122 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Taifun]

I know I supported the "a 15 year old may count as an adult under certain circumstances" side, but please don't forget that the appeal to tradition is just another logical fallacy.
Not everything that has been done is right. I only used it as an argument to counter the "It's not appropiate in modern USA".
That said, Zaxares, you have an interesting spin on the paladin. Not quite my type, but I find it's definitely a good one. (I especially like that your paladin will get punished for every lesser evil they have been forced into)

[ncknck]

Actually it is appropriate in modern USA. Because fictional characters are not people, sad for me to even mention it but apparently it needs to be done. And are protected by freedom of expression law.

It is not appropriate in Australia, where a man was jailed for having a Lisa Simpson having sex drawn picture on his computer. No joke.

[Grond0]

He wasn't actually jailed, but fined and put under bond. However, I agree with your sentiment that it seems a bizarre decision - the rationale for this is that under the law in Australia a "person" includes "fictional or imaginary characters".

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Grond0 wrote...
the rationale for this is that under the law in Australia a "person" includes "fictional or imaginary characters".

Maybe otherwise the government wouldn't have gotten enough votes?

[Grond0]

It does open the intriguing possibility that one fictional character could be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm to another - the jails would fill up with cartoon characters in no time!

[BelgarathMTH]

I've mostly been reading this discussion without piping in, but since issues of logic are being brought up, isn't there a limit to how helpful the application of logic can be in a discussion about ethics? Some people make choices from a theory of ethics that gives great weight to individual "gut feelings" about "right" and "wrong".

It is possible to create a coherent theory of ethics based on the idea that human beings are gifted with reliable intuitions about ethical questions, whether from biology, evolution, social psychology, or a "god" posed by a religion. We could argue about whether such an ethical theory is a good one, or the best one, but it does exist. I have read many posts from people who are arguing from their emotions, and sometimes I do the same thing. Being influenced by emotion is part of being human.

In ethics, people are very likely to become emotional, because matters of ethics concern how people are to be treated by other people. The ethical question "What should be the age of consent for sexual relationships?' is fraught with difficulty in any society. In the end, some kind of decision has to be made that protects the vulnerable younger segment of the society from predation without unnecessarily or wrongly curtailing the freedom of the adult members of the society. In fact, the entire concept of adulthood has to be defined and agreed upon by the members of the society.

In the USA, the present-day society has agreed upon the age of 16 for driving privileges (being raised higher in some districts), 18 for sexual consent, voting, and military service, and 21 for drinking alcohol. The age of sexual consent in particular is enforced not only through the criminal justice system, but also by very strong social taboo. The taboo is why some people are reacting with such strong emotion to the mod with the fiteen-year old romantic relationship.

More to the thread topic of "lawful good", I think that Gygax actually did create a system of ethics that is coherent enough to at least warrant serious consideration because it generates many interesting problems for ethical discussion.

As the original poster was asking about a specific application of Gygax's theory of role-playing ethics, namely the problem of Prism and the bounty hunter, I will say that, as a person who always plays lawful good or neutral good, I take the fourth choice of trying to reason with the bounty hunter. I can't help it that he tries to kill my friends and me just for trying to talk to him (a clearly evil act, by the way.)

I also find it a weakness in the story writing that there is not a satisfactory resolution given for lawful good characters, which others here have said. Baldur's Gate has a great game story, with lots of subplots, but it's not perfect.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

BelgarathMTH wrote...
I've mostly been reading this discussion without piping in, but since issues of logic are being brought up, isn't there a limit to how helpful the application of logic can be in a discussion about ethics? Some people make choices from a theory of ethics that gives great weight to individual "gut feelings" about "right" and "wrong".

I think you have a very common misconception of logic.
Logic is not the opposite of emotion or ethics.
It is rather a tool that enables us to think in straight lines, not just with mathematics, but also with things such as ethics or anything else, similarly to how athletics, while not being all that musical on its own, can not only help you in martial arts (or basket ball), but also during a dance.
If a human cannot remain logical during a train of thought, that has roughly the same consequenses as when a computer miscalculates.

It is possible to create a coherent theory of ethics based on the idea
that human beings are gifted with reliable intuitions about ethical
questions, whether from biology, evolution, social psychology,

That would be one bold move.
Of course, we have all been trained from childhood, so we already have some sort of programming (or intuitions, if you want to use that term), but unless we cross-check them properly (and logically), they'll often conflict with each other (yes, even the intuitions of a single person). For example, a man may on the one hand have come used to the idea that he is the one to earn the money, while at the same time firmly believing in emancipation and women's rights. Such a man might expect his wife to stay home, and while he would allow her to take a job (because he believes in equal rights), he would feel very awkward about the situation (and the relationship would very likely suffer from that).
This is gut feelings. Do you want to create an entire country's laws on such a shaky foundation?

In the USA, the present-day society has agreed upon the age of 16 for driving privileges (being raised higher in some districts), 18 for sexual consent, voting, and military service, and 21 for drinking alcohol. The age of sexual consent in particular is enforced not only through the criminal justice system, but also by very strong social taboo. The taboo is why some people are reacting with such strong emotion to the mod with the fiteen-year old romantic relationship.

Of course. I expected a real flame war when I started this discussion.

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 26 septembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[Pipboy3billion]

Of course. I expected a real flame war when I started this discussion.

Yeah, I figured you for a troll shortly before I checked out of the conversation.

As far as I'm concerned, the conversation should be over. So, I'm pulling the thread back on track with another ethical dilemma. This time it's between Aldeth Sashenstar and Seniyad and Cloakwood. I actually googled the hell out of this one because there really is no good answer, and I mean not even a grey area. They both took out one of the other's party and you don't really know who started it, not that it matters too much. If you base it on attitudes I'm not too keen on Aldeth's sense of entitlement, nor Seniyad's penchant for excessive force. However, we are in Seniyad's territory.

And also, isn't he supposed to be the Archdruid for Jah's sect? At least, that's what I read online. You would think that having Jah in your party (which I do) would alter that interaction. Because Jah's in my party, and Aldeth doesn't seem like a good person, I would think to side with Seniyad, However, the only dialogue option that suggests a peaceful solution requires siding with Aldeth. I'm leaning toward the latter, but this seems like the reverse of the Prism situation in a lot of ways.

Looking at the larger picture, I'm starting to regret playing (specifically trying to RP) a Paladin. I thought it would be interesting as genuinely doing the LG thing as you would have to miss out on a lot of potential powerful stuff by taking the high road, but the lack of a high road is kind of killing it for me.

It's already been stated that it gets much worse in BG2, I'm thinking of going a different character route; preferably with CG alignment potential. However, I can't think of any other single-class build that I can play through the whole series, that would consistently be a solid frontliner, and have some interesting specials/tricks. I mean:

Ranger - Has specials, but are pretty lame. Stealth, who needs it? Weaker spellcasting than the Paladin. A couple free points in two weapon? Big deal. And, the kits suck for a front-liner.

Thief->Swash or Bard->Blade - Weak frontliners for BG1, and barely average for BG2.

Fighter->Beserker - One trick pony.

Fighter -> Kensai - same story, but much weaker defense

Did I miss anything?

[Grond0]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
As far as I'm concerned, the conversation should be over. So, I'm pulling the thread back on track with another ethical dilemma. This time it's between Aldeth Sashenstar and Seniyad and Cloakwood. I actually googled the hell out of this one because there really is no good answer, and I mean not even a grey area. They both took out one of the other's party and you don't really know who started it, not that it matters too much. If you base it on attitudes I'm not too keen on Aldeth's sense of entitlement, nor Seniyad's penchant for excessive force. However, we are in Seniyad's territory.

I'm not sure why you think there should be a route through every quest perfectly adapted for a LG player.  Surely you wouldn't expect that for every alignment, so what's so special about LG?  All it means is that the paladin has to choose sometimes between imperfect options - nothing wrong with that.  Zaxares mentioned one possible way to role-play this situation earlier in the thread.

I'm thinking of going a different character route; preferably with CG alignment potential. However, I can't think of any other single-class build that I can play through the whole series, that would consistently be a solid frontliner, and have some interesting specials/tricks. I mean:

Ranger - Has specials, but are pretty lame. Stealth, who needs it? Weaker spellcasting than the Paladin. A couple free points in two weapon? Big deal. And, the kits suck for a front-liner.

Thief->Swash or Bard->Blade - Weak frontliners for BG1, and barely average for BG2.

Fighter->Beserker - One trick pony.

Fighter -> Kensai - same story, but much weaker defense

Did I miss anything?

I can only think you're indulging in a spot of trolling yourself here!

Ranger - stealth is a hugely beneficial ability and being able to cast spells at all is a significant benefit.  A buffed up ranger with the right equipment can laugh at most enemies in BG2.

Blade - one of the strongest possible characters in the game.  Needs a bit of patience to make best use of them, but there is no other class with so many specials / tricks (which you say you want).

Berserker - may be limited, but it's a great limitation!

Wizard Slayer - I suspect you'll say you want more tricks, but a wizard slayer will really complement a party.

Barbarian - another character that can get impressive physical resistance.  The movement advantage can be nice, as can the immunity to backstabs - and of course you can always go berserk as well.

A final thought on specials / tricks - what do you class HLAs as?

[AnonymousHero]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

Of course. I expected a real flame war when I started this discussion.

Yeah, I figured you for a troll shortly before I checked out of the conversation.

I think you may have missed some sarcasm.

Even so, given some of your posts, I don't think you get to call anyone troll.

[Pipboy3billion]

I can only think you're indulging in a spot of trolling yourself here!

Whoa...let's nip that one in the bud. There's nothing wrong with any of the classes I mentioned. They just aren't a great fit for the particular role I had in mind.

Ranger - stealth is a hugely beneficial ability and being able to cast spells at all is a significant benefit. A buffed up ranger with the right equipment can laugh at most enemies in BG2.

Ok, I'm open to this. Is stealth all that special considering you can get potions of invis and a wizard to cast the same? Not to mention, as a front-liner you can't stealth in plate. As for the spells, the first few levels of druid spells aren't all that great. The only L2/L3 spells I see being regularly useful for BG2 would be Summon Insects and maybe Charm Person, though probably not even the latter considering the hefty save bonus. The best low level divine spells (DUHM, AoF, Animate Dead, etc.) are all cleric spells.

Is this buffed up ranger any better than the same buffed up fighter? Probably not considering the ranger will be further behind in levels.

Blade - one of the strongest possible characters in the game. Needs a bit of patience to make best use of them, but there is no other class with so many specials / tricks (which you say you want).

Great on specials (probably the best), but not so great on being a front-liner for most of the game. For all of BG1, he'll have to camp in the back. Even in BG2, it will be a while before he can really hold his own, and this is assuming you cheese-rest to keep refreshing spins.

Berserker - may be limited, but it's a great limitation!

You're right, Rage is probably the best special in the game. At least that's what I hear. But I think it would get pretty uninteresting fast.

Wizard Slayer - I suspect you'll say you want more tricks, but a wizard slayer will really complement a party.

You're right again, I do want more tricks. Also, I can't see the protagonist being a wizard slayer having been raised by a wizard. RP-wise it just doesn't jive with me.

As for the Barb, can't play one in BG1 (without Tutu/BGT which I don't really want). If I was going to go that route, I'd probably do a monk instead anyway.

A final thought on specials / tricks - what do you class HLAs as?

HLAs count as specials in my book.

You know, if it wasn't for the APR, I would actually go cleric. I like the priest spells better than druid spells. Decent HP, decent THAC0 (especially with buffs). Pretty much the only gear limitation is blunt weapons, but there are plenty of good ones to go around. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm thinking of a dualed Fighter/Cleric, but dualed early (at level 7) just to address the APR issue. Sure it's not single classed, but spending 64,000 out of 8,000,000 xp in a different class is hardly anything. I suppose I could dual-wield, but I'm tempted to go with single weapon just because it sounds more interesting and less cheesy. Also, while I could take a Berserker kit for the buffs, I would probably SK it a cleric kit.for the flavor.

Of course, if I'm opening the door to a bit of dualing, there's always the FM, which I would still dual at 7, but SK it to a Fighter/Wild Mage just because I dig wild surges. Probably stronger than the cleric, even w/o Kensaging or dualing at L12.

Actually, yeah, this is what I'm trying to settle on:

1) Fighter (7)/Cleric of Lathander(X)
2) Fighter (7)/Wild Mage (X)
3) any other slightly dualed suggestion that I haven't thought of.

Thoughts?

[Grond0]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

Ranger - stealth is a hugely beneficial ability and being able to cast spells at all is a significant benefit. A buffed up ranger with the right equipment can laugh at most enemies in BG2.

Ok, I'm open to this. Is stealth all that special considering you can get potions of invis and a wizard to cast the same? Not to mention, as a front-liner you can't stealth in plate. As for the spells, the first few levels of druid spells aren't all that great. The only L2/L3 spells I see being regularly useful for BG2 would be Summon Insects and maybe Charm Person, though probably not even the latter considering the hefty save bonus. The best low level divine spells (DUHM, AoF, Animate Dead, etc.) are all cleric spells.

Is this buffed up ranger any better than the same buffed up fighter? Probably not considering the ranger will be further behind in levels.

Stealth has some advantages over invisibility - unlimited in uses, not dependent on others, can use non-detection.  Plenty of dragon scales available in BG2.  Armour of faith is a significant benefit to a ranger over a fighter.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Yeah, I figured you for a troll shortly before I checked out of the conversation.

Don't do that. Seriously.

This time it's between Aldeth Sashenstar and Seniyad and Cloakwood. I actually googled the hell out of this one because there really is no good answer, and I mean not even a grey area. [...] And also, isn't he supposed to be the Archdruid for Jah's sect? At least, that's what I read online. You would think that having Jah in your party (which I do) would alter that interaction.

Yeah, that's the advantage of mods. The BG1 NPC Project offers you a solution for this special case.
Besides, these are my personal thoughts (if you'd still be willing to hear them) :

It would be nice if the two parties could stop fighting for long enough for you to make some investigations and give out appropiate punishment. But as they aren't, and as it is the druids who are unwilling to talk rather than kill, you must protect Aldeth. If further investigation turned up evidence against him, then that'd be the point where he would be punished.
Attacking while unwilling to talk, even though that may mean dragging innocent people into the fight, is evil.

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Ok, I'm open to this. Is stealth all that special considering you can get potions of invis and a wizard to cast the same?

Depends on whether you want to do some backstabbing (as a stalker).

Not to mention, as a front-liner you can't stealth in plate.

Since a stalker can't wear plate, that's not much of a problem.

The best low level divine spells (DUHM, AoF, Animate Dead, etc.) are all cleric spells.

Armor of Faith isn't.
Of course, on low levels, it isn't worth all that much yet.

Is this buffed up ranger any better than the same buffed up fighter? Probably not considering the ranger will be further behind in levels.

At high levels, nobody cares about 5 or 6 levels anymore. The only interesting thing you get from level ups as a warrior is an HLA. (mages or clerics may also get further spell slots)
Of course, at low levels, the difference exists, but it's less than 2 levels until you hit 3M XP. The powerwielding option (dualwielding) gives the ranger extra proficiency points.
Once you can combine AoF with other stuff (Hardiness and possibly Defender of Easthaven), that makes one hell of a difference.

[the blade] Great on specials (probably the best), but not so great on being a front-liner for most of the game. For all of BG1, he'll have to camp in the back. Even in BG2, it will be a while before he can really hold his own, and this is assuming you cheese-rest to keep refreshing spins.

In BG2, he pretty much is capable of level4 spells (Stoneskin) from the Getgo.
With Stoneskin, Ghost Armor, Blur and Mirror Image he's already a pretty well protected little dude. But yes, repeated rest is required for his limited spell slots.

1) Fighter (7)/Cleric of Lathander(X)

Good combination.

2) Fighter (7)/Wild Mage (X)

I hope you know that this would likely turn into a Wild Mage + extra HP?

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 27 septembre 2011 - 10:02 .

[morbidest2]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

. So, I'm pulling the thread back on track with another ethical dilemma. This time it's between Aldeth Sashenstar and Seniyad and Cloakwood. I actually googled the hell out of this one because there really is no good answer, and I mean not even a grey area. They both took out one of the other's party and you don't really know who started it, not that it matters too much. If you base it on attitudes I'm not too keen on Aldeth's sense of entitlement, nor Seniyad's penchant for excessive force. However, we are in Seniyad's territory.

And also, isn't he supposed to be the Archdruid for Jah's sect? At least, that's what I read online. You would think that having Jah in your party (which I do) would alter that interaction. Because Jah's in my party, and Aldeth doesn't seem like a good person, I would think to side with Seniyad, However, the only dialogue option that suggests a peaceful solution requires siding with Aldeth. I'm leaning toward the latter, but this seems like the reverse of the Prism situation in a lot of ways.

IMHO it's possible that the Devs. were doing a takeoff on Green Peace - an organization which claims the noblest goals, but doesn't hesitate to be the first to use violence to achieve them - when they brought Druids into BG. Remember that the druids are neutral/neutral and don't hesitate to use violence against either good or evil if they perceive that AT THE MOMENT that either is threatening the BALANCE of Nature. Your LG paladin is supposed to live by a consistent, ETERNAL code and defend Good whenever he sees it threatened. He is the old Western sheriff who if he sees robbers running out of a bank starts shooting without worrying whether they had unhappy childhoods or are stealing the money to give to an orphanage. If Aldeth has the better case, defend him without brooding about it.

In BG2 you will see that Jaheira is a very unusual Druid.

[Pipboy3billion]

Stealth has some advantages over invisibility - unlimited in uses, not dependent on others, can use non-detection.

You can't use non-detection on an invisible character?

I hope you know that this would likely turn into a Wild Mage + extra HP?

What do you mean? Are you saying you can't frontline with only 7 fighter levels?

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

I hope you know that this would likely turn into a Wild Mage + extra HP?

What do you mean? Are you saying you can't frontline with only 7 fighter levels?

Of course you can. From a certain level onwards, a pure mage is better suited for the heat of battle than a pure warrior (though partial invisibility will not allow them to tank against a mage - since they can only target their spells against visible opponents*).

The point is simply that you have few APR but a lot of arcane power. Once you realize how many high level spells the Wild Mage effectively has (level 1 spells count as high level spells), during combat you will always stand before the decision: Nuke everything... or go into melee and try to hit people with a pointy stick.

A multiclass FM comparitively has a lot more melee power, but less in regards of casting ability, and even those builds often have a hard time justifying close combat at higher levels.

Oh, and non-detection: It works on SOME things. The Staff of the Magi (or Staff of the Cheese, as it is more correctly called) and stealth are the only ones I know of, though it's possible there are more.



*You may try to get around this limitation by casting Improved Invisibility on everybody, but only mages and thieves (through use of scrolls) can follow up with Spell Immunity: Divination.

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 27 septembre 2011 - 02:06 .

[Pipboy3billion]

The point is simply that you have few APR but a lot of arcane power. Once you realize how many high level spells the Wild Mage effectively has (level 1 spells count as high level spells), during combat you will always stand before the decision: Nuke everything... or go into melee and try to hit people with a pointy stick.

Unless I'm mistaken, dualed a level 7, the FM with specialization is only missing out on 1/2 APR over a pure fighter. I would think the bigger disadvantage would be THAC0. A Mage maxes out at 12, while the Cleric maxes at 6.

You're right about Reckless Dweomer, though. It's pretty sick...when it works. I would be tempted to make a wild mage a nuker, though I only intend to use arcane magic defensively. Maybe the Fighter/Cleric would be a better option. It's more melee oriented, and I'll already have a Mage in my canon party when I get Imoen back.

Oh, and non-detection: It works on SOME things. The Staff of the Magi (or Staff of the Cheese, as it is more correctly called) and stealth are the only ones I know of, though it's possible there are more.

Good to know. I thought it worked on everyone/everything.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Unless I'm mistaken, dualed a level 7, the FM with specialization is only missing out on 1/2 APR over a pure fighter. I would think the bigger disadvantage would be THAC0. A Mage maxes out at 12, while the Cleric maxes at 6.

12 - 5 (for the weapon enchantment) - 3 (for strength - easily reached, you will likely be able to get something better) - 3 (equipment and proficiency, just a random number here, which can easily be surpassed) = 1
A THAC0 of 1 isn't all that bad.
In terms of APR you should also be able to improve things with Belm or Kundane, so you might actually be rather effective (not as effective as others, but still) - but it still would be no comparison to your spell casting.

[Zaxares]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

I know I supported the "a 15 year old may count as an adult under certain circumstances" side, but please don't forget that the appeal to tradition is just another logical fallacy.
Not everything that has been done is right. I only used it as an argument to counter the "It's not appropiate in modern USA".

I was looking at it more from the view that "why would biology have given humans functioning reproductive organs during puberty if it didn't intend them to use it"? In the natural world, most animals will begin mating as soon as they are old enough to do so, and I can't think of a reason why early humans wouldn't have followed suit. Life would have been exceedingly dangerous back then, and having children earlier probably helped to strengthen one's chances of passing on one's DNA before dying.

Of course, in modern society people are living longer so having offspring early is no longer as crucial an issue. The greatest reproductive successes come from families who are economically and educationally positioned to give their children the greatest head-start in live. Biologically, there's still nothing fundamentally wrong with having children as early as 13 or 14, but the change to our social and cultural lives means that it's no longer considered acceptable or desirable to have them that soon.

I agree with you entirely that "just because something has always been done that way doesn't mean it's right", but I operate on the basis that morality and ethics are subjective. We believe that concepts like freedom of choice, gender equality and child protection are good, while things like slavery, torture and religious oppression are bad, but I imagine this is only because we grew up in a culture that indoctrinated these beliefs into us. If we had, say, been born into the Aztec culture, we'd have been perfectly fine with the idea of enslaving war captives and ritual human sacrifice. It's just the way things are done, and this is completely acceptable. The Aztecs would probably regard our beliefs and ideals as absolutely ludicrous and broken as we would regard theirs the same way.

Would I want to live in Aztec culture? Heck no! But if I'd been BORN into that culture and grew up entirely within it, I'd probably think quite differently.

[ncknck]

The thing is, Americans are puritans and their culture has currently the biggest impact on the world. This results in two things. 1. Americans thinking the law everywhere is like in the US. 2. Random people thinking their state law is like in the US. But actually in Europe, China and pretty much everywhere else the age of consent is about 14 so not really sure what the topic of discussion is. There is nothing wrong in having sex and marriage with a 14 yo. (troll statement) What i actually wanted to say is if the community and by extension the law allows it, no harm is done. Noone cares if its not allowed in the US or Alpha Centauri if youre not living there.

[morbidest2]

Do they have condoms on Toril? If so, remember to use one with 14 yr olds, since the risk of miscarriages with not fully mature young women is significantly higher than with older girls. This is the real reason so many societies throughout history (not just the USA) have an "17/18+" taboo.
On Toril be careful with elven/drow gals since apparently they are extremely fertile and your chances of becoming a Daddy after even a one night stand are very good.

[ncknck]

Im pretty certain the present day US is the only developed society having this limit set above reasonable levels (could just as well set it to 30). And before the 20th century noone cared about age of matured humans anyway. Boobs are either present, or not. For example up until 1929 marriage age in England was 14 for males, and 12 for females. Virginity of a girl was a factor, wealth of a guy was a factor. Age was not. Nor it is now. Even in the US underage humans are allowed to have sex if age difference is minimal.

Just shows that brainwashing is still a factor, and it is possible to implant anything.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Zaxares wrote...
I was looking at it more from the view that "why would biology have given humans functioning reproductive organs during puberty if it didn't intend them to use it"? In the natural world, most animals will begin mating as soon as they are old enough to do so, and I can't think of a reason why early humans wouldn't have followed suit. Life would have been exceedingly dangerous back then, and having children earlier probably helped to strengthen one's chances of passing on one's DNA before dying.

Yes, that's true. In a primitive society, early offspring is desirable. But nowadays biological evolution simply cannot keep up with societal evolution. We have bodies that do not fit into the technological world. The result is that many of our body functions are only hindering or even endangering us, for example nervousness, which we get mostly in social occasions when something is expected of us, and which makes it very difficult for us to grow up to expectations.
Today it is not desirable for a woman to have children at the age of 15. At this age a modern woman simply has not yet reached a position where she can fully support her kid(s). She is still trying to develop herself! In the beginnings of mankind, all of a village would help with the newborns and so this problem didn't exist, but in our society a household means 4 or less people and it's quite difficult for anybody to make time for a child.

[ncknck]

Exactly, good thing BG is set in the medieval age, and people are still giving knee jerked reaction. Not based on reason, but brain preprogramming. Thats quite impressive.

Edit: Oh and i heard a story where a guy didnt help a drowning girl, drove away and let her die, because he was afraid to be called a pedophile.

Modifié par ncknck, 02 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[ScotGaymer]

The Saerileth mod isnt bad because its a 15 year old girl (though by modern standards thats pretty horrifying all on its own) it is bad because the mod itself is really badly written.

I mean just do a search for the Lets Play Archive and see the BG2 Lets Play on that. It has the Saerileth mod and the guy doing the LP had to extensively mod the mod so that it wasnt completely horrifying and terrible. Excluding the squicky underage content.

He during the LP shows a before and after what he modded and shows the "other path options" that he didnt choose and didnt mod.

The fact that its an awful mod, is made much worse by the fact that the creators are completely resistant to suggestions to improve the mod or make changes that would make more sense to people.

I had this mod on my computer once and I hated it lol. And when I went onto the various sites to see what other people thought, to see if I could possibly make suggestions (if the mod was still "live") I unconvered that it was alive but the creators were extremely hostile to suggestion or constructive criticism.
I avoid all the mods by these people just on principle now.

Even if Downloading them would expand my experience in a Lawful Good playthru.