Author Topic: I am interested in any and all criticism!  (Read 29384 times)

Offline sosul

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2008, 12:20:47 AM »
Hey, I think having "virtue" as something separate from "reputation" for this game is a great concept and this mod implements it pretty well.

Anyway, all reverence aside... I enjoy playing as "chaotic good" characters; as such said <CHARNAME>s like to take the law into their own hands - herein lies my issue...

There are certain people <CHARNAME> should be permitted to kill without taking a hit to virtue (yes, I realize, this sounds more "chaotic neutral", but they aren't just random people I'm talking about, so hear me out til the end).

There are a few despicable people who's untimely deaths (with my <CHARNAME> being the one to whack 'em) cause my virtue to plummet. I'm not really proficient in coding or whatever the process for writing stuff that makes stuff happen in the game and its constraints in this game (i.e. my competence in this particular area is like that of the current waning era of the American Presidency), but I think the reason is that said people are being classified as "neutral" or "innocent" or whatever that group is. Anyway, I just think they should be disassociated with the "innocent" group (if possible) so I can whack them without the virtue-related consequences.

Now, I'll give you some examples:
1. OmG, like the grave-keeper guy (surprisingly located in the Graveyard District!) who tries to cover up for red-footie-pajama guy (in the south end of the Bridge District) burying some guy alive (victim's name is "Tirdir" according to my brief research). At the end of my conversation with grave-keeper guy, there's actually an option to say something on the lines of "you deserve to die" (okay, I don't remember what it is exactly, but it's a very appropriate line one would say before whacking a guy) though sometimes I decide letting him *get raped* I mean rot in a prison cell would work too. Either way, that son of a mother decides to run off, so I just off'ed him there. As a side note, I take care of red-footie-pajama guy and third-involved-guy-in-the-house-who's-short (in the house adjacent red-footie-pajama guy in the Bridge District). They apparently kidnapped some woman on top of that. Keep in mind that at this point, my <CHARNAME>'s experience in Athkatla has led him/her not to trust their bureaucracy - guards taking bribes from slavers, letting a crazy fanatic burn someone in the street, having a whole section of the city reserved for thieves, Isaea Roenall (scum affiliated with Nalia), etc. Not to mention, <CHARNAME> is the one who has to deal with all that junk. (keep in mind, my <CHARNAME> is chaotic good, so he/she's like 'screw the law' anyway.

2. Random second example is one of the de'Arnise Stronghold dilemmas where this overweight couple tries to scam me out of my money. I ordered them to be executed, but frankly, I don't trust the guards to do it right, so I executed them on the spot- OmG, that caused my own guards to attack me (the nerve), resulting in the "load saved game" spell; that time, I had to (reluctantly) resort to divine intervention to kill them.

3. Okay, another example is this maniacal freak in Watcher's Keep that controls some uber machine. If I kill him, suddenly I'm evil. This one I admit may be because of my "meta-gaming" makes me "let him go" because the reward is better (what's with the goodie-goodie favoritism (i.e. I'm differentiating between being "good" by forgiving and being "good" by getting rid of the crazy dangerous jerk who's already put other peoples' lives at risk)); not to mention if I really let him go and he wreaks havoc somewhere, that'll be considered my fault for letting him go in the first place. Either way, even if I said I'd let him go, then killed him (meta-gaming aside), I'd understand a little hit to virtue for straight out lying, but not for killing him.

Anyway, I'm not saying <CHARNAME> should be rewarded virtue for said examples, but I don't think he/she should be penalized either. I mean would having the arbitrary legal position of "official executioner of Athkatla" suddenly give someone the moral right to off them, while not having such a legal position make it immoral?
(if authority is an issue, I think "Bhaal-spawn" would count as a valid authority on the topic of "murder" (but seriously what requirements are there for "executioner"? Do you need a high school diploma or Amn equivalent to know chopping one's head of will lead to one's death))
(also, please keep in mind the setting (i.e. please try and keep what I'm saying in the context of Amn with adventurers not a modern "real world" context (anyway, if we have to go there, "adventurers" there seem more similar to what we'd consider "vigilantes" here - which is already morally ambiguous territory anyway; however in Amn, one can slit a thief's throat without the moral police going off about it, but here, same situation, you gotta go through red tape (I think there was this guy that had actually gotten fired for shooting an armed robber at his job) - the point is to remember the correct context).

As a side note to my whole post, I can definitely understand a drop in reputation for killing one of these people (as mentioned my only issue is the drop in virtue); I mean I could see the headlines: "BHAAL-SPAWN MASSACRES MULTIPLE MEN involved in burying man alive and ransoming woman - Page 6"
 
Anyway, to summarize:
"Virtue" should not be penalized for the murder, as a form of vigilante/adventurer justice, of certain individuals in the game such as the grave-keeper and red-footie-pajama guy who have themselves have engaged in behavior deemed as effectively antisocial. On the same token, a penalty in "reputation" would be understandable and justifiable if implemented.
Note: "behavior deemed as effectively antisocial" is purposely worded ambiguously because it would be your call as to which crimes would be heinous enough to count. For example, you may decide that grave-keeper's covering up what is essentially murder, not to mention the appalling means of the murder is severe enough to allow no virtue penalty for whacking him; but at the same time, decide that the overweight couple of frauds in de'Arnise Stronghold did not commit a serious enough crime to allow freedom from virtue penalty.
I hope my post isn't too long. Hope to hear back from ya soo- some time. Cheers.

-MMC

Offline strayshift

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 39
  • Gender: Male
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2008, 05:51:24 AM »
The briefest answer I can think of is this - virtue is not as subjective as you think - we all think we are virtuous (to a degree - even the 'evil' especially those that hide behind religion - obvious modern examples). Look at it like this - there is (in the programming) a divine 'grouping' of peoples - that gravekeeper may ultimately have redeemed himself oneday after his escape from you... Who are we to know? By killing him you may have crossed some arbitary line of fate. Not the most satisfying or philisophical answer I know call it the 'Christmas Carol' school of thought.
G

Offline sosul

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #52 on: October 30, 2008, 02:05:47 AM »
For easier viewing, one should look at "fate" from a past point of view rather than a present point of view: "fate" is what will happen in the "future" period. The present would be classified as part of the future from a past point of view. If I kill the gravekeeper in the present, then that means his fate was for him to die then. Because his fate is to no longer exist in the same form in the present, it would be pointless to consider alternate possibilities because those alternate possibilities don't exist. (remember we are in the dynamic present tense in which I kill the gravekeeper now or the last time I said "now", by which I mean the first time I said that word within this parens) This is similar to a brand of statement that irks me off: the "(s)he was so smart, (s)he could have cured cancer". "Could have" implies that that event did not and does not (and in this case because he's dead- will not) happen, so to say "he cured/cures/will cure cancer" is a false statement meaning it's not true meaning it is a subset within the set of "Not Truth". "Not Truth" of course is the set of all sets excluding those sets contained within the set of "Truth" (trying to state it without repeating the word "not"). Obviously by definition that means that a set cannot exist in both the set of "Not Truth" and the set of "Truth" concurrently. This means, given that 1) he is dead, 2) cancer is not cured, 3) he could have cured cancer, one can conclude that the events of "he cured/cures/will cure cancer" and the "Truth" are mutually exclusive. "could" implies possibility, while "could have" implies impossibility (in terms of actual reality from the time it is spoken - and he's dead, so it's just impossibility period) or that which cannot be absolutely disproved (e.g. if the statement is "could have found a cure to cancer" and saying he came up with the cure in his head, didn't write it, then died; or he has it written in some secret location - these cannot be absolutely disproved); however one could easily say "he could have become the next Hitler" or "he could have found a new way to blow the whole world in a single blast".
While he "may have redeemed himself oneday" he cannot have redeemed himself oneday because he's already dead.
By the way, I mention this in my previous post: if he went on and committed more crimes, people would find me culpable for letting him get away. To add something new: if you wanna talk probability, people are less likely to choose an option involving a major change in lifestyle, especially one that involves a higher level of difficulty, so he's more likely not to change than to change.

In conclusion, it's pointless to bring up hypothetical possibility because one can easily bring up a counter-hypothetical possibility resulting in no definitive answer, so it's better to stick with what is factual and what is known. 

Offline strayshift

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 39
  • Gender: Male
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2008, 12:13:37 PM »
Lol - thats me told!  :D

Offline FarisCultist

  • #1 Pirate Lover!
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 20
  • Gender: Male
  • "I want to see buttons of me around town."
    • Counter-Strike Clan: Heaven or Hell Forums
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2009, 04:46:24 PM »
Alright, here's how I feel about virtue.

It's a REALLY awesome idea. I feel though there's more negatives about it than positives, so I removed it :/. I'll admit, I didn't play with it on very long, maybe halfway through the story of BG2, then said "ew."

What I feel is wrong about it is... You don't necessarily get 'benefits' only 'disadvantages' from it. Such as; if you're a Paladin and you accidentally do something bad, you INSTANTLY become a Fallen Paladin. Which kinda upset me, cause I hadn't saved in a bit, so I had this useless Fighter wanna-be with me now. (Started a new campaign).

Like Reputation had Bonuses and Negatives by doing both good and bad. *Thumbs up to that* What I realize is that people often don't balance things like that. It could be something simple or complicated. Example: Different rewards/punishment in hell for various virtue. IF you have bad virtue but do good things in hell you get bigger bonuses, or if you have good virtue you get little to no bonuses (for that was what you would've done anyways.)

So that's it right there! That's what I'd like to see, reactions/rewards/punishments based on your virtue. Low virtue gives higher Reputation Bonuses if you do something to boost Reputation. To suggest people see this evil individual as a 'Heart-of-Gold' kind of person, so "awwww, we misjudged him." +2 Rep! Then one thing that I always dispised was the Demon Form you get always took 2 Reputation points away. So, high Virtue would either nullify this draw back (giving use to good players to use it) or lessen it to -1 Points lost. Where as, Low virtue players wouldn't suffer anything from using the Demon, because that's what their 'villainous heart' would desire to do, so to be expected by the general public.

Offline Nijel

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 7
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2009, 11:04:05 AM »
Well, since you say you're interested in ANY criticism :p

I liked the concept very much, and gladly welcomed it at first, because of the lacks of the reputation system. But I found that too many actions were lacking virtue consequences (which is less true with more recent versions I suppose). And the second flaw is its incompabilities with many mods or bugs depending on order installations (which are very much likely to not occur if you follow the readme instruction of course)

I don't know how Virtue is implemented, but in my opinion, it would be better to pack some Virtue macros so modders could themselves use the Virtue points in their script, and try to have a less agressive less heavy way of implementing Virtue in the game.

Offline Tieflingz

  • Backstabber
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Backstabber
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #56 on: November 26, 2009, 07:54:48 AM »
Wow, that's a load of long comments to read

Awesome Mod

But could you make the starting virtue for Evil characters a bit lower?

I switch to Neutral too easily sometimes, even though I can choose evil paths but I benefit more with the good sometimes, then I'd have to do some slaughtering to turn back to evil...

So aye, perhaps make it harder to stay neutral as well (By setting the virtue in between good/neutral and neutral/evil a bit closer), since being neutral should be the hardest alignment to play~
All hail Lawful Evilness<br />Oh, and Hiding in Shadows/Invisible Potion Gulping with Backstabbing in the face.

Alexandre Saint-Onge

  • Guest
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2010, 06:38:07 PM »
I have never tried the Virtue mod in the past. But there are many holes in the alignment that needs to be arranged in order to understand it well.

The question is : What is the alignment based on? Is the alignment based on actions (Deontological ethics)? Is the aligment based on the intents that command the actions (Virtue ethics)? Or is the alignment based on the consequences of your actions (consequentialism).

Quote
For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior.

Is it based on actions at all? Do you need to be a zealot to be good? Or is it all about respect for life and respect for ethics?

As you can see, the alignment itself is much more complex than it seems. Here is a few definitions that might help you.

Good/Evil

Good :

1) Believing in creature rights, and that every creature has the right for relative freedom and happiness. Cruelty and suffering is undesirable. Based on respect for life

Under definition 1) of “Good”, most humans are Good

2) Placing others above yourself. Based on actions

Neutral :

1) Following an ethos (using both good and evil as Tools to reach their goals such as some lawful neutrals, true neutrals and chaotic neutrals). Based on actions

Note : good and evil are irrelevant beside it's purpose to bring order (lawful neutral), ultimate balance (true neutral) or chaos (chaotic neutral).

2) Represents a lack commitment one-way or the other (good and evil). Based on actions or respect for life

Note : The purpose is limited. Neither good or evil shall be actively seeked.

Under definition 2) of “Neutral”, most humans are Neutral

3) Seeking a balance between good and evil. Neither must become prominent over the other. Based on actions

4) Those who cannot judge what a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act is are considered neutral.

Note : Like animals for example.

Evil :

1) Placing yourself above others. Based on respect for life

2) Actively seeking to harm and destroy weather for fun or profit. Based on actions

Law/Chaos

Law :

1) Promoting the group over the individual. Based on actions

2) Placing ethic above conscience. Based on respect for ethics


Neutral :

1) following an ethos (using both law and chaos as Tools to reach goals such as some neutral goods, true neutrals and neutral evils.). Based on actions

2) A middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Based on actions or respect for ethics

3) Seek a balance between law and chaos. Based on actions

4) Those who cannot judge what a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act is are considered neutral.

Chaos :

1) Promoting the individual over the group. Based on actions

2) Placing conscience above ethic. Based on respect for ethics

Good/Evil

Definitions that goes together (respectively from good to neutral to evil) for respect for life : 1), 2) ,1) 
Definitions that goes together (respectively from good to neutral to evil) for actions : 2), 1), 2) or 3), 2).

Definition 2) from “Neutral” in Good/Evil and definition 1) from “Neutral” in Law/Chaos are rather special. By definition, good/law or evil/chaotic are irrelevant which means that hey would normally be classified as evil/chaotic instead of neutral on the respect for life/ethics category. They would be classified neutral on actions since their actions are not specifically good/lawful or evil/chaotic.


Law/Chaos
Definitions that goes together (respectively from law to neutral to chaos) for respect for ethics : 2); 2); 2)
Definitions that goes together (respectively from law to neutral to chaos) for actions : 1); 1), 2) or 3); 1)

I also found out that there could be more than 9 different alignments (involving 2 forms of neutrality). I could write and write forever about the alignment system.  But I got responsibilities  :( .

If anyone has any questions, critics, disagreements or comments; please feel free to post them. I would be very pleased to read or answer them.

sademerzel

  • Guest
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2012, 11:48:03 PM »
Since this board was kind enough to let me post, let me tell you why I am here:
Every assassin (starting with the ones in Candlekeep) dropped me 2 virtue until my Cleric/Ranger was Neutral Evil (starting with Neutral Good) by the time I was in Beregost.

I only installed this because it came with Big World.  I am now here because I wanted to make sure it didn't do anything I don't want to get rid of.   It does not, so I am uninstalling it.

I'm sorry if you expected a debate on morality but quite honestly I see what you were trying to do here but all it has been for me is a bewildering handicap.  I think a programmatic approach is far too generalized and it would take ages to hand-select which ones give morality and don't - but that is what it would take to truly make it seamless.

Offline Kulyok

  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 6234
  • Gender: Female
  • The perfect moment is now.
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2012, 02:56:18 AM »
I believe Virtue is/was supposed to work for BG2 only, so it's not to be installed with BGT/BWP/EasyTutu - it's simply not designed to work with BG1. So, yep, you're doing the right thing by uninstalling it.

Offline Demon Neclord

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2012, 08:13:44 PM »
Is there going to be an updated Virtue mod for BG:EE and/or BG:EE 2? I really love the mod and would love to play it on these! Thanks and good work.

Offline Kulyok

  • Global Moderator
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 6234
  • Gender: Female
  • The perfect moment is now.
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2012, 12:25:56 AM »
Virtue works for BG2 only, so IF there is EVER a BG2:EE, and Weidu is updated for the said BG2:EE, yep, it should. But BG2:EE is a long way away from happening, if ever. :)

Offline Demon Neclord

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #62 on: December 06, 2012, 05:41:42 PM »
Well, BG2:EE is already being worked on. BG1:EE is running off BG2's engine just doesn't have TOB wich is required for Vitue.
The Weidu is already being worked on by CamDawg and others I believe. Already they have workarounds for a few gibberlings3's mods.

It's all on http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/6967/bgee-mod-compatibility-thread/p1

So, I was just wondering if it would ever be possible for the Virtue mod to work on BG:EE since it's running off a BG2 upgraded engine. I think it's an awesome mod
and will continue to support it and speak highly of it.

That's all. Thanks.

Offline Mike1072

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 273
  • Gender: Male
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2012, 09:12:59 PM »
It's not the engine that's the issue; it's the mod.  Virtue is written for the BG2 storyline, taking into account specific choices you make during quests.  The mod is not just a set of mechanics that can be easily ported to another game that uses the same engine.

Someone could make a BG1 version of Virtue, but it would be a decent amount of work, on the scale of making a new mod.  The original Virtue author is no longer actively modding, so this would probably have to come from an eager volunteer.

Offline Demon Neclord

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #64 on: December 07, 2012, 02:01:04 PM »
Ah ok I got ya. lol Well that sucks :P
Oh well thanks for the information.

Offline Salk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2013, 12:51:40 AM »
I agree that Virtue is a great mod.

It'd be fantastic to have a BG1 version of it but I don't have the know-how to do such work.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #66 on: March 13, 2014, 01:34:12 AM »
DAMMIT, Sim. COME BACK!
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Salk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #67 on: March 30, 2014, 12:34:36 AM »

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: I am interested in any and all criticism!
« Reply #68 on: April 04, 2014, 09:45:51 PM »
Any luck?  Bastard probably ran like there's no tomorrow after all the bullshit that ensued... In which case: I love you, baby!! Despite the fact I am lesbian, well, anyway, go baby!!

Black Sails, anyone?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 09:47:48 PM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

 

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)?: