The Comprehensive Virtue Change List

[SimDing0™]

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.)

Regular Hell Trials
Good fear test, evil player: +2
Good fear test, neutral player: +1
(Good fear test, good player)

Evil fear test, good player: -4
Evil fear test, neutral player: -2
(Evil fear test, evil player)

Good selfish test, evil player: +2
Good selfish test, neutral player: +1
(Good selfish test, good player)

Evil selfish test, good player: -8
Evil selfish test, neutral player: -4
(Evil selfish test, evil player)

Good greed test, evil player: +2
Good greed test, neutral player: +1
(Good greed test, good player)

Evil greed test, good player: -6
Evil greed test, neutral player: -3
(Evil greed test, evil player)

Good pride test, evil player: +2
Good pride test, neutral player: +1
(Good pride test, good player)

Evil pride test, good player: -6
Evil pride test, neutral player: -3
(Evil pride test, evil player)

Good wrath test, evil player: +2
Good wrath test, neutral player: +1
(Good wrath test, good player)

Evil wrath test, good player: -4
Evil wrath test, neutral player: -2
(Evil wrath test, evil player)


Revised Hell Trials
Good fear test: 1
(Neutral fear test)
Evil fear test: -3

Good selfish test: 1
(Neutral selfish test)
Evil selfish test: -5

Good greed test: 1
(Neutral greed test)
Evil greed test: -4

Good pride test: 1
(Neutral pride test)
Evil pride test: -4   

Good wrath test: 1
(Neutral wrath test)
Evil wrath test: -3


General assault/murder
Injuring an innocent: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)
Killing an innocent: -1 to -10 (depending on current Virtue)

Killing any non-evil party member: -2

Killing--
- The dryads in Irenicus' dungeon: -2
- The svirfneblin Patrol Leader: -2
- Saladrex: -2
- Adalon: -2
- The lich on Edwin's quest: -1
- Rayic Gethras: -1
- Vithal: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)
- Madulf: -2
- Individual Illithid slave in the Underdark: -1 each
- All Illithid slaves in the Underdark: -4
- Nalia's servant: -1
- Embarl: -1

Attacking Barl or the Temple Superior in Trademeet: -1
Attacking Vulova: -1
Attacking Yakman: -1

NPC-related
Redeeming Viconia: +2
Redeeming Sarevok: +2

Leaving Minsc to die: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)
Leaving Jaheira to die: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)

Taking Valen into the party: -4

Refusing to help Pala for Mazzy: -1
Abandoning Imoen in Spellhold if you have room for her: -1 to -4 (depending on current Virtue)
Leaving Viconia to die: -2
Abandoning Jaheira while cursed: -2


Quests
Dealing with the Fallen Paladins: +1
Dealing with the Umar imposter: +1
Saving Malla: +1
Saving the orphan's father in Saradush: +1
Solving the conflict between elves and dwarves in Saradush: +1
Helping the elves in Saradush: +1
Releasing Gromnir's prisoners: +1 each
Saving Trademeet: +1
Saving Raissa: +1
Freeing the Illithid slaves: +1
Saving the Umar Hills: +1
Rescuing Elgea: +1
Freeing Hendak: +1
Helping Ginia and Ason escape Brynnlaw: +1
Freeing the Ust Natha djinni: +1
Freeing Gont of Riatvin and not demanding reward: +1
Helping Garren Windspear: +1
Protecting Tyrianna: +1

Sponsoring a dogfight: -1 each
Helping Lehtinen: -1
Keeping Malla's soulstone: -2
Threatening to eat the orphan in Saradush: -1
Convincing the thief in Saradush that he can leave via Lazarus' scroll: -2
Giving Valygar in to Tolgerias: -2
Demanding payment from the mayor of the Umar Hills: -1
Ransoming Elgea: -2
Demanding power from Irenicus in the dream: -2
Tricking Odren into entering the Imprisoned One's lair: -4
Giving Firkraag the deed to the Windspear Hills: -2
Demanding a reward from Raelis: -1
Killing Marcus for Edwin's documents: -3
Poisioning the Kua-Toa tadpoles: -1
Making a sacrifice to Demogorgon: -1
Executing Tolmas Bendelia: -2

Using the Slayer Change: -2

[Qwinn]

My thoughts/suggestions:

A paladin should fall only if his virtue falls below 18 (not sure if the most recent version did this - the description sounds like they're allowed to take one or two virtue hits -ever-, but not sure if they can work their virtue back up to 20 and then survive a virtue hit again).

Once that's established, then I think a LOT of the virtue hits on that list should be increased to at least -3 (so that that single action does in fact cause the Paladin to fall).  Killing anyone of good alignment or simply innocents (Vithal, illithid slaves, Adalon, Nalia's servant etc.) should most definetly trigger an instant fall.  Killing Saladrex, IMO, should incur a virtue hit but not necessarily a fatal one:  -2 sounds good. 

Other things that should have a virtue hit raised to -3 or above so that they incur automatic falls:  Helping Lehtinen, leaving party members to die, giving Firkraag the deed to Windspear Hills, giving Valygar to Tolgerias, ransoming Elgea, convincing Lazarus to use the scroll.  Things that should be a -1 or -2 hit, so that they don't necessarily trigger an instant fall if the paladin is otherwise maximally virtuous include asking questgivers for rewards, executing Tolmas Bendelia, making the sacrifice to Demogorgon in order to get the demon knights to come out (hey, even the very first time I played the game I did it specifically because it said it would summon his evil servants and I wanted to kill them - and I'm sorry, but my paladin is NOT a member of PETA.  Animals don't have soul, and the purpose is to draw out his demons for killing, not to incur his favor.  A -2 hit for that one seems sufficient to me.)

Qwinn

[Reverendratbastard]

  agreed, for the most part.
 
  i definitely support a higher loss for killing adalon than for killing saladrex - killing adalon is pretty unequivocally a betrayal of Good (of suldanessellar as well as adalon herself), while killing saladrex is just being an asshole.  also, still voting for the zealous cavalier to take a mere -1 or no hit.

  similarly, along the "keep above 18 but be able to take 1 or 2 pt hits after surpassing 18 or 19" paladin principle:

- The dryads in Irenicus' dungeon: -3 not 2
- The svirfneblin Patrol Leader: -3 not 2
- Adalon: -3 if not 4
- Nalia's servant: -3 not 1
- Embarl: -2 not 1

 dammit, i've forgotten who vulova is.  i would've guessed one of bodhi's lieutenants?  but a -1 doesn't quite bear that out...

Leaving Minsc to die: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)
Leaving Jaheira to die: -1 to -2 (depending on current Virtue)

-2 seems awfully low for anyone with v over 15.  hell, if you're trying to solo with your paladin, uninstall virtue and just act accordingly {or reinstall} after this abandonment.  otherwise there's some serious betrayal going on.

Refusing to help Pala for Mazzy: -2 not 1 (this is leaving someone presumably to die, who is pretty obviously less able to take care of herself than even minsc/jaheira in a cage...)

Releasing Gromnir's prisoners: +1 each?  there are more than two, iirc?  i'd recommend a +1-maybe-2 only after all are free.
Saving Trademeet: +1 (still 2 rep though, right?)

Helping Lehtinen: -2 at least, not 1
Keeping Malla's soulstone: -4 not 2 (considering that it's of no use to you unless you're evil (and if you just sell it that's certainly no better than slavery and already much worse))

Giving Valygar in to Tolgerias: -2/

  maybe -3 if at 18-20, -2 otherwise?

Poisioning the Kua-Toa tadpoles: -2 at least, not 1

Being caught stealing from shops other than the Underdark: -1

not sure i understand why there's a discrepancy here?

[Mongoose87]

 Releasing Gromnir's prisoners: +1 each?  there are more than two, iirc?  i'd recommend a +1-maybe-2 only after all are free.

See, I tend to think that if there were two seperate incidents of savign prisoners, they'd each be worth +1, so why should two together be worth a mere +1?

[SeanFan]

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.

Attacking Barl or the Temple Superior in Trademeet: -1

This one I really don't understand--Barl, not the Temple Superior. Once Barl is confronted with the evidence that he poisoned Pala, he admits that he did it, turns red and attacks *you*. Why should you take a virtue hit for defending yourself against a murderous criminal?

Unless you mean attacking Barl before he admits his guilt?

[Reverendratbastard]

See, I tend to think that if there were two seperate incidents of savign prisoners, they'd each be worth +1, so why should two together be worth a mere +1?

  if there are only two, i frankly don't see it as 'exactly half as virtuous' to rescue only half of them.  if you're doing it on a whim, why should it affect your standing?; if it's not on a whim, why rescue less than the lot?
 

Unless you mean attacking Barl before he admits his guilt?

  yeah, i was assuming 'attack' in this context means 'draw first'.

[Murdane]

and I'm sorry, but my paladin is NOT a member of PETA.  Animals don't have soul, and the purpose is to draw out his demons for killing, not to incur his favor.  A -2 hit for that one seems sufficient to me.)

For that matter, why does sponsoring a dog fight incur a virtue hit?  Do the dogs die?  I personally think it's mean and cruel (I'm an animal lover, myself), but this is the Virtue mod, not the Political Correctness mod.

[SixOfSpades]

One dog does. I think the difference here is killing a "presumably innocent" animal for sheer vicarious pleasure, or for material gain, as opposed to killing a "presumably innocent" animal for the sake of baiting out some demons to be killed.

Of course, the "presumably innocent" can be easily debated on both sides: A dog bred and trained to fight is not likely to be a well-mannered beastie, and the creature you sacrifice to the statue is either a Charmed Kou-Toa (most likely Evil), or more commonly a Summoned creature of your own, which is not innocent by the same logic as with the Dog.

The difference between sponsoring a dog fight and sponsoring a cock fight is that almost all chickens are just raised to be eaten anyway. All the cockfighting does is essentially give them a measure of control over their own destiny.

[jester]

If you see it as a parallel to the tadpole incident which is so cruel as it dooms the entire hive(Whatever this would be called?) of Kuo-Toa, then there should be a virtue hit for dooming the Saghuain by siding with the mad prince thus whiping out or essentially weaken their bloodline. Perhaps not I am 55:45 on this one. 

The cockfights I have seen were really all about giving roosters a shot at influencing their own destiny.

[SimDing0™]

A paladin should fall only if his virtue falls below 18 (not sure if the most recent version did this - the description sounds like they're allowed to take one or two virtue hits -ever-, but not sure if they can work their virtue back up to 20 and then survive a virtue hit again).

It's not about specific numbers, such as 18, but rather that a paladin falls after a certain number of hits. This used to be one, but is now two (so on your second hit, you lose paladin status). This applies throughout the game. Getting your virtue back up to 20 won't change the fact that you've already taken a hit.
The planned atonement system will provide a crossover between the old and new systems. If you take a virtue hit, you will be required to atone within a certain period of time, or else you fall. The two-hit rule still applies, however, so you can't atone if you commit a second offence. This is open for debate, of course (I'm actually tempted to raise the limit to three rather than two, with the atonement system in place).

Once that's established, then I think a LOT of the virtue hits on that list should be increased to at least -3 (so that that single action does in fact cause the Paladin to fall).  Killing anyone of good alignment or simply innocents (Vithal, illithid slaves, Adalon, Nalia's servant etc.) should most definetly trigger an instant fall.  Killing Saladrex, IMO, should incur a virtue hit but not necessarily a fatal one:  -2 sounds good.

Yeh, this list made me realise how badly standardised the drops were. I'll be doing an examination of them to make sure the values are sensible.

This one I really don't understand--Barl, not the Temple Superior. Once Barl is confronted with the evidence that he poisoned Pala, he admits that he did it, turns red and attacks *you*. Why should you take a virtue hit for defending yourself against a murderous criminal?

This sounds like there could be some carelessness on my part. I'll check the situation.

For that matter, why does sponsoring a dog fight incur a virtue hit?  Do the dogs die?  I personally think it's mean and cruel (I'm an animal lover, myself), but this is the Virtue mod, not the Political Correctness mod.

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.

[Caedwyr]

I think the dog fight issue would be one of needlessly causing a conflict for the joy/pleasure/profit of watching animals suffer.  If the player would for instance kill a wild dog that attacked them, or killed a moose for food (no food, but that doesn't mean a player could be attempting to).  Of course, this would also bring up the issue of what would be right for rangers/druids, and that would have to take into account what type of ranger/druid the character is.  Ie: a stalker may not have the same affinity and duties towards the natural world as a more tree-hugging ranger.

[Reverendratbastard]

One dog does.

All the cockfighting does is essentially give them a measure of control over their own destiny.

  essentially gives one of them a measure of control. 
  and if they're kept separate from each other they can't conspire joint escapes.
 
 

The planned atonement system will provide a crossover between the old and new systems. If you take a virtue hit, you will be required to atone within a certain period of time, or else you fall. The two-hit rule still applies, however, so you can't atone if you commit a second offence.

does a virtue-raising accomplishment qualify as atonement?  is there a tithing option?  messenger/overhead-text time-warnings?  i'm of course presuming you aren't adding redemptive quests...
 

If you see it as a parallel to the tadpole incident which is so cruel as it dooms the entire hive(Whatever this would be called?) of Kuo-Toa

i'd prefer 'puddle', but i'm sure some idle aristocrat hunting buff has cooked something up already. 
 *research break*
 but even mm3.5 just says 'communities', so start up a poll! *ducks*

[SixOfSpades]

The cockfights I have seen were really all about giving roosters a shot at influencing their own destiny.

Point taken. But still, from a rooster's point of view, you've got three options:
Lord of the Barnyard
Gladiator
Automatic Fricassee (default)

[jester]

I see what you mean and I think they would all want the works.

@RRB: Well but you are dodging the argument within.

[Murdane]

One dog does. I think the difference here is killing a "presumably innocent" animal for sheer vicarious pleasure, or for material gain, as opposed to killing a "presumably innocent" animal for the sake of baiting out some demons to be killed.

Of course, the "presumably innocent" can be easily debated on both sides: A dog bred and trained to fight is not likely to be a well-mannered beastie, and the creature you sacrifice to the statue is either a Charmed Kou-Toa (most likely Evil), or more commonly a Summoned creature of your own, which is not innocent by the same logic as with the Dog.

The difference between sponsoring a dog fight and sponsoring a cock fight is that almost all chickens are just raised to be eaten anyway. All the cockfighting does is essentially give them a measure of control over their own destiny.

I see your points, but ethically, is there really a huge difference between killing a dog and killing a chicken?  To me, there's a difference, and like most people of my culture I think of dogs as companions rather than food...but this is the Virtue mod.  I assume that the mod is not taking culture into account--if it's OK to kill a chicken for any reason, why is it not OK to kill a dog?

[Murdane]

The cockfights I have seen were really all about giving roosters a shot at influencing their own destiny.

The problem I see with this is that it seems more of a rationalization than anything else--if it's morally OK for chickens to fight, I see no logical reason why it shouldn't be OK to do the same to any other animal. *shrug*

[Murdane]

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?

[Caedwyr]

I think the issue about the dog fight, is that the player is sponsering a rather brutal deathmatch for their personal pleasure/profit.  If some wild dog were to attack the player, or they decided to go squirell hunting that is one thing, putting two dogs together in a pit to fight for your pleasure is not very nice.  Notice that the wild animal fights near the dungeons of the copper corronet are considered "bad", so why would dog fighting not be also considered to be 'bad'.

SimDing0

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?

Its the way the killing is done.  The dog fight is something where the PC deliberately and obviously sponsors a deathmatch betwen two animals.  I'd say there is a fair bit of moral difference between causing/sponsoring an unnecessary deathmatch and killing a wild dog or squirel.

Think about a real world parallel.  It isn't exactly considered to be the most virtuous to run a dog fighting pit, or to sponsor such a fight, but going hunting is not frowned on.

[jester]

@going hunting is not frowned on

Depends on the country you live in, but I don't see it as a gamestopping problem. You don't get any big quests, massive XPs or huge amounts of money out of it, so every paladin can just give it a wide berth and get on with it.

[Murdane]

Its the way the killing is done.  The dog fight is something where the PC deliberately and obviously sponsors a deathmatch betwen two animals. 

*nods*

Six brought this up also (maybe some others too), and I think that's a good reason for a virtue penalty.

However, if the virtue penalty is there because the mod is supporting the idea that killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person (human or demi-human), it needs to be applied consistantly.

[Caedwyr]

Hmm, maybe I should try to explain more.  The idea that I'm trying to get across is that it is competely immaterial whether or not the deathmatch participants are animals, self-aware robots, angels, demons, or humanoids.  It's the sponsoring an event that is meant to end in the death or destruction of one of the participants that I consider unvirtuous.

The issue I'm trying to bring up, is that the action itself can be considered a cruel one, no matter if the player is sponsering a deathmatch between two gladiators, two dogs, two slimes, or two rats.  The player is deliberately choosing to put two beings together so the player can watch the two beings kill each other.

What I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter which two beings are put in the ring for the deathmatch, sponsering a deathmatch is not a moral or virtuous thing to do.  If something needs to be executed, then that is one thing.  If something needs to be hunted, that is one thing, but sponsering any kind of fight to the death which is not necessary is not virtuous.

[Qwinn]

I agree with Caedwyr.  He puts it quite well.  It's the lack of any reason other than the pleasure of death - a manifestly evil sentiment.

Qwinn

[SixOfSpades]

.... sponsering any kind of fight to the death which is not necessary is not virtuous.

Agreed, but I would amend the "not necessary" to "not going to happen anyway." If Shank and Carbos are going to fight to the death over Bubbles, that's their decision, and there's nothing immoral with, say, asking them to hold their water for a minute and have the fight in the Coronet's dueling pit in half an hour's time. Two dogs, on the other hand, are just two dogs, who might not have even seen each other before, and there's no virtuous reason to make them fight to the death.

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.

[Caedwyr]

I'll accept your amendment

.....sponsoring any kind of fight to the death which is not going to happen anyway is not virtuous.

[belboz]

However, if the virtue penalty is there because the mod is supporting the idea that killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person (human or demi-human), it needs to be applied consistantly.

But it doesn't. One difference is the one other people have already mentioned--that it's not just *killing* the dogs, it's being actively curel to them for nothing but sadistic pleasure.

The other difference is that the virtue hits are of remarkably different size. "Killing an innocent" is listed as a -1 to -10 virtue penalty, depending on current virtue...which I assume means that the penalty will be -1 only for the characters with the most hideously evil track records already (I take it it effectively halves your current virtue?). "Sponsoring a dogfight" is a flat -1...in the vast majority of cases, it won't count as anywhere near as bad as murder.