Author Topic: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List  (Read 29642 times)

Offline CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Things Fall Apart
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2005, 05:49:30 PM »
No one who knows what goes into creating a fighting dog would argue with the virtue penalty. It is worse than simply killing an animal. Much, much worse.

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2005, 03:11:14 AM »
I agree with Caedwyr.

  ditto.

Quote
It's the lack of any reason other than the pleasure of death - a manifestly evil sentiment.

  well, the chance of profit could be the only reason for some detached sociopathic bhaalspawn (perish the thought! 8)) - but admittedly, nobody officially Good {and not under the sway of sinister magix...}.  the chaoticky neutralish subquadrant (octant?) for sure, though.
 
Quote from: Corvis
No one who knows what goes into creating a fighting dog would argue with the virtue penalty. It is worse than simply killing an animal. Much, much worse.

  hear, hear.  and everybody who's posted here (and anywhere else, really) should get to watching amores perros whether or not ye already have.
  assuming yr not one of those folks who has a seizure when confronted with subtitles (and/or you are understanding with the mexican lingo).
  jester's avatar reminds me of the old roommate-of-dogs. {but is it in fact vampire hunter D?}
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2005, 07:41:49 PM »
No one who knows what goes into creating a fighting dog would argue with the virtue penalty. It is worse than simply killing an animal. Much, much worse.

But you aren't training any dogs to fight, you are merely paying to watch them fight. I believe there is a difference; if not, than most PCs and most of us in real life have a lot more blood on our hands than we might think.  How does one know if the animal killed for their food was both raised *and* killed humanely, for example?

Anyway, I already conceded the point that indulging in violence for penalty could deserve a virtue penalty. However, Sim *DID* say...

"The issue would seem to be whether killing animals is better than killing sentient beings. I don't see why it should be."

If that's the case, than killing any animal in cold blood should get a virtue penalty, period. Not just animals especially valued by western culture. To do otherwise is to suggest that certain animals (by virtue of our cultural values, no pun intended) have more of a right to live than others, and there is--as far as I can tell--no logical basis for that.

Quote
The roosters are a middle ground. On the positive side, chickens are raised for food, and roosters in the wild attack each other naturally when they clash over territory/hens. On the negative side, those metal spurs aren't as quick as a beheading, and the people involved are artifically bringing the roosters together.

And I'm sure the people are watching the chickens fight. And enjoying it.

Would dog fights be acceptable if the dogs were going to be eaten afterwards?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2005, 07:45:03 PM by Murdane »

Offline Caedwyr

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2005, 09:31:13 PM »
Quote
But you aren't training any dogs to fight, you are merely paying to watch them fight.

But you aren't training any slaves to fight, you are merely paying to watch them fight


See anything unvirtuous about this situation?   That's the parallel I'm trying to draw.  It doesn't matter what is being forced to fight for your pleasure/profit.  It's the act that is unvirtous in and of itself.
"Knowledge is Power.  Power Corrupts.  Study Hard.  Be Evil."  - Mikka

PnP Celestials
Geomantic Sorcerer Kit

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2005, 01:31:18 AM »
Would dog fights be acceptable if the dogs were going to be eaten afterwards?
I would say yes. The justification behind food animals is that if people can play god to the extent of raising animals (animals that likely would not have survived in the wild), they are also authorized to play god to the extent of killing those animals. If it exists because of you, you can destroy it.

Of course, that only applies to the birth & death of the animal, mistreating it while it's alive is still cruelty.

Offline Ghreyfain

  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4705
  • Gender: Male
    • Pocket Plane Group
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2005, 09:53:19 AM »
So instead of just cutting off an animal's head to eat, it's okay to bleed to death from a thousand cuts?  Not to mention the abuses inflicted when raising it to make it into a brutal killing machine?
Earn Money Sleeping.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2005, 10:29:37 AM »
Quote
If it exists because of you, you can destroy it.
Parents everywhere take note and stock up your fridges.
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.

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2005, 12:52:11 PM »
So instead of just cutting off an animal's head to eat, it's okay to bleed to death from a thousand cuts?  Not to mention the abuses inflicted when raising it to make it into a brutal killing machine?
Of course it isn't. In my opinion, anyway. Painful and messy ways of killing are included in the "mistreating it while it's alive" clause.


Quote
If it exists because of you, you can destroy it.
Parents everywhere take note and stock up your fridges.
Sentient beings (those who comprehend "I think, therefore I am," and believe that it applies to them) are a different ball of wax altogether.

Consider the potato. You are a farmer, you have a field of potatoes. You tilled the soil, you planted them, you keep the herbivores away, you water them when they need it, the potatoes would not have grown (or, at least, grown anywhere near so well) without you. Come harvest time, you decide which of the potatoes will get to pass their genes on to the next generation, and which will be denied that chance.
Same with chickens, and everything else that's raised for food. Just the way the world works.

Offline belboz

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2005, 05:46:42 PM »
Consider the potato. You are a farmer, you have a field of potatoes. You tilled the soil, you planted them, you keep the herbivores away, you water them when they need it, the potatoes would not have grown (or, at least, grown anywhere near so well) without you. Come harvest time, you decide which of the potatoes will get to pass their genes on to the next generation, and which will be denied that chance.
Same with chickens, and everything else that's raised for food. Just the way the world works.

Hmm. I'm not really convinced there's a moral difference between eating a potato and eating (wild) miner's lettuce that would have existed and flourished without any human intervention. Or eating beef and eating game, for that matter. Which suggests that your causing the existence of the individuals isn't particularly relevant.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2005, 09:20:26 PM »
Would dog fights be acceptable if the dogs were going to be eaten afterwards?
I would say yes. The justification behind food animals is that if people can play god to the extent of raising animals (animals that likely would not have survived in the wild), they are also authorized to play god to the extent of killing those animals. If it exists because of you, you can destroy it.

Of course, that only applies to the birth & death of the animal, mistreating it while it's alive is still cruelty.

Of course, this brings to mind a whole ethical debate about whether or not it is even OK to raise animals just to kill them. If it's OK to raise animals just to kill and eat them later, I don't see why it shouldn't be OK to raise animals just to make them fight. At least, I don't see such a large ethical difference. In the FR, I know it's not considered cruel to use animals for either food or leather or work or comfort (how many cows died to make the leather armor you can wear in the game, and is that any more wrong than wearing human skin armor if killing animals is just as wrong as killing people?).

Caedwyr, if the dog fights are as morally wrong as slave fights, again...I don't see why then we should not just imagine a virtuous character as refraining from eating meat. Or put in virtue penalties for wearing leather.

Offline Murdane

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2005, 09:27:23 PM »
So instead of just cutting off an animal's head to eat, it's okay to bleed to death from a thousand cuts? Not to mention the abuses inflicted when raising it to make it into a brutal killing machine?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.  I don't see why it's wrong to do this to dogs, but not to chickens (it's okay to force chickens to fight, but not dogs?  I don't get it.).

Offline Caedwyr

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2005, 12:41:49 AM »
Caedwyr, if the dog fights are as morally wrong as slave fights, again...I don't see why then we should not just imagine a virtuous character as refraining from eating meat.  Or put in virtue penalties for wearing leather.

Umm, since you aren't eating the slaves, then I'm not sure I see how you draw that conclusion from what I've argued.  Please let me know the reasoning behind that.   If you eat meat, then you do not do it for cruelty's sake, or do it to support a deathmatch in which the participants are cruelly raised and trained.  Similiarily, if you wear leather, you are not supporting a deathmatch, or doing so for cruelty's sake.  And in the case where the leather is obtained from a cruel and evil source (human leather armor) there has been talk and possibly implementation of virtue hits for using it (I'm not sure if this was implemented or not, if not then I would support such a penalty for wearing/using the human skin leather).
"Knowledge is Power.  Power Corrupts.  Study Hard.  Be Evil."  - Mikka

PnP Celestials
Geomantic Sorcerer Kit

Offline belboz

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2005, 04:19:04 PM »
So instead of just cutting off an animal's head to eat, it's okay to bleed to death from a thousand cuts? Not to mention the abuses inflicted when raising it to make it into a brutal killing machine?

That's kind of what I'm getting at. I don't see why it's wrong to do this to dogs, but not to chickens (it's okay to force chickens to fight, but not dogs? I don't get it.).

There aren't any cockfights in the game, are there? If there were, I'd certainly agree that you should get a similar virtue penalty for sponsoring them.

There are three totally separate questions being discussed and, I think, confused, in this forum:

1) Is there a moral difference between sponsoring a dogfight and murdering a human?
2) Is there a moral difference between sponsoring a dogfight and subsidising the killing of an animal (in a way that isn't deliberately cruel)?
3) Is there a moral difference between sponsoring a dogfight and sponsoring a cockfight?

The answers to which are, I think, yes (the murder is worse), yes (the dogfight is worse), and no (well, maybe the dogfight is a little worse, if you think dogs are morally more important than chickens, but they're in the same general realm), respectively.

Offline SixOfSpades

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Gender: Male
    • Volothamp's Comeuppance
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2005, 07:49:31 PM »
So instead of just cutting off an animal's head to eat, it's okay to bleed to death from a thousand cuts? Not to mention the abuses inflicted when raising it to make it into a brutal killing machine?
That's kind of what I'm getting at. I don't see why it's wrong to do this to dogs, but not to chickens (it's okay to force chickens to fight, but not dogs? I don't get it.).
Because, in Amn (and most Western cultures), chickens are raised for food and dogs are not. Dogs are also considerably intelligent and (if well treated) quite friendly--chickens are neither.

Speaking of the Human Flesh armor, is it less morally reprehensible for a non-Human (of any given alignment) to wear it than it is for a Human? What about the half-human races?

Offline CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Things Fall Apart
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2005, 12:27:10 AM »
Since no one quite seems to Get It: Fighting dogs are not just 'trained to fight'. They are tortured, horribly and for extended periods of time. They are beaten and burned to make them as mean as possible. Here on Earth they were often fed gunpowder to irritate their internal organs and keep them in constant pain. If you don't think that's worse than raising an animal for food? You have no place arguing over Virtue.

Offline JohnTheMutt

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 14
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2005, 06:31:39 PM »
The idea of this list is to detail every Virtue change possible ingame. I'll update it as things change, and thoughts are welcome, since if nothing else, this highlights some distinct inconsistency in scale of penalties.

(Brackets indicate intentionally no Virtue change.)

Taking Valen into the party: -4

I'm curious as why you would think this would be a virtue change SimDing0.

Imo, taking Valen into party should be a reputation change but not necessarily a virtue change. Yes, she is evil and by her actions the party or PC may indeed find their virtue lowered by them. But her presence should not equate to a virtue change. This would imply a prejudice of intent without proof of action.

In other words...'I take Valen into my party so that I can attempt to influence her behaviour towards good'. No matter how unlikely or foolish this may seem, it could be the intent of the party or person accepting her into the party, and that could be construed as being a virtuous undertaking.

Proof of Action: Aiding and abetting her lustful appetites while in party is definitely evil. While attepting to curb them could be a sign towards good. The reasoning being that if she was left on her own, she would cause even more mayhem and murder.

So, from all this, it just seems that a reputation adjustment is in order. Similar to taking Viconia into the Party. Examples:

Witness: "Your traveling with a Drow! You are so evil!!"--reputation not virtue.

Witness: "Your traveling with a Vampire! You are so evil!!"--reputation not virtue.

Witness: "Your traveling with a Vampire and you killed that innocent child!"--reputation & virtue.

No Witness: "Your traveling with a Vampire and you kill an innocent"--virtue

No Witness: "Your traveling with a Vampire that wants to kill a child because it hungers for its blood. You restrain your evil party member from such an act. "--virtue
« Last Edit: February 27, 2005, 06:33:28 PM by JohnTheMutt »

Offline SimDing0

  • Back In Black
  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Gender: Male
  • Word Enhancer
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2005, 10:38:05 AM »
Given the choice between "a penalty when she joins" and "a penalty when you witness her attempt to kill the nth random passerby and STILL don't kick her out the party", I opted for the easier coding option. Yes, you could be hoping to turn a demonstrably bloodthirsty vampire good, and you could hope that everything documented about vampiric bloodlust is false, but the number of characters genuinely thinking this is probably about as many as believe the Underdark is just an illusion due to a Wish enacted by Irenicus: not very many at all.

Even setting that aside, I think the intent is less important than the fact that if she stays put, she's gonna venture out of the graveyard and kill somebody from time to time, while if she travels with you, you're opening up a whole lot of new opportunities to her: the type of opportunities which could prove fatal to some if your judgement or attention lapses momentarily.

And travelling with Viconia, while disreputable, is not a direct threat to those around you. Travelling with Valen is.

Offline JohnTheMutt

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 14
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2005, 11:14:35 PM »
I can see your point about the simpler coding option. That is a valid argument.

While I would love to see just a reputation change when she joins and then a virtue change only when, OR if, she kills per her script (eliminating the PC's control of her actions, because there are particular instances in the game at which the PC does not have any control over Valen and she kills... Delon comes to mind, and perhaps others...) or per the PC's direction, I can also accept the fact that this could be a coding nightmare and you would know this better than me.

So thank you, SimDing0, for your reply and insight into why you choose the virtue change for Valen joining. :)

Offline SimDing0

  • Back In Black
  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Gender: Male
  • Word Enhancer
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2005, 02:00:23 AM »
It's not that having a Virtue change when she kills would be hard-- that's already handled by the same scripts that give the PC a Virtue change under the same circumstances. It's a Virtue change for seeing that happen and still taking her round with you, exposing more commoners to her lust. I don't really see that as worth coding explicitly, since it's trickier to pin down, hence the blanket Virtue drop.

I'm glad I've been able to clear that up.

Qwinn

  • Guest
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2005, 04:54:02 AM »
I have no vested interest in the Valen conversation (I'm not big on playing evil and will likely never play the Valen mod), but maybe a way to implement what you're going for is to have the virtue penalty take effect the SECOND time that her script to kill passer-by's kicks in. The first time, you may not have known she would do that. The second time it kicked in, yeah, it's pretty much inarguable that you kept her after seeing her first kill, and you definetly deserve the virtue hit. But if her kill-script never kicks in a second time, then it can be fairly assumed that the player kicked Valen out of the party as a result of the first killing, and should be spared the virtue hit.

Just a thought.

Qwinn
« Last Edit: March 01, 2005, 04:55:48 AM by Qwinn »

Offline JohnTheMutt

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 14
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2005, 10:40:48 PM »
That's a good idea Qwinn. :) It is still up to SimDing0 of course, whether he likes the idea and/or feels it is worth the effort or not.

I have, personally, played Valen without having her bloodlust satiatied on the innocent. Of course that was the '2nd' time I played, heh. Since it took the 1st time to see where her scripting lay. For example, the 2nd time, I would complete all quests that involved Delon. While Valen was temporarily dropped, etc. This is not good roleplaying, I admit it, since it reflects pre-knowlege. Also, that was an old version of Valen and I don't know if Weimer had updated her scripts substantially since then. But, ultimately, I was able to play her like any other evil player, such as Viconia or Korgan, albeit much more powerful, that I direct towards eliminating my enemies. It is a favorite tactic of mine to bend the evil NPC's towards the elimination of evil. Valen attacking Bodhi... ah, life's delicious ironies... 8)

Offline Salk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2005, 12:20:02 AM »
The issue would seem to be whether killing animals is better than killing sentient beings. I don't see why it should be. However, Virtue doesn't implement penalties for, say, murdering squirrels, so there's an inconsistency here.

If it's inconsistent, it should be dropped.  If there is no penalty for killing a squirrel, there shouldn't be one for killing a dog.

Do we have to imagine our PCs refraining from eating meat?

In the game, the players do not need to feed themselves and killing a squirrel is just an act of cruelty, unmotivated by real gaming needs. If the game instead required (realistically and boringly) to have the party hunt for food, you'd be right...

Kel\'daryth

  • Guest
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2006, 08:38:11 AM »
Right - well...

I would appear to me that there are several issues here that need to be addressed, aside from the Barl issue once he turns hostile.

Most arguments so far have failed to define one very important element: from which perspective is the term "virtue" being defined? If this is to apply across the board - from Paladins to Thieves from LG to CE, then it has to be a universal, or as 'broad' as possible.

Thus, it is pointless to state that killing an animal for meat or leather is acceptable because it is deemed allowable by 'Amn and Western Society' - that only reflects the reputation one would gain and or lose in western society, not the instrinsic nature of the act itself. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the viewpoint that killing an animal for food/useful products is not an intrinsically evil (and thus non-virtuous) act UNLESS:
1) The killing is done with cruelty and malicious intent
2) The animal is known to be intrinsically good - probably only applicable to sentient animals

Note that the killing of endangered species is not necessarily included - even for rangers and druids, there are some creatures that would probably be better off exterminated - especially in a magical world.

However, in the case that one is attacked first without provocation, then self defense should not count as a non-virtuous act.

This argument arises because of what I would term humanity's 'natural state'. Humans are omnivorous by design (in terms of their biological systems - whether they came about from creationism or evolution - or both - is irrelevant), and as such, the killing of other creatures for meat or other products is part of their nature - similarly, a wolf or tiger is not a creature of instrinsic evil because it eats meat, or a cow a creature of intrinsic good because it doesn't eat meat.

Putting two creatures together to fight for any reason not related to survival - i.e. food/material goods steps into the realm of cruelty, regardless of the creatures involved.

With that out of the way - this is where it gets tricky:

~*~

Paladins
It would appear to me that a paladin should fall only when his/her virtue falls to 17 or below, after getting up there (starting virtues and all that). While the 2 hit rule is probably a simpler coding mechanism, there is evidence to show that there is some leeway allowed within the paladin order itself:

1) The Paladin in the Graveyard district - is mourning the loss of his son. He made a vow to protect the lad - and failed. This SHOULD be a drop in virtue - failing to uphold a vow.
2) Keldorn Firecam - his family quest involves his wife being 'technically' unfaithful - and should be imprisoned really. Keldorn can overlook that, NOT kill Sir William (which should be a drop in virtue according to the Paladin code - not upholding the tenets of the order) AND then he doesn't report his wife - virtue hit for not upholding the laws of his chosen society (which is the Lawful part of a Paladin's alignment).

Koa Toa
Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't the Koa Toa an EVIL race? If so, killing them all off by poisoning the tadpoles is not an unvirtuous act - especially since they attack you first and the only way to kill the Prince IS to poison the tadpoles (see above note on endangered species). NOT destroying evil (especially for a Pally) should be more of a virtue hit than destroying it in this case.

Suppose there is a family of evil black dragons laired up in the mountains and attacking nearby villagers. You go in there, kill them and smash the eggs - thus removing a small societal unit of dragons. Is that unvirtuous? I say no as black dragons are intrinsically evil (under DnD lore).

The assumption being made by the list is that it is unvirtuous to destroy an entire society.

However, for the purposes of this system I would propose:
It is unvirtuous to destroy an entire society - whose values are not diametrically opposed to your own

Thus, it is not unvirtuous for a Paladin, or even a ranger (who say, had Koa Toa as favoured enemies or similar) to seek to destroy an evil society. And while it could be argued that evil races attack each other all the time - well, that just shows them to have low virtue - which fits quite nicely, thank you.

Sacrificing to the Demogorgon
There are two issues here, the sacrifice of the animal, and the fighting of the demon knights.
Q: Is it unvirtuous to sacrifice the animal?
A: Yes. Because the animal is not being sacrificed for a matter of survivial (see above).

Q: Is it virtuous to eliminate the demons?
A: Yes. They are demons, they are evil, and a good character should destroy them.

Note: You can only summon the demons ONCE. Once they are dead, they stay dead. Therefore they are an evil that CAN be eliminated by summoning them forth.

Q: Is it unvituous to leave the demons unvanquished?
A: Yes. Because it is an evil threat that it is possible to eliminate, and a tool that could be used - in the wrong hands - to bring about much more evil than the death of an innocent animal - try the deaths of a few hundred (human or otherwise).

Thus, in this situation, the virtue of elminating the demons should outweigh the unvirtue of sacrificing the animal. Of course, if you DON'T manage to eliminate the demons, that's not exactly virtuous - but then you're dead, so big whoop. Thus my argument for allowing paladins to remain paladins until they fall to 17 or below. Yes, perhaps a virtue hit IS appropriate for the sacrifice - but the subsequent destruction of all the demons (in this case) should mitigate at least that single point. I seriously doubt the order of the radient heart would have much of an issue with it - or most of the Paladins' Gods. Thus, this is an 'infraction' that doesn't really count as an infraction. I have similar issues with Saladrax for the same reasons - especially if you're playing a Cavalier or Dragon Hunter. If this is to be upheld, then you should also be penalised if you decide to butcher the drow of Ust Natha as you leave.

Of course, one could argue it's a slippery slope - "Oh, the ends justify the means", which is not a virtuous sentiment. Thus, the 17 limit - if there's too much ends means justification without the ends being realised, a Paladin will fall faster than you can spit. Of course, there should probably be a limit for rangers as well, but I'm not sure what, 15 maybe?

Executing Tolmas
Tolmas is essentially trying to extort money from you. As you can point out - he should have had insurance. It is not your OBLIGATION as a Lord to reimburse traders for the risks that they take in travelling their trade routes. Nor (technically), is it your responsibility to cover the costs bourne by your villagers for their individual dwellings. It could be argued that you were responsible for the dykes (if you accept the 'ignorance is no excuse' axiom), and it might be unvirtuous (uncharitable) as Lord to not aid the villagers with some of the tax money you collected, but to execute a man trying to extort money from you and holding the welfare of innocents hostage (your villagers), is not really something that I think warrants a -2. -1 maybe, but not -2.

Giving Valygar to Tolgerias
Unfortunately, giving Valygar to Tolgerias is the technically correct action to take. For a lawful character, who swore an oath to Tolgerias to bring Valygar to him, the honourable thing to do is to fulfil that oath. Of course, this does not mean it's *technically* unvirtuous to explore the planar sphere first. You only swore to bring Valygar to Tolgerias. You said nothing about NOT exploring the planar sphere first, and certainly didn't promise to bring Valygar in in a timely fashion. If Tolgerias then chooses to attack you and you have to defend yourself - well, that's on his head, not yours. Of course, you *could* argue for the spirit of the agreement, but to be honest, if you're an honourable person, you shouldn't be agreeing to do anything for someone you don't know without getting it spelt out first.

Stealing
I'm sorry, but stealing - i.e. pickpocketing, patronising fences and the like - should be unvirtuous. Unless of course the owner is dead - and in the not walking around 'undead' sense. You could argue that stealing from ANYONE is wrong, but you could also liken stealing from evil creatures to the weakening of those creatures' power - which is a good thing. It should probably be a small hit (-1) each time. Similarly, the stealing of the Statue of Lathandar if not the necklace of the Priestess of Talos really should be unvirtuous acts.

This, combined with a lower limit of virtue, rather than a fixed 'number' of unvirtuous occasions, seems to me to be more logical. It allows for immediate ends/means payoffs and certainly for Paladin flexibility. A Paladin can tolerate the company of theives, drow or vampires (coding issues aside), and should certainly NOT hold them up to the same values he (or she, but I'll be using he for simplicity) himself holds. He should lead by example, not by chatisement. However, that does not excuse a Paladin turning a blind eye to continual wanton depredations by thieves - too many stealings = too low a virtue score (if suitable 'examples' of virtuous behaviour are not thrown into the mix to counteract them) = bye bye special status.

After looking over the list of virtue changing acts - I must say that I'm probably not going to be installing it. At least, not for my run through with my Paladin - who I think would certainly execute Thomas, kill Barl, sacrifice to the demogorgon to kill the demon knights AND cheerfully destroy the Koa Toa.


Keldaryth

  • Guest
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2006, 08:40:07 AM »
One more thing - patronising the whores should probably be unvirtuous too. Although I'm still uncertain of Phaere or the Lust Chambers, as the participants there are unpaid and willing - in some cases demanding.

K (now with apostrophication due to the insertation of slashes)

Keldaryth

  • Guest
Re: The Comprehensive Virtue Change List
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2006, 08:55:55 AM »
One more unvirtuous act:

Killing Drizzt

 

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)?: