106 réponses à ce sujet

[Kail Pendragon]

WebShaman wrote...

the ethics of cheating lies within the personal universe of the individual.

Except that this is really not about the ethics involved, but rather the core definition itself of what cheating is, and relating that to the game NWN (and I further refine it in reference to a Closed SP Environment).

Aye.

[Lightfoot8]

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...
 
I challenge anyone to post a copy of "the rules" that came with their NWN game manual/players handbook. 

 

You are kidding right?   First you state that the rules are hard coded and can not be modified.  Now you are saying there are none.   Well I guess you would not be able to cheat in multi-player either then. 

Well there is no way I am posting all of the rules, So I guess I will just post quote with this minor case of lore.  

Keep in mind that I have not heard a single person state that anybody is not allowed to break the rules in single players games.   So I really do not know what all of this fuss is about over the use or the word cheat.  It is still breaking the original rules of the game any way you look at it.   If someone enjoys giving there characters 99 strength and uber gear and storming through the OC.  Who cares,  If they enjoy themselves It is a win. After all that is why they bought the game, for the enjoyment.  

Ok, in the introduction section of the  NWN_OnlineManual.pdf that shiped with the game, there is a section called  
What’s Included in this Manual  the discription of the Third section is as follows:

The third section, Player’s Handbook, describes the Dungeons &
Dragons rules as they are used in Neverwinter Nights. The information
in this section is designed to help you understand the rules
behind the game, and to maximize your character’s interaction
with the world during the course of adventuring.

 

so anything in the The third section, Player’s Handbook, are the rules. 
In this Third section if you look up Skill Rank you will find. 

 
Ranks: Skill ranks are purchased with skill points, which are
awarded both at character creation and with each new class level.
Every skill has a rank, from 0 (no training) to 23 (maximum
ranks for a 20th-level character). Ranks are added into every
check made with the skill, so the more ranks a character has, the
better his skill checks will be.

No for how many skills points each players gets is according to there class for example:  Form the documentation that shiped with the game. 

 
FIGHTER
Fighters can be many things, from soldiers to criminal enforcers.
Some see adventure as a way to get rich, while others use their
skills to protect the innocent. Fighters have the best all-around
fighting capabilities of the PC classes, and they are trained to use
all standard weapons and armor. A fighter’s rigorous martial training
grants him many bonus feats as he progresses, and high-level
fighters have access to special melee maneuvers and exotic
weapons not available to any other character.
• Hit Die: d10.
• Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons, all armor, and
shields.
• Skill Points (*4 at 1st level): 2 + Int Modifier.

There are also other rules scattered about and packed in the entire section. in fact the section is the players rules

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

Lightfoot8 wrote...



Ok, in the introduction section of the  NWN_OnlineManual.pdf that shiped with the game, there is a section called  
What’s Included in this Manual  the discription of the Third section is as follows:

The third section, Player’s Handbook, describes the Dungeons &
Dragons rules as they are used in Neverwinter Nights. The information
in this section is designed to help you understand the rules
behind the game, and to maximize your character’s interaction
with the world during the course of adventuring.

 

so anything in the The third section, Player’s Handbook, are the rules. 


There are also other rules scattered about and packed in the entire section. in fact the section is the players rules

Alright, old friend.... let me make sure I understand where you're coming from here. You consider the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual, in its entirety, to be "the rules"? You believe altering anything that's outlined in the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual is cheating? Is that correct? And I'm just trying to establish if that's how you see it, not whether you consider it a good or bad thing.

[Lightfoot8]

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Alright, old friend.... let me make sure I understand where you're coming from here. You consider the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual, in its entirety, to be "the rules"? You believe altering anything that's outlined in the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual is cheating? Is that correct? And I'm just trying to establish if that's how you see it, not whether you consider it a good or bad thing.

 
My opinion is that It is just a crash course for a player who is not familiar with AD&D, that the game is based off of. To help them understand the rules.  The rules are by no means all inclusive nor all binding.   Nor do I think that changing things always counts as cheating.   It really comes down to intent.   For example adding a Hench AI, Does not give a henchman any more power then the rules of AD&D allows,  It just gives the player better control and more options.   It is really the intent for the changing/modifying of the rules.  If the sole reason is to give your PC an advantage over the other creatures in the game it is cheating.  I would also say that the rules apply to the OC only.  Even though they could apply to other modules, it is the builder/creator of the module that is responsible for balancing out there game.   It is there sweat and vision that gives us all the great modules that are out there.   When rules they implement into there creation are tweaked and   we break the rules that they  have laid  out, we unbalance there creation  In a Well written module it is the balance of the rules vs the content that is the hardest thing to get right.   Modifying the rules to ones own advantage in such a module removes something that the builder put a lot of work into.   So to me even without a book that comes along with the game, It is cheating to grant the PC anything other then just what they get by normal play.    

But lets face it.   There is nothing wrong with the player doing just that.   If I am playing  Klondike solitaire and get to a place where I have no moves and decide to start flipping cards one at a time instead of three at a time.  I have cheated.  Who cares Im having fun,  Or maybe getting frustrated. It does not matter I can play the game the way I want to.  I may not be cheating at my game. But I sure am cheating at   Klondike solitaire.  

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

Lightfoot8 wrote...

My opinion is that It is just a crash course for a player who is not familiar with AD&D, that the game is based off of. To help them understand the rules.  The rules are by no means all inclusive nor all binding.   Nor do I think that changing things always counts as cheating.   It really comes down to intent.   For example adding a Hench AI, Does not give a henchman any more power then the rules of AD&D allows,  It just gives the player better control and more options.   It is really the intent for the changing/modifying of the rules.  If the sole reason is to give your PC an advantage over the other creatures in the game it is cheating.  I would also say that the rules apply to the OC only.  Even though they could apply to other modules, it is the builder/creator of the module that is responsible for balancing out there game.   It is there sweat and vision that gives us all the great modules that are out there.   When rules they implement into there creation are tweaked and   we break the rules that they  have laid  out, we unbalance there creation  In a Well written module it is the balance of the rules vs the content that is the hardest thing to get right.   Modifying the rules to ones own advantage in such a module removes something that the builder put a lot of work into.   So to me even without a book that comes along with the game, It is cheating to grant the PC anything other then just what they get by normal play.    

Here's how I see it. It makes no difference whether it's someone using the console to change "The Game", or someone using scripts, haks, overrides, etc. to change "The Game". If the first person is using the console to change the game, and the second person is using scripts, haks, etc. to change the game, the bottom line is they're both changing "The Game" to the way they think it should be played, from the way it was originally designed by the game creators and shipped in the box. The game allows for both methods to be used by anyone who wishes to use them in any way they wish to use them. 

Now, the reason I've been involved in this at all is because I noticed there were a lot of people who used the term "cheater" in a derrogotory manor, and to insinuate that anyone who changed "The Game" by use of the console was some how morally inferior to those who change "The Game" by the use of scripts, haks, etc. The truth is neither is any different than the other. Both methods, whether  you're creating a module or just playing one, is the same result. You've changed the game from it's original format to the way you think it should be played. You can argue that using the scripts and haks to create a module is different than using the console to change one because you're trying to "balance" it, but it still boils down to changing "The Game" to the way you think it should be played. The Game was balanced by the game creators when they put it on the market. If you don't like the way they balanced it, and you change it with either method, then either both scenarios are cheating, or neither is. Taking something away from/giving something to one group, gives an advantage to another, whether it's your PC that's benefiting, or the NPC's. Console or toolset... it makes no difference. Changing the game to the way you think it should be played is either cheating or it isn't, no matter which method you use. 

Modifié par Gregor Wyrmbane, 14 septembre 2011 - 02:18 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Lightfoot8 wrote...

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Alright, old friend.... let me make sure I understand where you're coming from here. You consider the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual, in its entirety, to be "the rules"? You believe altering anything that's outlined in the "Players Handbook" section of the Game Manual is cheating? Is that correct? And I'm just trying to establish if that's how you see it, not whether you consider it a good or bad thing.

 
My opinion is that It is just a crash course for a player who is not familiar with AD&D, that the game is based off of. To help them understand the rules.  The rules are by no means all inclusive nor all binding.   Nor do I think that changing things always counts as cheating.   It really comes down to intent.   For example adding a Hench AI, Does not give a henchman any more power then the rules of AD&D allows,  It just gives the player better control and more options.   It is really the intent for the changing/modifying of the rules.  If the sole reason is to give your PC an advantage over the other creatures in the game it is cheating.  I would also say that the rules apply to the OC only.  Even though they could apply to other modules, it is the builder/creator of the module that is responsible for balancing out there game.   It is there sweat and vision that gives us all the great modules that are out there.   When rules they implement into there creation are tweaked and   we break the rules that they  have laid  out, we unbalance there creation  In a Well written module it is the balance of the rules vs the content that is the hardest thing to get right.   Modifying the rules to ones own advantage in such a module removes something that the builder put a lot of work into.   So to me even without a book that comes along with the game, It is cheating to grant the PC anything other then just what they get by normal play.    

But lets face it.   There is nothing wrong with the player doing just that.   If I am playing  Klondike solitaire and get to a place where I have no moves and decide to start flipping cards one at a time instead of three at a time.  I have cheated.  Who cares Im having fun,  Or maybe getting frustrated. It does not matter I can play the game the way I want to.  I may not be cheating at my game. But I sure am cheating at   Klondike solitaire.  

No you have not cheated. But how to expect someone who self admittedly stopped educating himself to understand what cheating means? Time to go back to school, dude!

[Shadooow]

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Here's how I see it. It makes no difference whether it's someone using the console to change "The Game", or someone using scripts, haks, overrides, etc. to change "The Game". If the first person is using the console to change the game, and the second person is using scripts, haks, etc. to change the game, the bottom line is they're both changing "The Game" to the way they think it should be played, from the way it was originally designed by the game creators and shipped in the box. The game allows for both methods to be used by anyone who wishes to use them in any way they wish to use them. 

Now, the reason I've been involved in this at all is because I noticed there were a lot of people who used the term "cheater" in a derrogotory manor, and to insinuate that anyone who changed "The Game" by use of the console was some how morally inferior to those who change "The Game" by the use of scripts, haks, etc. The truth is neither is any different than the other. Both methods, whether  you're creating a module or just playing one, is the same result. You've changed the game from it's original format to the way you think it should be played. You can argue that using the scripts and haks to create a module is different than using the console to change one because you're trying to "balance" it, but it still boils down to changing "The Game" to the way you think it should be played. The Game was balanced by the game creators when they put it on the market. If you don't like the way they balanced it, and you change it with either method, then either both scenarios are cheating, or neither is. Taking something away from/giving something to one group, gives an advantage to another, whether it's your PC that's benefiting, or the NPC's. Console or toolset... it makes no difference. Changing the game to the way you think it should be played is either cheating or it isn't, no matter which method you use. 

There are three subjects:
1) player character
you can certainly change your player character, by doing that you dont
change neither game client or module, doing this is obvious cheating

2) module
I have also not seen any module modification, if the module is online
then you cant, if its in single player still most players dont know how
and it also is pointless as you cant change the module after you already
saved it.

3) game client
you can get override from vault that will let you for example take any class without needed alignment. Now this is the game client modification that also applies for any single player module.

[Kail Pendragon]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Here's how I see it. It makes no difference whether it's someone using the console to change "The Game", or someone using scripts, haks, overrides, etc. to change "The Game". If the first person is using the console to change the game, and the second person is using scripts, haks, etc. to change the game, the bottom line is they're both changing "The Game" to the way they think it should be played, from the way it was originally designed by the game creators and shipped in the box. The game allows for both methods to be used by anyone who wishes to use them in any way they wish to use them. 

Now, the reason I've been involved in this at all is because I noticed there were a lot of people who used the term "cheater" in a derrogotory manor, and to insinuate that anyone who changed "The Game" by use of the console was some how morally inferior to those who change "The Game" by the use of scripts, haks, etc. The truth is neither is any different than the other. Both methods, whether  you're creating a module or just playing one, is the same result. You've changed the game from it's original format to the way you think it should be played. You can argue that using the scripts and haks to create a module is different than using the console to change one because you're trying to "balance" it, but it still boils down to changing "The Game" to the way you think it should be played. The Game was balanced by the game creators when they put it on the market. If you don't like the way they balanced it, and you change it with either method, then either both scenarios are cheating, or neither is. Taking something away from/giving something to one group, gives an advantage to another, whether it's your PC that's benefiting, or the NPC's. Console or toolset... it makes no difference. Changing the game to the way you think it should be played is either cheating or it isn't, no matter which method you use. 

There are three subjects:
1) player character
you can certainly change your player character, by doing that you dont
change neither game client or module, doing this is obvious cheating

Not at all, nothing done in SP is obviously cheating since there can be no cheating in SP. It is obviously playing the game as one wishes to play it. And that is all.

[WebShaman]

What ARE you talking about??!!

There are three subjects:
1) player character
you can certainly change your player character, by doing that you dont
change neither game client or module, doing this is obvious cheating

Assuming that we are playing in a Closed SP Environment, I can change the game client, module, character .bic, or just about anything else, and it is factually not cheating. I am allowed to do this. I have ultimate authority to do this. No-one has a higher authority than myself here in my Closed SP Environment. I allow myself to change whatever and however I wish - and there is no way that it can be considered cheating. Nobody is being cheated on.

2) module
I have also not seen any module modification, if the module is online
then you cant, if its in single player still most players dont know how
and it also is pointless as you cant change the module after you already
saved it.

One can make changes to online mods - I don't think that needs to be explored here further, as it is obviously cheating if it is done against the will of the Owners of said Mod. And obviously I can change a mod after saving it - just make changes to the saved mod...I mean...huh? This is normally how building is done! Do some changes, save mod, do some more, save, rinse, repeat...

3) game client
you can get override from vault that will let you for example take any class without needed alignment. Now this is the game client modification that also applies for any single player module.

And...?? If I wish to have my classes available without particular alignment(s) in my Closed SP Environment, then I will. I have decided this. These are my rules. I made them. You play as you see fit. I will play as I see fit. You have absolutely no basis to call my rules "cheating" and somehow inferior to yours. I also do not have any right to insist the same about yours.

If one is playing in a Closed SP Environment, then one is playing as one sees fit according to rules that one has made up themselves and decided on. Anyone else's opinions, feelings, or thinkings about those rules are irrelevant to whether or not those rules are valid for the player in question.

There is simply no cheating in a Closed SP Environment. Period. It is not logically, scientifically possible. With the notable exception (exceptions prove the rule) that someone has multiple personalities.

[Queensilverwing]

Hrmm Interesting thread...

I think I tend to agree with webShaman and others here when they say that you are not cheating if playing in a closed SP environment.

It could I suppose, be argued that one is cheating against the game and how the mod authors intended the game to be played. But then, since the game is just that, a game, and the authors intentions are not hard and fast rules, the only person you could be cheating against would be yourself. Assuming you see it that way, and depending upon the reasons you're in the game at the time.

For instance, I started to play the NWN2 OC, and I enjoyed it for the most part. However, I was at the stage where the fighting became boring for me and all I really wanted to know was how the story went. I found the story to be gripping, and that became my first and only, priority.

So I used the console to enable me to kill all enemy within the area (rather than God Mode which would have meant I still had to kill the baddies) and moved through the story that way. I also out of curiosity increased my reputation points with certain companions just so I could see how different they would be towards me. *grins* I much preferred Sten when he was a grumpy chops to the soppy fellow he became when I did that!

In NWN1 I often use the console to check details (as well as the toolset to see how areas were made, look at scripts etc) and move from one area to another. If I were playing a mod and I missed something vital way back somewhere, I'd use the console to jump back to that area to retrieve it. I don't consider it cheating, simply furthering my own gaming enjoyment in a SP environment. The only exception is when I've reviewed, then I'm happy to play the game as the author intended.

BioWare made those console commands available when releasing the game, I don't think they would have if they had not accepted or wanted, the players to have the option of using them *shrugs*

LOL, let's face it, I don't think BioWare had any idea of how far the NWN1 community would actually take their game!

[Hardcore UFO]

Too many things are being referred to by the same word here for either side's argument to be comprehensive or cohesive.

This is what I am seeing here: "there's no one to cheat, therefore it isn't cheating" where "cheating" refers to some automatic acceptance of authority in non-SP cases. This is not opposed to the argument that "using the console in SP is cheating" because people mean different things by "cheating".

There is the legal definition, the popular definition, and the dictionary definition - all of which are words which cannot provide proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" in the absence of an authority figure like a judge to support the illusion that this is possible.

[WebShaman]

EXCEPT that in a Closed SP Environment, the higher authority is the Player in question. There is no absence of an authority figure here. The Player themself is the highest authority.

Please look at QSW's post. She can do anything she wishes with her Closed SP game, and it is not cheating. She is making the rules for herself to play by. No-one else is. She is the highest authority in her Closed SP Environment.

There is no second person (observer) involved, either.

[Elhanan]

Personally I like Lore, though I recall Vulcano may have been opposed as he is in the business, I believe. He may have posted some Haks of this, as well as his Crafting Hak on the Vault

Edit: Nope; he disliked Appraise; reason for the Haks. Sorry.

Modifié par Elhanan, 17 septembre 2011 - 02:26 .

[Queensilverwing]

Hardcore UFO wrote...

There is the legal definition, the popular definition, and the dictionary definition - all of which are words which cannot provide proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" in the absence of an authority figure like a judge to support the illusion that this is possible.

That's the English language for you, always twisting and turning like a snake, just waiting to strike! *Grins*

Let's look at a few simple examples here maybe?

I have the PGCC mods, where I can create a new PC and customise it to my personal specifications. But, the PGCC stores do not have stacked items, namely healing pots or scrolls etc. I really hate having to buy one item at a time, so I go into the toolset and I create and place into the stores stacks of 10 items for the things I use a lot. Heals pots, scrolls, kits. I also while I am there place a very large sum of money which upon each click I can buy for a few GP. I will need money to customise and build my custom armour and weapons at the forge. I could alter the scripts on the forge so that it cost me nothing, but my way is easier for me...plus I always have a quick supply of gold whenever I go into PGCC.

Is that cheating? I don't see it that way. I see it as modifying a character crator module to my specific needs and wants. From the PGCC I can go into any SP environment I want and play a game, with gear I have created for that module and the class/level my PC is. If I am using a level 4 PC all my gear may well have enhancements for that level or a level higher.

I find quite often that module authors have a crypt, and within that dank place is a mummy that my un-enhanced hammer/longsword cannot hurt. I'm not the running type, so I'll be sure to have a basic +1 sword to chop it to bits at my leisure. Is that cheating, or rectifying a problem the mod author did not take into consideration?

Now, say I start a new module with a lvl 1 PC. My intention is to play that module as the author intended, but I really want my PC to look like I want her/him to look. So I bring in a customised PC but it has no other equipment apart from what the mod author provides. After several hours and levels I find a decided lack of imagination within the stores. Either the equipment is far too expensive for my PC to ever be able to afford such gear or non-existent. I like the setting, but I dislike the restrictions because, rather than add to my enjoyment or the game, they are impeding my progress and my enjoyment. Well heck, I've invested several hours of gaming here, I like the story and I can see from experience, that given the chance I could continue to have a lot of challenging encounters if only I could afford that darn blade at the store in town. Did I miss some big payout quest? Did the author simply not know how the lack was ruining the game for me...or was the author testing with his/her own god like PC and using their own judgement that a low level PC would have a challenge?

Well, a little gold handed to my PC via the console will correct my problems, and I go and buy that sword and mebbe even that sweet looking armour. For the next few hours I have a great time, I complete the module to my satisfaction.

Since I am the only person in that game, my own preferences and desires outweigh that of the module authors. I am the only person who is affected, thus I can do whatever I wish without hurting another single human being by my actions. I make the rules...because I can.

The only time I can be 'cheating' is if I am playing with another PC in MP. Then we decide upon the rules before gaming starts, and those rules will include things like items, weapons and customisations of our PC. We will more than likely play together in the manner intended by the author within a world created for exactly that purpose. Unless of course, my gaming partner and I both decide to change the rules together...then of course we are not cheating, we are simply playing in a manner that we both prefer

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion, there are so many angles that different people see the issue of cheating from. In the end, I think, whatever is good for YOU as a single player, is not cheating. Why would a person deliberately cheat themselves...it isn't human (or dragon!) nature

[ffbj]

It;s cheating just a milder/different form of it, there are degrees of cheating.
For instance to use another game, Chess, as an example. In a sp game against my chess program, which is very hard to beat rated about 2900 if that means anything to anyone. You can play in a rated game in which you can't cheat, that is you can't take back a move. While if you play it training mode you can alter your moves, explore different lines, etc... though you can't actually give yourself a piece and take another piece from the machine player. That refers to the degree. So this sp proof of no cheating sort of falls flat. Anyhow that is my opinion on this topic.
Anyhow I think the saying: 'Methinks thou protests too loudly' sort of applies here too. In that if it really wasn't cheating then why bother with continually arguing the point, and even if you get a number of people to agree with you, that it is not cheating, that means very little. If you wish to have an opinion that it is not cheating, fine, but please stop arguing that your opinion is a fact.
That's my opinion and that's a fact Jack.
Done with this forever.

Modifié par ffbj, 17 septembre 2011 - 06:00 .

[Kail Pendragon]

ffbj wrote...

It;s cheating just a milder/different form of it, there are degrees of cheating.

Idiocy.

For instance to use another game, Chess, as an example. In a sp game against my chess program, which is very hard to beat rated about 2900 if that means anything to anyone. You can play in a rated game in which you can't cheat, that is you can't take back a move.

Which in SP is not cheating at all.

While if you play it training mode you can alter your moves, explore different lines, etc... though you can't actually give yourself a piece and take another piece from the machine player. That refers to the degree. So this sp proof of no cheating sort of falls flat.

Based on what? On a game that can be played with different settings? Just like NWN which has inbuilt difficulty levels and consolle commands not to mention the other endless possibilities of customization? Sorry to break your delusion, but the proof stands rock strong as ever.

Anyhow that is my opinion on this topic.

And as already said your opinion is irrelevant: the facts are that it is not possible to cheat in SP. Keep living in the middle ages and think the Earth is at the center of the universe; it won't change reality.

Anyhow I think the saying: 'Methinks thou protests too loudly' sort of applies here too. In that if it really wasn't cheating then why bother with continually arguing the point

Because fools need to be shut up (since it's not allowed to get rid of them permanently).

and even if you get a number of people to agree with you, that it is not cheating, that means very little.

Indeed. It just means there are some who have intelligence of the matter. As said elsewhere, no opinion changes the fact it is not possible to cheat in SP.

If you wish to have an opinion that it is not cheating

It' snot an opinion, it's a statement of fact. Same as it's not an opinion 4+4=8.

fine, but please stop arguing that your opinion is a fact.

Nice strawman. It's the delusional believers there can be cheating in SP that are arguing; arguing their unfounded, uneducated and unintelligent opinion against a recognized and rather self evident fact. Those that recognize the fact for what it is, do not argue; they simply state the obvious and they do so against the foolishness of delusional minds.

That's my opinion and that's a fact Jack.

It' s a fact that is your opinion. But your opinion does not constitute any fact, and as such is simply irrelevant.

Done with this forever.

Good. Less idiocy being spammed around from now on.

[Elhanan]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Good. Less idiocy being spammed around from now on.

Evidently not....

[Queensilverwing]

Oh my!

I didn't really want to be part of a war, I'm really not that kind of dragon at all. I much prefer slurping tea and eating fresh cream scones. I haven't eaten a warrior for an age.

No really, I'm perfectly OK with those of you who have the opinion that my personal modifications could be viewed as cheating. I'm happy to allow you the right to your opinion, after all, different views make up the world so why not here?

I don't feel it is that way for me, and I'm OK with that as well. I really don't feel the need to prove or change your mind. Merely discussing the differences in our personal views was fun; I'm not in it to change your mind

This has been enlightening though, I forgot how err athletic forums posts could get!

Be well all

*Bows*

QSW

[Kail Pendragon]

Elhanan wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Good. Less idiocy being spammed around from now on.

Evidently not....

Aye, since you are still around.

[_Guile]

4 + 4 = (10 - 2 + 6 )  3 / 5.25

Just saying...

------------------------------------

Anyway, to answer the OP...

~

DebugMode 1

SetINT 98

& you would be able to ID ANYTHING in the game, trust me, I'm a salesman.

Modifié par _Guile, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:32 .

[Elhanan]

^ I had thought the same thing, but Skill Pts will also rise creating new issues to resolve.

[Kail Pendragon]

One can choose not to use extra skillpoints on lvl up... of course one has to track how many skillpoints he would have had without the extra int. A piece of custom gear granting +50 lore is a pretty viable solution, as is letoing the character (and not having ELC turned on).

[WebShaman]

QSW, you are not part of the "war" (whatever that is) - you stated what you wished to on the topic, explained your reasoning, provided examples, and everything in a pleasant, rational manner.

You even provide room for others to have differing opinions.

That is far different than trying to prove something here, IMHO.

Thank you for taking some of your time to post in this thread.  I personally enjoyed it.

On to Elhanan -

"If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself" (Gal 6:3)

Heh.  That is in no means a definition, it is opinion stated as fact (which is obviously is not).  Who is "deciding" that someone is nothing?

IMHO, nobody is "nothing"!  What a withering, horrible thing to say about someone.  It is also impossible (you simply cannot be "nothing" - it is a logical fallacy.  At the very least, you are the material of which you are composed of, IF nothing more).

As it is impossible to be nothing, the rest of the statement then is not relevant, and as I have proved before (and again), one cannot deceive themselves (for, one cannot simply be "nothing", can one?  Therefore, one must be something.  As such, one cannot deceive oneself accordingly).



Please continue to use that as a sig!  It is the best evidence so far in a sig that one cannot deceive oneself and that it is impossible to cheat in a Closed SP Environment!!!

[Elhanan]

WebShaman wrote...

On to Elhanan -

"If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself" (Gal 6:3)

Heh.  That is in no means a definition, it is opinion stated as fact (which is obviously is not).  Who is "deciding" that someone is nothing?

IMHO, nobody is "nothing"!  What a withering, horrible thing to say about someone.  It is also impossible (you simply cannot be "nothing" - it is a logical fallacy.  At the very least, you are the material of which you are composed of, IF nothing more).

As it is impossible to be nothing, the rest of the statement then is not relevant, and as I have proved before (and again), one cannot deceive themselves (for, one cannot simply be "nothing", can one?  Therefore, one must be something.  As such, one cannot deceive oneself accordingly).


Please continue to use that as a sig!  It is the best evidence so far in a sig that one cannot deceive oneself and that it is impossible to cheat in a Closed SP Environment!!!

Will do, WS. Take a glance at Gal 6:1-5 for the immediate context.

This speaks of gently restoring a brother caught in a sin, bearing each other's burdens, and testing one's own actions. Then that person can take pride in themselves w/o comparing themselves to others. This quoted verse seems to suggest that a brother that deems themselves too great for such a task is incorrect in their self-evaluation.

I never offered this verse as proof of some silly debate on cheating and solo gaming; only my own agreement on the subject of self-deception.

And there are others: "Do not deceive yourselves. If one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight."  ( I Cor 3:18-19a).. Or in Jer37:9, the prophet was told to inform the King that he was deceiving himself if he believed the Babylonians would withdraw and leave them alone.

A figure of speech? Perhaps, but one in which I agree completely.

[Kail Pendragon]

Elhanan wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

On to Elhanan -

"If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself" (Gal 6:3)

Heh.  That is in no means a definition, it is opinion stated as fact (which is obviously is not).  Who is "deciding" that someone is nothing?

IMHO, nobody is "nothing"!  What a withering, horrible thing to say about someone.  It is also impossible (you simply cannot be "nothing" - it is a logical fallacy.  At the very least, you are the material of which you are composed of, IF nothing more).

As it is impossible to be nothing, the rest of the statement then is not relevant, and as I have proved before (and again), one cannot deceive themselves (for, one cannot simply be "nothing", can one?  Therefore, one must be something.  As such, one cannot deceive oneself accordingly).


Please continue to use that as a sig!  It is the best evidence so far in a sig that one cannot deceive oneself and that it is impossible to cheat in a Closed SP Environment!!!

Will do, WS. Take a glance at Gal 6:1-5 for the immediate context.

This speaks of gently restoring a brother caught in a sin, bearing each other's burdens, and testing one's own actions. Then that person can take pride in themselves w/o comparing themselves to others. This quoted verse seems to suggest that a brother that deems themselves too great for such a task is incorrect in their self-evaluation.

I never offered this verse as proof of some silly debate on cheating and solo gaming; only my own agreement on the subject of self-deception.

Your own agreement to falsehood, since deceiving oneself is not possible.

And there are others: "Do not deceive yourselves. If one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight."  ( I Cor 3:18-19a).. Or in Jer37:9, the prophet was told to inform the King that he was deceiving himself if he believed the Babylonians would withdraw and leave them alone.

A figure of speech? Perhaps, but one in which I agree completely.

That explains a lot. And it doesn't make the impossibility of deceiving oneself any less impossible. Your opinion is simply worthless to the facts one cannot deceive himself nor cheat in SP. Same as those believing the Earth was in the center of the universe and that everything was revolving around it didn't change the reality of facts.