80 réponses à ce sujet

[Brodoteau]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Is it even incest in the case of Imoen? Your shared parentage was a deity. I'm pretty sure there isn't any exchange of genetic material that could result in any birth defects. And its not like the two of you were raised together to make it a weird scenario of dating your sister.

Not to get way off base or anything, but that particular aspect of things I found confusing.

They call her your sister, in the same way the Sarevok calls you his brother.  That's good enough for me.  You share the same biological father -- yes he's a deity -- but in human terms that would still make it illegal in many countries.  

And, yes, you were raised together, maybe not as brother and sister, but with the same "father" in Gorion.  This is like saying adopted brothers and sisters would not be committing incest, which, while technically correct, it would still strike many peopel as "wrong"

Regardless, not a good idea for a mod.  Reminds me of the BG2 Saerilith mod  -- the underage paladin romance.  The defence by the mod maker was that "in a medieval period" she would not be considered illegal.  Technically correct, but still a bit of a bad (and creepy) idea.  

[Wulfram]

I don't think every choice should be about moral ambiguity. Sure, they should be there some times. But there's nothing wrong with having the opportunity for the PC to just be a total bastard.

And the rewards don't have to be money or equipment or levels. They could be vengeance, or avoiding humiliation, or a cooler epilogue or not dying.

Modifié par Wulfram, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think every choice should be about moral ambiguity. Sure, they should be there some times. But there's nothing wrong with having the opportunity for the PC to just be a total bastard.

And the rewards don't have to be money or equipment or levels. They could be vengeance, or avoiding humiliation, or a cooler epilogue or not dying.

I would be fine with any of that. Even abstract rewards, like vengeance, are fine with me.

In ME3, I do the Renegade Interrupt against Kai Leng every time, even my normally 100% Paragon character. That was arguably the "wrong" thing to do, since your enemy was well beyond a threat, but I woudl still do it, every time.

[Xilizhra]

Regardless, not a good idea for a mod. Reminds me of the BG2 Saerilith mod -- the underage paladin romance. The defence by the mod maker was that "in a medieval period" she would not be considered illegal. Technically correct, but still a bit of a bad (and creepy) idea.

How can a mod be considered inherently a bad idea? It's wholly optional.

In ME3, I do the Renegade Interrupt against Kai Leng every time, even my
normally 100% Paragon character. That was arguably the "wrong" thing to
do, since your enemy was well beyond a threat, but I woudl still do it,
every time.

Wait, wasn't he trying to stab you to death? That's still self-defense.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:45 .

[Dabrikishaw]

Brodoteau wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Maybe I'm a prude, or maybe I want to limit the variety of choices, but I don't think Bethany (or Imoen) should have been LIs -- as have been advocated (and yes, there are mods for these two romances). I don't think the choice to let children burn, without an identifiable goal as Jimmy has outlined, is reasonable and productive.

Yes, because those two things are completely equitable. I'm not an incest modder, but please, acquire perspective.

I was not insuinuated that you or anybody in this thread was.  They are equitable in the sense that people find both of those things morally repugnant but have both been advocated for in the name of "greater variety and choice."  I'm not trying to create an "evilness" scale here.  Maybe you find incest to be better than the immolation of children  -- that's not the point.  My greater point is that there has to be some moral framework to limit choices, othewise all bets are off.  

Next time try not to use such a false dichotomy.

[Fraq Hound]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think every choice should be about moral ambiguity. Sure, they should be there some times. But there's nothing wrong with having the opportunity for the PC to just be a total bastard.

And the rewards don't have to be money or equipment or levels. They could be vengeance, or avoiding humiliation, or a cooler epilogue or not dying.

I'd actually take it a step further and lose the whole Good/Evil thing all together. With the kind of stories they are trying to tell in their games nowadays, it really doesn't fit. It also tends to sway me from making the decisions that I want to make.

Some people don't deserve mercy or sometimes, I want to do the selfless thing.

However the current good/evil system's make me feel that this is not the correct way to play and that I have to commit to either all good or all evil.

[Brodoteau]

Xilizhra wrote...

Regardless, not a good idea for a mod. Reminds me of the BG2 Saerilith mod -- the underage paladin romance. The defence by the mod maker was that "in a medieval period" she would not be considered illegal. Technically correct, but still a bit of a bad (and creepy) idea.

How can a mod be considered inherently a bad idea? It's wholly optional.

Yes it's optional.  That doesn't mean it was a good idea to be created.  Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.  

Maybe it's just me, and seemingly from this thread my moral compass is different from the vast majority, but I think any mod that allows someone to roleplay a pedophile is a bad idea.  Your mileage may vary. 

[Xilizhra]

Brodoteau wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Regardless, not a good idea for a mod. Reminds me of the BG2 Saerilith mod -- the underage paladin romance. The defence by the mod maker was that "in a medieval period" she would not be considered illegal. Technically correct, but still a bit of a bad (and creepy) idea.

How can a mod be considered inherently a bad idea? It's wholly optional.

Yes it's optional.  That doesn't mean it was a good idea to be created.  Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.  

Maybe it's just me, and seemingly from this thread my moral compass is different from the vast majority, but I think any mod that allows someone to roleplay a pedophile is a bad idea.  Your mileage may vary. 

"Pedophile" refers to prepubescents. You're thinking of "ephebophile."

As a sidenote, whom does either mod harm?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:55 .

[Brodoteau]

Pedophilia is commonly used in reference to anyone "under the age" but, in technical terms, I stand corrected.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

In ME3, I do the Renegade Interrupt against Kai Leng every time, even my
normally 100% Paragon character. That was arguably the "wrong" thing to
do, since your enemy was well beyond a threat, but I woudl still do it,
every time.

Wait, wasn't he trying to stab you to death? That's still self-defense.

He is bloodily dragging himself along the floor to come get you. Obviously Shepherd is aware of him approaching and is playing coy. You also have two other companions fully equipped with guns and possibly biotic powers. He had a sword. There is a case for self-defense, yes. But its not like it was the only option available. 

You were coerced into thinking of Kai Leng as an Indoctrinated Bad Guy all game, so its not hard to kill him and not have a second of remorse. But Shepherd gutting someone who was practically defenseless borders on unethical. 

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

How does gold that can never be spent outside of weapons shops, respect
from NPCs who don't act hardly different at all regardless of your
actions or power, which boils down to having people do what you say
(which happens in nearly every game, regardless) matter? If the game
gave you a good avenue for using these things, then I could see the
appeal.

Don't know about you but I've spent my gold outside weapon shops and in backroom deals, such as with that dwarf smuggler in dust town. Also you're wrong about npcs not showing you any respect, after I humbled lloyd in redcliffe and took his business, he always spoke to me with the highest respect. But real respect and renown came after I actually did something worth respecting and settled in at court.

But if a player has no reason to make a deal with the devil (both figuratively and literally), then it becomes a flat choice. You can get an extra skill point by promising the soul of Connor to a demon? Oh, boy. A whole extra skill point. I can buy that from Bodahn for a few sovereigns.

The character in that scenerio gets what they want and the aid of connors red cliffe while simutaneously getting the smug satisfaction of daming the boy by turning him into an Abomination. I thought it was quite a rewarding deal.

Level gains, gold and equipment are terrible motivators to make decisions, for me. All they do, ultimately, is make combat easier, which can be done a lot easier by sliding the Diffiuclt bar down towards the Casual end. If the game didn't have difficulty settings or there wasn't level scaling, so that there was no way to defeat a particular enemy in combat without resorting to some sordid deals, then it would be a different story. As is, its just a choice to be evil, to have a character that twirls their mustache evily and say "Mwuahahahaa."

It's supposed to be a cake walk! That's the whole point of taking what you want from someone. If you have to turn it into a boss/elite level fight, it kind of defeats the motivation and purpose of the action. Usually evil characters are looking for quick rises to power, back stabbing nearly everyone along the way. If I have to work honestly for it, I may as just play the heroine.

Instead, if you were presented with a choice where you are offered a choice of doing something good and doing something you find reprehensible, but the game also clearly spells out that the bad choice has a strong chance of being for the greater good and the good choice can result in consequence (and the game then delivers on those ideas), then THAT is a good scenario. That's a story that examines what it means to be your character.

I don't understand. Why is it by default ok to do good things for the sake of helping someone else but sordid or intolerable to commit evil acts for the sake of helping yourself? An evil character shouldn't be forced to care about the greater good unless it affects them directly or indirectly. Like I said, you're imposing a moral code of ethics on rp freedom.

Being an evil, mustache twirling villain of a character is just as flat and boring as being a "Heroic, Saves-The-Day!" type that can do no wrong. They are opposite sides of the same, dull litereary coin.

It depends really.

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In ME3, I do the Renegade Interrupt against Kai Leng every time, even my
normally 100% Paragon character. That was arguably the "wrong" thing to
do, since your enemy was well beyond a threat, but I woudl still do it,
every time.

Wait, wasn't he trying to stab you to death? That's still self-defense.

He is bloodily dragging himself along the floor to come get you. Obviously Shepherd is aware of him approaching and is playing coy. You also have two other companions fully equipped with guns and possibly biotic powers. He had a sword. There is a case for self-defense, yes. But its not like it was the only option available. 

You were coerced into thinking of Kai Leng as an Indoctrinated Bad Guy all game, so its not hard to kill him and not have a second of remorse. But Shepherd gutting someone who was practically defenseless borders on unethical. 

The alternative would be somehow dragging a noted sociopathic killer off an exploding space station and depositing him in the Normandy's medical bay, putting the entire ship at risk while it tries to make it to Earth for the most important battle that the galaxy has ever seen. I'm Paragon as all-get-out, but killing him really was the only option practical at the time.

Also, he doesn't just have a sword, he also has his palm blaster.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:02 .

[H. Birdman]

As some have said above, "bad" choices really do need to be framed in terms of something that is at least arguably justifiable for some greater good. Even Stalin genuinely believed what he was doing was for the long-term benefit of humanity. And it's just implausible to a have a pure, raving psychopath leading a group of non-psychopathic adventurers.

Now, it's certainly possible (indeed, desirable) to raise the stakes of "the greater good" and the price you have to pay to get it. "Slap a reporter to correct biased reporting," doesn't do it for me. It should be something like, "Let a whole village be slaughtered by the darkspawn because it will slow them down long enough to fortify defenses for a much larger settlement." And you should have to see the results of the choice.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't see the value of "evil choices", they feel too limiting. Why can't Revan become the Sith Lord of the Empire and build a more defensible and protected universe than the Republic was providing? Why can't the Bhaalspawn achieve godhood to protect everything? Why can't the Jade Empire protagonist drain the life essence of X and rule the Jade Empire with a gentler hand?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:06 .

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't see the value of "evil choices", they feel too limiting. Why can't Revan become the Sith Lord of the Empire and build a more defensible and protected universe than the Republic was providing? Why can't the Bhaalspawn achieve godhood to protect everything? Why can't the Jade Empire protagonist drain the life essence of X without becoming evil incarnate?

I don't know about Jade Empire. However, in the first case, the dark side makes you go crazy and lose your original motivations. In the second case, I believe it's because you're ascending to a godhood that possesses an inherently evil portfolio and you have to act evil to keep it up (Forgotten Realms gods are strangely restricted).

[Brodoteau]

@Xili: To your side note: The people playing it (and to a certain extent the person who made it) because it tells them that, in the right circumstances, those types of actions are acceptable. I don't think that is a very positive frame of mind to be in (within our current time period and culture).

By the same token, is a rape mod acceptable? (and yes, I do believe in the moral equivalence between pedophilia and rape)

Finally, I acknowledge there is no way (philosophically) to definitively prove this so I understand where you're going. So let me pre-empt your arguments: morality is subjective and culturally determined; aesthetics should have the freedom to deal with difficult subjects; if there is no power imbalance or no one is actually getting harmed than it is up to the choice of the individual; why should we limit freedom etc. And, no, I don't want to get into this argument so I'll stop there.

Modifié par Brodoteau, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In ME3, I do the Renegade Interrupt against Kai Leng every time, even my
normally 100% Paragon character. That was arguably the "wrong" thing to
do, since your enemy was well beyond a threat, but I woudl still do it,
every time.

Wait, wasn't he trying to stab you to death? That's still self-defense.

He is bloodily dragging himself along the floor to come get you. Obviously Shepherd is aware of him approaching and is playing coy. You also have two other companions fully equipped with guns and possibly biotic powers. He had a sword. There is a case for self-defense, yes. But its not like it was the only option available. 

You were coerced into thinking of Kai Leng as an Indoctrinated Bad Guy all game, so its not hard to kill him and not have a second of remorse. But Shepherd gutting someone who was practically defenseless borders on unethical. 

The alternative would be somehow dragging a noted sociopathic killer off an exploding space station and depositing him in the Normandy's medical bay, putting the entire ship at risk while it tries to make it to Earth for the most important battle that the galaxy has ever seen. I'm Paragon as all-get-out, but killing him really was the only option practical at the time.

Also, he doesn't just have a sword, he also has his palm blaster.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why they have the Renegade interrupt there.

If you DON'T do the interrupt, you know what happens? The exact same thing. Shepherd turns around and omniblade's him, saying "This is for Thane!" The only difference is that instead of turning around and breaking the sword, Shepherd instead just avoids the stab. The choice comes down to a dodge or a sword-break. Not if  you kill him or why you choose to do so.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

 Why can't the Bhaalspawn achieve godhood to protect everything?

Actually, you can. Well, it doesn't say "to protect everything" but you do have the option to become the God of Murder, to rule as you see fit.

[Xilizhra]

To your side note: The people playing it (and to a certain extent the person who made it) because it tells them that, in the right circumstances, those types of actions are acceptable. I don't think that is a very positive frame of mind to be in (within our current time period and culture).

By the same token, is a rape mod acceptable? (and yes, I do believe in the moral equivalence between pedophilia and rape)

Ephebophilia. And in this case, the distinction is important, because while outright pedophilia should indeed be considered rape due to various physical and cultural reasons... with ephebophilia, the physical reasons tend to be greatly lessened or nonexistent, and culturally speaking, the amount of psychological harm done to the younger party could be less so in a culture that was more accepting of it. I confess that it's an uncomfortable area and more problematic than wholly adult incest (which I will contend is not actually immoral if the two qualifiers I mentioned earlier are present), so I don't know if I should argue in favor of it or not, but I felt it was important to point that out.

[Major Crackhead]

Lintanis wrote...

Bit of water boarding in the morning is a good way to start the day

It did start in the Inquisition after all

Heheheheheh...

[Azrielon]

Let me torture some Templar conspirators and I'll be happy (getting any useful info would be a plus but not necessary).

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Instead, if you were presented with a choice where you are offered a choice of doing something good and doing something you find reprehensible, but the game also clearly spells out that the bad choice has a strong chance of being for the greater good and the good choice can result in consequence (and the game then delivers on those ideas), then THAT is a good scenario. That's a story that examines what it means to be your character.

I don't understand. Why is it by default ok to do good things for the sake of helping someone else but sordid or intolerable to commit evil acts for the sake of helping yourself? An evil character shouldn't be forced to care about the greater good unless it affects them directly or indirectly. Like I said, you're imposing a moral code of ethics on rp freedom.

If there was a reason to do these things that the game actually acknowledged, I'd be more inclined to do them. Even if it was wealth, respect and power. 

But the game still treats you like a savior, your LI's still treat you like a good person, your allies don't have problems standing next to Templars who are still cleaning the Mage blood off of their blades or werewolves who have just butchered an entire clan of elves. 

If the game reacted to you being evil, then I could see its merit. But it doesn't.

Being an evil, mustache twirling villain of a character is just as flat and boring as being a "Heroic, Saves-The-Day!" type that can do no wrong. They are opposite sides of the same, dull litereary coin.

It depends really.

What examples can you give of a story where the main character is a truly evil person, but leads others who are of not the same mindset to save all of humanity? I'm sure there is some, but the amount of contrivance required to make it work has got to be through the roof.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:21 .

[Dabrikishaw]

Xilizhra wrote...

To your side note: The people playing it (and to a certain extent the person who made it) because it tells them that, in the right circumstances, those types of actions are acceptable. I don't think that is a very positive frame of mind to be in (within our current time period and culture).

By the same token, is a rape mod acceptable? (and yes, I do believe in the moral equivalence between pedophilia and rape)

Ephebophilia..

Why do you bother? Not a lot of people care.

[Brockololly]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't see the value of "evil choices", they feel too limiting. Why can't Revan become the Sith Lord of the Empire and build a more defensible and protected universe than the Republic was providing? Why can't the Bhaalspawn achieve godhood to protect everything? Why can't the Jade Empire protagonist drain the life essence of X and rule the Jade Empire with a gentler hand?

Yeah, as Fast Jimmy stated above, you can choose to become a God at the end of Throne of Bhaal but a benevolent one if you want. Or you can be an "evil" God of Murder if you want.

"Good" divine ending vs. "evil" divine ending

[Emzamination]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't see the value of "evil choices", they feel too limiting. Why can't Revan become the Sith Lord of the Empire and build a more defensible and protected universe than the Republic was providing? Why can't the Bhaalspawn achieve godhood to protect everything? Why can't the Jade Empire protagonist drain the life essence of X and rule the Jade Empire with a gentler hand?

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.