This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Weeblie
21
« on: December 16, 2008, 05:48:40 pm »
None of the people closeby are looking at him as he asks that question, although a comment can be heard from far, far back in the crowded bar:
So much for his freedom speech! Or was it freedom OF speech?
There are some scattered laughter and many obviously felt the sudden desire to drink from their cups... or was it perhaps just to hide their grins?
Oops... previous post was edited before this one arrived!
22
« on: December 16, 2008, 05:36:57 pm »
The bypassers seem to keep their distances from the one lonnarin speaks for, with the words "insanity", "lunatic", "madman" being whispered behind his back.
23
« on: December 09, 2008, 07:34:59 pm »
1) Beware that majority of the non-standard voicesets are not complete (i.e. they don't have sounds for all actions/emotes that normally do have sounds). Generally, it's not a big deal, but one might wish to check this by creating a character in one's own module.
2) It is strongly -not- recommended to have 2da files in the override folder during actual gameplay. Creating a character with a non-standard voiceset is probably fine, but remember to remove the file again when you are done.
24
« on: December 04, 2008, 04:41:08 pm »
And at least one person has taken something out of context and exaggerated the said act too. Have we not been taught that standing by and laughing at the misfortunes of a slowly dying man is not really an act of good? So maybe the reason of whether someone will be "punished" for it or not does not lay in whether he or she is actually killing dark elves. For else, surely all high level characters must have turned to a chaotic evil alignment already?
Oh... make it two people, by the way!
25
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:21:54 pm »
This might not be the greatest example, but it's a little bit difficult to find these sort of real life extremes.  If your friend has a snake for pet and you are well aware of that it's all cuddly and nice, would that also make you go and hug a random snake found in the forest? Unless one starts to see a much larger pattern, exceptions do tend to remain as exceptions in one's mind. More of a "I no longer see him/her as a dark elf" rather than "I no longer see dark elves as evil". Do also remember that even the most "successful" good dark elves are on tops just accepted by the general population. Had their deeds been the same while their heritage were different... well... they would likely have ended up as the hero-magazine-front-page-boy/girl instead! 
26
« on: December 03, 2008, 07:45:57 pm »
We are very sorry for that it took so long time for your reply and kindly thank you for your patience.
A decision has now been reached to increase the price of the mithril armors and shields with approximately 30% to make them closer to true market values. All the trues from the increased price will still of course go directly to the war effort on Belinara.
All those whom are affected, whether by having an order posted here or by having an order made face-to-face, should once again contact us as soon as possible to state whether you still are interested in the order, or wishes to have it nullified due to these circumstances.
Furthermore, due to the demand of the sales going far beyond of what we can supply, we no longer can take any new orders.
We thank you all who have contributed to the cause of continued freedom and independence of the people affected.
Love and hugs,
Alleina Shiante - on behalf of Raven Trading Company
27
« on: November 03, 2008, 03:11:22 pm »
Happy birthday!
28
« on: November 03, 2008, 01:36:32 am »
I'm sorry but there is a price inconsistency that is currently being adressed. The sale is temporary frozen and we will try to get back to you as soon as possible.
- Alleina
29
« on: October 24, 2008, 02:12:38 pm »
How do I turn this off?
Thanks Luckily, 3D sound is not enabled per default.
30
« on: October 24, 2008, 02:10:48 pm »
Take caaare!
I'm in a busy-busy period too...
31
« on: October 24, 2008, 10:06:31 am »
Another peculiarity: Avoid 3D sound.
Without a high end soundcard with "special patching" to enable... say... EAX in Vista, you will be hit with "unexplainable" FPS drops.
32
« on: October 09, 2008, 05:24:00 am »
If it is not labelled, remains static (non-selectable) and doesn't look like a 'gravestone' -- I see no reason why an object cannot be placed near the pool on the cliff. Because the pool is one of the rare locations that has consistently been used as a romantic setting.It doesn't really matter that it would be static and wouldn't look like a gravestone. Once one gets to know that the momument (regardless of type) the "feel" of the location would inevitably be changed. The first thoughts one get when entering the area would instead be having memories of Shiff comming up (most likely IC-ly for those who knew him). The counter-question to your statement would be: Why can't the object be placed away from the pool on the cliff? Doesn't have to be on the other side of the area. But merely so it wouldn't be "the" object that tries to get one's attention, when one's otherwise occupied with smelling the flower (or whatever).
33
« on: September 26, 2008, 05:04:58 am »
How do you determine that someone is close to the end of an axis? Or, for that matter, where they are at all on the axis beyond a vague notion because of a particular letter? I am seriously curious about this. Also, if the numbers don't matter because there is no real meaning to them, what difference does it make how many points a character gains for an alignment-shifting action? Your opinion is clearly that closer means less, but when the numbers are irrelevant why is the point value of an action important? I just don't understand that part. I do not consider the numbers to be fully irrelevant but merely that the numbers can't really be compared with the numbers of others in order to see "who's gooder" (due to lack of guidelines on how much exactly each point is, as you said). It's not that I'm trying ot eat the cake while preserving it... but rather that there do exist a few points that serve well as signposts: 85, 50 and 15 - the "default" values for each alignment which can be used for the "finer grained" purpose. Heh... the "relative values compared to oneself"? In reality, this does not matter too much. Very few actions are walking the line and those few that do are generally not "worthy" by themselves to be shifting-generating. So, in the end, it just becomes a good old "what is your current alignment?" determing the exact extent of the points (like the example earlier that someone lawful good does some completey whicked and undisputable horrible act of chaotic evil would likely get hit by two points on each axis instead of one). If I play so that Jennara does something clearly Chaotic or Evil and I get a point for that, okay. Maybe it'll be a good reminder for me later, and, apparently, I had it coming. But if I play so that Jennara does Lawful and Good things, why not toss me a point that way now and then? It's a little, "Nice job." Not all the time; that would be weird, and it would get old and mean nothing, much like all the "Hey, DM, can I get a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy" points. Would those "nice job" points mean as much as the ones I've already gotten? It depends on the situation, but I do know I would feel pretty good about having them.
So, I guess, from that perspective, withholding a Good point because a Good character didn't do something Good enough is somewhat like not appreciating the player's effort to play the alignment. Unspoken praise is no praise at all. Why not go ahead and hit the guy donating a lot of money with a Good point and then noting that for later so you don't double up too soon? It's not any cheaper than begging for one after a quest from a DM, and makes the player feel good because someone bothered to notice. The donation thing is extraordinary tricky. Technically, it is not the amount that matters, but rather how much of a sacrifice your own character is making which means that if donation alone is used as a reason, there should be a massive amount of small shifts. Donations are relatively alignment free, it's the reasons behind them that tend to give it it's value. Donating in order to get a better standing or just in order to be able to call in a favor later? That doesn't sound the spirit of being good (but not necessary evil either). That's why I prefer to bundle it together into a bigger deal before doing anything. Perhaps something just as simple as being the really only person who's actively working for donations, rather than just donating? Or someone who's showing a strong pattern of "good-willed" donations. In either case... your example of people who really should get good points, do get good points is just about what was already done before, is done now, and will be done in the future, unless one simply decides to never mess around with alignments anymore.
34
« on: September 25, 2008, 08:12:29 pm »
As such, the idea of "points" either way is flawed - alignments aren't totally objective, mechanical things. When you start going into "Oh, you fall one point in this direction for doing that!" you see which way leads madness. "Epic fail"?
35
« on: September 25, 2008, 08:04:49 pm »
This is totally beside the point. When in this thread has anyone been talking about how much could possibly be done in a given time period? I will agree with what you are saying here as a concept, but it has no bearing at all on whether you as a DM decide it is easier to be Evil than Good and give out more Evil points for that reason. Agreed. None. Zip. Nada. Time it would take to do such an action has no bearing at all. But it is a -fact- that it is easier to let one's character do an evil act rather than a good one. No DM opinion or anything. Merely running the scenarios through one's head. It's always trivial to do the wrong "evil" things in tricky situations. It's much less obvious of what the "good" choice is (perhaps there is none, and the best choice is to remain alignment-free). Hence why I consider it to be easier to do something evil than something good. The "easier" or "harder" have no true value on the discussion, though. It's the actions themselves that are judged and not how tricky they are. Easier or more difficult is at most just some side-comment. Either an action is worthy of alignment points or it isn't, and the number of points given to a character should have nothing to do with that character's alignment's proximity to the end of an alignment axis or how much could have potentially been done in some hypothetical universe. In practice, whether points should be given or not is relatively independent on where they stand on the axis. But the amount of points tend to be highly determined by how close they are to the ends. I've tried to differ between what are opinions and what are outright facts. It is not a fact that the axis should be handled in a linear fashion. That the same action should generate the exact alignment result, no matter where the character stands on the axis. This is purely an opinion and one way to understand the system. I have very strong reasons to believe that the system should not be treated in a linear fashion, with arguments for that already being laid out earlier in the thread. And I see no reason to believe that it's not "getting harder the closer you approach the edges" until there is any sort of offical "this is so"-guideline.
36
« on: September 25, 2008, 07:54:56 pm »
Look, your method and all. Go for it. People can complain later if they want to. But seriously consider handing out reward points as easily as penalty points so you don't just cheese everyone off by acting like some sort of RP police. I don't think anyone is really holding back with anything. No cases of "Oh! That's an excellent good deed he did there, perha - wait! He's already good and I shouldn't hand him any points." but rather lots of cases of "Hmmm... donating this large amount of sum to this family who had their house burned down is a good deed. But does it really warrant a shift, or is this perhaps a far too cheap way to literally buy one some more good points? I think I will temporary keep it away on the this-is-noted list and wait to see if something else can be combined with this one for a reasonable point.". --- In either case, I'm fully of the belief that this whole matter is blown out of proportions. You make it sound like I'm giving shifts right to left, up and down, based utterly on my own whims. I'm sorry to disappoint, but there are no free jumping around on the alignment axis from me either. Being a meager attempt to employ alignment shifts for events that deserve it, not merely seeing it being done once per year, but perhaps once per quarter instead. Yes... once per year is about as often as I've seen it happen so far (a single case can affect multiple characters, though). I guess, as some would say... "epic fail"!
37
« on: September 25, 2008, 07:10:29 pm »
I guess the simple summary of my points is that some standard would be nice, even though I know it is highly unlikely, and that rewards are just as important psychologically as punishments and shouldn't be overlooked for vague "edge" reasons on a scale that is already irrelevant because the numbers have no meaning. A general baseline would be nice. Like to clarify on what sort of actions are generally considered to be good ones, what sort are evil ones... and much more importantly... which ones that are on the law and chaos scale. Though, those certainily of course never could be used as a "I did this, now you must hand me my points"-tool (the "too cheap" issue that you also touched on). Edit: Thoughts just appearing randomly in my head, heh. To ensure a much finer grained "stability"-thing that I mentioned earlier, it's probably necessary to look at the exact numbers, rather than just looking at if someone's "good, neutral or evil".
38
« on: September 25, 2008, 06:56:19 pm »
No, I don't realize that. If Eddy Evil starts walking around killing people, will he easily gain Evil points? How many innocent children can you kill per hour, compared to how many knives you can throw yourself before at the same time? How much money can you donate compared to how much you can steal? There are strictly "per rule" nothing that makes it easier to get evil points than good points. But in practice, it's far easier to perform an evil act rather than a good one with the same "strength". Easier to raze a house rather than building one, you know. ps. Easier or more difficult is here calculated from the point of view of a neutral character.You stated previously that if you are near the edges you shouldn't gain points as easily in that direction. If that holds, and we avoid the exaggeration I just made to demonstrate another point, then everyone necessarily eventually becomes Neutral, since it is easier, by your definition, to gain points in the opposite alignment. You cannot draw that logical conclusion as it would be very similiar to "it's easier to spend money rather than getting more of it, and therefore everyone is broke". If we base on a "more difficult on the edges" system, you have: 1. People who acts neutral will eventually end up as neutral. 2. People who shows a general pattern of good will eventually stabilize somewhere on the good part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how good" he or she is. 3. People who shows a general pattern of evil will eventually stabilize somewhere on the evil part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how evil" he or she is. Why would it end up as relatively stable? Easy... Consider two actions "kill an innocent" and "save an innocent". Assume for now that they are exactly the opposite to each other. For simplicity, weight the actions as following, based on the character's alignment: Good: "Save" = 1, "Kill" = -5 Neutral: "Save" = 3, "Save" = -3 Evil: "Save" = 5, "Kill" = 1 What does they have to do to ensure that they will not change their alignments? Good: 5 saves for 1 kill Neutral: equal split between saves and kills Evil: 1 save for 5 kills So... to remain good, you actually have to do a much higher proportions of good deeds. While this does not address the "85% pure good, 15% pure evil"-weirdness, what it does address is the later "I can remain good by only playing neutral, under a completely linear system". Agreed. Bob should never have been approved for Evil if he couldn't play Evil, and a correction of his alignment is not a bad thing. We are all expected to play our characters' alignments properly, remember. That really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be rewards as often as punishments, which is my main point. If you want to discuss correcting improper alignments on characters, maybe we should start building a standard. It was merely as an example on why I think a linear "all good actions result in equal shifts, no matter what alignment the character originally had" system has a few too huge flaws. The "you don't have to play good, to stay good"-thing. Not meant to be applied on PCs in general. If someone was consistently and clearly breaking their alignment, then it will be really handled in an OOC administrative fashion instead. The threshold tend to be very high anyway, as we do are aware of that DMs do not always have all the info about people's characters, certainily not as clear picture as the players' behind the characters themselves.
39
« on: September 25, 2008, 04:23:41 pm »
(added more text to earlier post) That's actually how I recall it happening - "Can I have a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy, please?" I don't have any problem with that, really. The only issue is whether alignment points matter at all, and whether they should all be of equal value if they do. I think it would be nice if they mattered and if one person's point was given for an equal level of alignment activity as another person's rather than one point counting for a great span of value. If they don't have equal value, it's hard to see how they could really matter, y'know? "They matter for the one handing it out, and they matter for me (if I wish them to matter for me). For others? They shouldn't matter." Edit: "They" in this case is refering to whether it is +1, +2, +3 or +4...
40
« on: September 25, 2008, 03:23:08 pm »
Were you not arguing a few posts back that the alignment system should not consider circumstances? And now you are saying circumstances should be considered? That's very confusing. I'm curious to where you have found me state that circumstances should not be considered? Circumstances should always, in my opinion, be examined before one makes a final verdict. It's just that circumstances cannot excuse all sort of behaviours. Also, your examples are vague, and I'm not seeing a conflict. Was the child attacked directly with little explanation, or was it collateral damage during an attack on a town, maybe? What did the dark elf do? Just live? "Killing" alone doesn't carry enough meaning to show the alignment. The PHB even adds more text to show what it means, and if killing, period, were Evil, then there would never, ever be any Good characters in any campaign. Killing to kill is Evil, but killing in true* self defense is alignment-void, meaning it doesn't cause any shift in alignment; the character is just reacting naturally to a threat. This is why I agree with you (just not for your reason) that those of Neutral alignment on the quest should not have been moved toward Evil; the act of killing was apparently defensive, first of all, and Neutral characters aren't obligated to help people they don't know. The Good characters, on the other hand, didn't help a stranger and risk themselves, thus acting Neutral rather than Good. Agreed. The examples are somewhat vague, but that was on purpose, to reflect on that the exact circumstances (everything that lead up to the event) do have a strong bearing on the judgement, not merely the action (killing in this case) itself. No, but neither would I appreciate having an Evil consequence point tacked on randomly when I could not expect a randomly attached Good reward point when the two situations were approximately of equal "value." If it takes X effort to lose a Good point, it should take a similar effort to gain one. If I should earn an Evil point, I want that Evil to be equal in value to the Good of the Good point. A character's position on the alignment scale is irrelevant. Alignment points are handed out rarely (in my experience, anyway, though I know some people have asked for them after quests and had them granted for this action or that because, hey, the numbers don't matter and neither do the points, really), so there is no reason to expect that the next time a similar situation arises that any Good character would be given an Evil point while an NPC bleeds, or that any Good act will be rewarded with a Good point. I'm certain that you realise it's far easier to get evil points than good points, if you just think a little about it. It's really a no brainer to walk around and start killing people. The opposite which is most likely to toss oneself in the line of fire every now and then might work, but probably not for very long to make it really matter (one's character can only die so many times...). Because of a core disagreement about whether the actual position on the scale mattering or not, a few of the points here is not very much debatable. The "almost equally easy" is very reasonable if the shifting is based on a linear scale, but is not if one accepts the notion of "being more difficult closer to the edges". Think of this from a different angle. We all know that no character is ever 100% toward any alignment. Even though the numbers really don't matter, just for this example let's pretend the 85 on a Good character's sheet is "typical." Then look at it like a crafting roll. 85% of the time, the character does Good things. 15% of the time, the character does things that could be Neutral or Evil. That is what is expected, not absolute and unwavering perfection in adherence to the alignment letters. To "punish" a Good character with an Evil point when she can be expected to do Neutral things from time to time but not "reward" her with a Good point when she does the Good things she is also expected to do seems wrong. I'm just saying it shouldn't be harder to go one way than the other. A Good act is a Good act no matter who does it. Is a good character still good merely because he spends 85% of his time donating to charity and helping the old and sick, while the rest 15% he uses to kick random beggars he founds on the street? This example is heavily exagerrated but still suitable to forward my thoughts on the matter. Small variations from one's alignment and I won't say a word, even a greater one if it is trivial issues and I will remain quiet. But a non-trivial issue? Hmm... The absolute and unwavering perfection to the alignment is not required but I am of the very strong belief that something that's too severly outside the alignment of one's character should result in shifts, if not just in order to auto-balance the alignments. An easy way to see this is: 1. Alice had a neutral alignment 20 years ago, and has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years. Alice should therefore have a neutral alignment still. 2. Bob had an evil alignment 20 years ago, but has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years (for simplicity, he has acted exactly like Alice for the last 20 years). Because it's equally easy to get from evil to neutral as to get from neutral to good, and Alice has an unchanged alignment, Bob should still remain evil today. It is of my opinion that Bob's alignment in this case would be wrong. I do not consider the alignment system to be really karma based and hence not necessary for Bob to do good acts in order to "redeem" himself. Instead, prolonged acting against his previous alignment is enough to slowly move him towards a new one. One problem with the "deserve" question ("Does this character deserve a small alignment shift?") is that alignment points have no value. How can you determine that a character deserves one point rather than two or five? More correctly, then, the value is determined on the fly with no guidelines. Of the two situations where Jennara was given Good points, which was "Gooder," helping refugees and survivors on the islands or paying for an inn that burned down? She got one Good point for the first, and two for the second. Was that one really twice as Good? I still like having earned the points, even if the numbers don't add up in my head. Was letting the dark elf bleed to death slowly of the same value on the Good-Evil axis as helping the survivors on Rohden? Both were one-point shifts. Jennara has also gotten a Law point, for bothering a tomb as little as possible and convincing others to follow the rules they set for themselves regarding the bothering of that tomb. Though they are different axes, is that bit of Lawful behavior about as much Lawful as the Good done for the survivors is Good? They were both one point of alignment shift. Maybe different axes aren't comparable, and that's fine. Actions on the same axis should be, and they are, but there isn't any comparing done and no guidelines for how to determine the value. That's a shame, because it would nice if the points did matter, though, again, there would be a lot of complaints, probably. Alignment points do have a phycological RP value, or this thread would never have existed, would it? +/- 1 point... or even +/-10 points does not change the alignment itself.  But you are very right that the exact "value" of each point is very subjective. You have one thought about it, I have one, and ask someone else, they will have yet another opinion. Direct measurement between different events generating alignment shifts can really only be done if it's the same person handing the points out in both cases (not even always feasible then).
|
Forums
Show Posts