Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
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)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Cybersquirt
« 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?
Posted by: Salk
« on: March 30, 2014, 12:34:36 AM »

Quote from: Cybersquirt on March 13, 2014, 01:34:12 AM
DAMMIT, Sim. COME BACK!
Posted by: Cybersquirt
« on: March 13, 2014, 01:34:12 AM »

DAMMIT, Sim. COME BACK!
Posted by: Salk
« 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.
Posted by: Demon Neclord
« on: December 07, 2012, 02:01:04 PM »

Ah ok I got ya. lol Well that sucks :P
Oh well thanks for the information.
Posted by: Mike1072
« 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.
Posted by: Demon Neclord
« 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.
Posted by: Kulyok
« 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. :)
Posted by: Demon Neclord
« 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.
Posted by: Kulyok
« 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.
Posted by: sademerzel
« 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.
Posted by: Alexandre Saint-Onge
« 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.
Posted by: Tieflingz
« 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~
Posted by: Nijel
« 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.
Posted by: FarisCultist
« 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.