise tricking you into getting a disguised artifact (a la Vithal & Jarlaxle).  Sir Ryan & The Order could be the Fallen Paladins & the Fallen Paladins could be legitimately fighting back against them (sort of like the false Harpers vs. Jaheira).  Anath could be Merella under the Shade Lord's illusion (see Aerie, or Ajantis & co. at the start of Windspear).  Lanfear could be falsely accused (see Madulf).
  look, another list!  :pirate
  so you investigate, right?  right.  *instances of investigating & acting upon your findings which all support my point (thank you) snipped*
So why is that when you investigate Edwin's claim & discover Gethras is Evil you suddenly can't act on it without taking a hit?  We are in agreement with all the other instances where investigation lets you know whether you're right or not - why this one exception?

Quote
oh wait - what if renal's a paladin?  or edwin's a solar under deep cover?  :P ;D
Or... or... what if Lord Jierdan is really a Red Dragon?  nah... couldn't be...

- Imrahil

Offline Andyr

  • Dance Commander
  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3178
  • Gender: Male
    • The Gibberlings Three IE mod community
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #93 on: February 09, 2005, 07:15:50 PM »
"We are the Gibberlings Three, as merry a band as you ever did see..." - Home of IE mods

<jcompton> Suggested plugs include "Click here so Compton doesn't ban me. http://www.pocketplane.net/ub"

I am unfortunately not often about these days so the best way to get hold of me is via email.

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 #94 on: February 12, 2005, 03:00:23 AM »
  ugh.   :-X ::)  too much, i confess.
  and be warned, i'm still going to go off on individual quest tangents, and those rants don't necessarily have anything to do with any extant argument.  but ultimately, my overarching 'point' is (and always will be) less about whether a mod "goes too far" in any respect, and more about how few choices we are given in our gameplay, and that there must always be more, more more. 8)
  i still don't know why you suggest i ever advocated or required metagaming.  you did explain to some extent, but i really don't make that connection.  perhaps i have subliminal blockage.  at the very least, it becomes less distinct to my mind when those who have played this game so much, and know the content so thoroughly, "pretend" that they are starting with a clean slate and don't know what's going to happen.  obviously that's one of the things which roleplaying is all about.  and in some respects, this entire discussion is about hindsight.  or metagaming.  i know you understand this, but somehow you still don't seem to think that i do.  i thought that my 'what if you actively distrust your source' hypotheticals were actually skewed away from "but they turn out to be right" rhetoric (which i hope was something i never said or implied to support a point).
  yes, there are a few cases where being skeptical actually informs one's choices, when one is actually being deceived, or otherwise makes a difference plot-wise.  and i think it's a fault of the game [mostly because i'm an open-ended-rpg snob/purist/etc.] that there is not far more room for active, consistent doubt and questioning.  then again, i am often deluded about how much time i have on my hands IRL.  ;D

  What I meant to say was that you won't know whether or not you did a good deed until you have hindsight to assist you.
  but the only *deeds* i really have an issue with are the ones assigned by evil/underworld 'employers'.
  i never passed judgement on the simple isolated case of a paladin killing gethras-known-to-be-evil.  i passed judgement on the method (intruding on a private residence, compounded by the unfortunate/ridiculous lack of any source of information on gethras other than edwin) and (more importantly) the fact that the paladin already has to have Worked For Known or Avowed Criminals More Than Once for the deed to even be a topic for discussion in the first place.
  to boil it down (yeah, right :-X), i don't think that a paladin should complain about taking a hit for a shady-however-justified (and justified after you have investigated in the only manner allowed/addressed by the game, which is also unfortunate) killing when they're already embroiled in the criminal underworld, however justified *that* is.
  and if the real justification is only in hindsight, the paladin already has to somehow be comfortable with the arrangement of pretending to be employed by an evil criminal while actually being employed by the not-evil-but-trustworthy-how? Bloodscalp...  or perhaps the paladin has also rationalized that they are only pretending to work for renal - and {multiple} layers of disloyalty/deception should definitely cause hits - reversible hits, but hits nonetheless.
  (i also don't think that killing gethras should cause a permanent Fall unless it's compounding previous code violations that haven't been resolved.  but i gave that input weeks ago, and probably in another thread, and i guess i should have restated it earlier.)
  justification in hindsight - huzzah, you finally got to eliminate the despicable mae'var and all that - does not, imo, mean that a paladin should not suffer a small virtue hit at least for the whole episode, because as i see it, they were forced to follow through by the Game (or by wanting to see this set of jobs through, and having no alternatives because of game design), not by the criminal 'employers' themselves. (esp. as enforced by the infuriating arkanis gath deus ex munchkin)
  i guess i see the virtue hit occurring at the slaying of gethras as being incidental.  perhaps it should happen only when you either agree to work for renal, or report to mae'var and witness him performing torture and let it happen For A Good Cause (and how do you know it's going to end up being that good a cause?  but you know, you ultimately 'have to' let him torture the guy to proceed with your mission)... does that make more sense?  do you think hindsight references are entirely irrelevant to the questionable nature of the proceedings?
  (and yes, all of my paladins bristle when visiting STHQ if they stumble on the torture room, and really have no recourse until they come back from the Underdark...)

Quote
Simply put, once more, all I'm saying is that you can't (IMO) say an act is virtuous or unvirtuous based upon who gave you the information or what their motives were.
gotcha.  agreed.  but i can say that working with thieves is unvirtuous overall (the best in-game excuse a paladin can have is doing a favor for yoshimo), not so much about the individual tasks they give you, but, um, it's not really setting much of an example a la the Radiant Heart, unless perhaps renal lets you bring mae'var's head to them - i wouldn't mind seeing that conclusion :D.

Quote
  Going after Gethras based on Edwin pointing the way is, to me, no different than going after Perth based on Golin pointing the way.
good point.  i forgot all about perth.  (and i've never scrutinized golin!  :-[)  it also seemed to me that everything in brynnlaw was designed/created as quickly as possible, with the festhall quest the only activity with an interesting and decently-fleshed-out variety of tactics/outcomes.
 
Quote
we may actually be in agreement.
more or less.  :-\  maybe this should've been PM from the getgo.

Quote
*If* you can only accept quests from confirmed do-gooders, then yes, I think 90% of quests are going to be off limits.  And I think that is a logical extension of your contention that you can't justify going after Gethras without losing Virtue simply because it was Edwin who pointed him out.
yup, pretty much my miscommunication.  more to it, as mentioned above.  'confirmed do-gooders' would be overstating my point, though.  trust is one of the hallmarks of chivalry.  (you've never met adalon or mazzy, you didn't grow up with ryan trawl, nobody told you glorious tales of the exploits of the folks in question - although the svirfneblin leader {name escapes} has nice enough things to say about adalon, i suppose...)
 
Quote
You said you were confining your points to Paladins, then assumed I was talking about someone LN.
{clarifying: the following is in the context of the CWs-holding-Imoen 'argument', and of course charname being a paladin}
 no, i just thought that that particular logical extension you were tacking onto my argument would only apply to someone who doesn't ultimately place the greater Good above Law...  since paladins can {ideally/canonically but obviously not in vanilla bg} atone for chaotic acts and not for evil ones, i think that bias is pretty straightforward.

Quote
I believe that if a Paladin can't go after Gethras or Illithids,
i never said a paladin can't do these things - i mostly took issue (and far far moreso with gethras than with raiding illithid/beholders) with how they are railroaded into carrying out the missions, or at least severely limited in how they communicate their *acceptance* of the missions.  (unless for example the beholders were stumbled upon during exploration and so on and so on, but Technically that isn't a decision one makes if one bars 'metagaming' from one's mind, it'd just have to be pure coincidence/disorientation/fanatical exploration/what-have-you).  and that, given the willing installation of a mod far more relevant to paladins than the other classes (imo), somebody taking exception to suffering a single virtue hit for one of a string of Criminal Undertakings, well, just seemed a touch inappropriate.
  and i don't see the harm - foresighted even - in accepting a mission from ardulace, the upshot of which is clearly detrimental to an enemy of Good (and you can always detect evil on the elder orb or elder brain, and all of their intervening minions, if you're in doubt along the way), when you're actually working for adalon's benefit {and the bigger picture which that entails} in the first place.
  if the disguise-as-drow/working-for-drow aspect grates on a paladin's convictions (no reason for it not to), adalon's plight can surely make it worthwhile.  plus you can always intend to bring the drow to justice once you have the eggs - the eggs which are presumably the main reason you've entered ust natha to begin with.  perhaps, then, that whole episode deserves a small virtue hit, since ust natha is almost certainly more of a threat than are the STs - BUT, unless you just let the demon get summoned and run rampant, it kind of seems like the good of saving the eggs outweighs: the destruction of some (or a lot of) evil "on behalf" of other evil (and said other evil ultimately suffering their own setbacks anyway...).

Quote
, then he can't justify rescuing Imoen once he finds out she did break the law (especially if you' re in the "Cowled Wizards aren't an Evil organization" camp).  As far as you know, Irenicus is also lawfully imprisoned & no longer a threat, so you can't go after him either.  Hence, no game.
  why should even an inquisitor (anti-evil-magic, not strictly anti-magic) take at face value such an absolute law against magic use?  with a very small and simple amount of investigation it's clear that they are too powerful and secretive to be given the benefit of the doubt.  and even if we dismiss the cutscenes as temptations-to-metagame, the standard speculation regarding imoen's fate is "you'll probably never see her again."  this is unacceptable, correct?  and no representative of the CWs ever satisfies your curiosity (and the two who hint that they might/could are already obviously manipulating you).  and no appellate court.  and bylanna admits that in effect, "nobody watches the watchmen."  and they give no indication that they support justice or follow any creed that a paladin can identify with.  so after inquiring all over the city (and at jermien's house if you wish), and presumably still caring about your childhood friend, what's the excuse for writing her off?
  no longer a threat?  that's a laugh by any stretch.  what would ever give anyone that idea?
  just because i'm not in The Camp of "the CWs are an evil organization" (i take issue with the fact that that's an oversimplification, not the issue that the organization has evil members and quite clearly {after minimal scrutiny of their operations} doesn't actively promote the greater good) does not in any way demand or entail that my paladin has to support or accept their enforcement.  period.  really don't believe i ever even 'implied' otherwise.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Who gave you the information is irrelevant since so many sources are unreliable.
  in that you didn't thoroughly background-check, grow up with, or share oaths or a series of trust-inducing mutual perils with (yet, in mazzy's case), these individuals?  mighty, mighty obvious.
I see hyperbole is only off limits for other people.
  1) why should the nature of an information source ever be irrelevant, if you believe in investigating for yourself?  and why would the unreliability of "many" be the invalidating circumstance?
  2) i wasn't attributing those words to you.  the only hyperbole to which i have objected was inflating other people's arguments to absurdity (e.g. nobody ever said paladins have to apply for permission in triplicate in order to act, but that was used as an excuse to argue "but then you'll never be able to do anything!" when the original complaint was about getting away with one shady job).
  how about i utterly retract my oh-so-out-of-line spiel?  better than i'm ever going to get from qwinn or 6, i'm sure.

Quote
- see the conclusion of the Tanner quest in Trademeet
 or one of the Paladin stronghold quests (sometimes the girl's uncle is Evil, sometimes not)
 or Madulf or Aerie or Solaufein.
  sure, i was thinking too narrowly.  by 'deceived' i meant 'actively deceived by your employer'.  the people who blame madulf's band for the disappearances are hysterical, not sinister; nobody says "there's an ogre in the tent, go kill it"; but true, it's not technically 'too late' (in a life/death sense) when rejiek/darsidian's ruse becomes apparent (which btw is sloppily done, don't you think?).  and of course i was forgetting that you can end up in windspear via the Order rather than via 'firkraag' in the CC.  (and what's this about solaufein?  you mean when phaere wants you to kill him?  i don't recall her being deceptive; isn't she too sure of her authority for that?  she's just being nasty and testing your commitment to her whim, isn't she? okay, other than not admitting to their past relationship the way s. does...)
  and i certainly didn't count the randomly evil uncle paladin quest, being the only part of the entire campaign actively designed to make 'detect evil' properly useful...  (as the gethras incident should also be.)  and in that you're warned to use it ahead of time, it further cheapens all of the other potential uses that Ideally would AT LEAST inform one's dialogue options.
  Lord Jierdan Firkraag - Evil
  "I have a job for you, if you wish it."
  *confront Firkraag*
  . . .
  "10000?  That seems an awfully large sum!" etc.
  i don't know what's worse - discrimination against paladins or discrimination against meaningful use of detective tactics.

Quote
So why is that when you investigate Edwin's claim & discover Gethras is Evil you suddenly can't act on it without taking a hit?  We are in agreement with all the other instances where investigation lets you know whether you're right or not - why this one exception?
all right, i'll agree the hit is ill-timed, as recently speculated. and should probably only be for paladins working with thieves (and edwin).  (railroading reminder - gethras is only ever home after you are following edwin's instruction, right?  that deserves to be altered too.  i'm assuming that wasn't a part of the Oversight changes.)
 but more to the point (yours and mine! sweet unity ;)), the confirmation-via-detect-evil should be, if it is feasible, required to prevent a virtue hit for murder (even in addition to a hypothetical hit for Being a Pawn of Criminals)...
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Lord Kain

  • "I was the 500th member on the old forgottenwars forum and all I got was this lousy title"
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why I don't like Virtue
« Reply #95 on: February 12, 2005, 03:36:55 AM »
fun fact.

The Cowled Wizards are a independent organization in Amn, the only reason they are allowed to enforce thier laws is because Amn can't do anything to stop an army of wizards.
Now, at last, the masks had fallen away.  The strings of the puppets had become visible, and the hands of the prime mover exposed.  Most ironic of all was the last gift that Raziel had given me, more powerful than the sword that now held his soul, more acute even than the vision his sacrifice had accorded me - the first bitter taste of that terrible illusion:  Hope.

 

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)?: