28 replies to this topic

[Qwinn]

Okay... I've said previously that in my Fixpack I wouldn't touch some of the odder alignment hits (unless they were -clearly- broken, not many of those), and that a wholesale revamping of alignment hits would be better left to a separate mod, akin to the Virtue mod for BG2.

Since no one else has mentioned an interest in doing this, and since I've seen a whole bunch of really irritating alignment hits that just bother me, I am now going to start to (slowly) catalog what alignment hits don't really make sense. So, if anyone's aware of something that's really bugged them re: alignment, post it here and at some point I will go through and do it.

This is going to be a fourth mod, independent of the other 3.

Here's some of the general ethical standards I intend to apply:

1. Under normal circumstances, asking to be reasonably paid for your work on someone's behalf is not an evil act. Volunteering to do it for free is a -good- act, but asking for pay is at worst a neutral act. You lose the good alignment hit if you ask for pay, but you don't actually become more evil. Sane exceptions will be made if you didn't ask for pay up front and then get belligerent in your demands for pay, especially from those who clearly can't afford it. An example of a hit that I find egregiously improper is when Noroch asks you to take care of the pickpocket pretending to be a Dustman, and you get the same alignment penalty for saying "I can help you with that... for a price." as you do for randomly murdering an innocent.

2. Killing innocents currently gets you 1 point toward evil (and I -think- 1 point toward chaotic also). Again, it's a bit absurd that in the vanilla game asking someone for pay for work rendered is every bit as evil as randomly killing an innocent person. I intend to raise both alignment hits for murder to 3 points per.

3. Killing Dustmen in the mortuary gets you no evil hits. It could be argued that it is somewhat justified seeing as there is the potential threat of being captured and attacked. However, this threat is fairly easily avoided in conversation. I intend to make killing them give 1 evil point each - not as bad as an "innocent" in rule #2 above, but it shouldn't be a morally neutral act either, not when it's easily avoidable.

4. I accept the general rule that lying and breaking vows makes you more chaotic, and making and keeping Vows makes you more lawful.

5. Some odder hits such as becoming more chaotic for taunting Morte, I'm not sure about. Willing to entertain arguments from people if they think it shouldn't be considered chaotic to have a sense of humor. Course, it does depend a bit on how vicious the particular taunt in question is, but that is arguably more evil than chaotic.


Since this is a mod of my own, not part of the Fixpack or anything, I feel comfortable in being the final arbiter of rules such as this, but I would enjoy constructive ethical arguments regarding what's a proper alignment hit and what isn't. So please feel free to give an argument against any of the above, or otherwise post here whatever alignment hits bothered you (or what acts didn't give a hit that you think should) and how you think they should be handled.

I am okay with the mod also addressing odd morale hits for your NPC's. Feel free to also post about situations where you feel that an NPC should suffer a morale hit but didn't, or vice versa.

Don't expect this mod to release for a LONG time. Certainly not before Version 4.0 is released. I consider it a very long term project, but I might as well have a thread collecting reports about annoying alignment hits now.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 12 June 2009 - 11:25 PM.

[Qwinn]

Oh, also, folks have often bemoaned the lack of Chaotic Good alignment hits, or Lawful Evil. I tend to agree. Most hits seem to be either Chaotic Evil or Lawful Good. I'd be especially appreciative of any good arguments for considering specific situations as deserving of LE and CG hits.

Qwinn

[Daulmakan]

Number 1, 2, & 3 sound reasonable.

Number 5 and other such alterations I'd have to see each case separately.

[ghostdog]

You know I'd prefer to see a mod that removes completely evil and good alignment and leaves only chaos and law. But since I know that wont happen, I'll have to agree that most of your points make sense.

[Qwinn]

I could give an evil hit for snapping their neck in dialogue, but I don't think I can give an evil hit for force-attacking them, that is, I can't distinguish who made the first swing.

Why is it evil to snap their neck in dialogue when they were just -about- to sound the alarm, but not evil to kill them afterwards? There is, after all, always the option to run away. That's what I would do, if I weren't evil and I found myself in that situation.

As I said, it's partly justified, and thus I'd only give 1 point penalty instead of the 3 point penalty I'd give for a normal murder... but wiping out the entire mortuary in self-defense when you can run 7 times faster than them isn't exactly Mother Theresa material.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 15 June 2009 - 08:16 AM.

[Qwinn]

Hmmm... alright. I have some quibbles with that but I see the point you're trying to make. And I probably -would- still argue with you, except that I've thought of a way where I can distinguish between your being attacked and you force attacking them. I'll have to test it, but if it works, we should know that that's a possible solution before we beat the argument to death. Most of my argument at this point comes from feeling it's worse to not give an alignment hit when it's definitely merited then it is to give one when the player -does- have an option.

One of the quibbles, btw, is with this:

It is true only if you know where is the exit... If you are lost and cornered

They stop chasing you as soon as you're out of sight, and it's pretty hard to be cornered, you're so much faster than them that you can run right past them without their getting a swing in. But I can see the argument that the consequences of some silly and arguably broken game mechanics shouldn't have a bearing on what would be a reasonable act of self-defense in the real world where you -aren't- blessed with supernatural speed.

And fighting back is not evil if you are attacked (neutral at worst).

I'd like to state for the record that I completely, unequivocally agree with this principle. I know there are some of certain political persuasions who would like to introduce "nuance" into that discussion, but I think under normal circumstances that's a crock, and generally speaking the consequences of abandoning that principle are worse and greater than holding firmly to it. But this is in referral to the real world. In the real world, if a guy is practically on crutches or a wheelchair (which the Dustmen effectively are, re: the speed differential), he's not going to be attacking you. And if a guy on crutches does attack you in the real world (in melee, a missile weapon would be different), I'm not sure if a court would let you off for retaliating with deadly force when you could just walk away. Know what I mean?

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 16 June 2009 - 04:19 AM.

[Qwinn]

Okay... I could, potentially, give an alignment hit if you force-attack a dustman in the mortuary... not when they die, but when you first attack them. And I could give one when you try to snap their necks via dialogue (and I would apply it whether you were successful or not). That's about the best I could do though. Only way I could do more than that would be whole-hog, every Dustman death = alignment hit.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 16 June 2009 - 08:08 AM.

[nevill]

Am I correct in my suggestions of what are you trying to accomplish?

1) If you force-attack a Dustman (or fail in your attempt to snap his neck), *every* Dustman killed in a following fight incurs an alignment hit
2) If you are the one being attacked, no penalty should be applied.

If so, you might want to use a new global variable and tie it up with "Mortuary_Alert". You attack them while "Mortuary_Alert" is 0, they are both set to 1. It's up to debate whether attacking them in the dialogue should lead to the same consequences as force-attacking. They attack you first, only "Mortuary_Alert" is set to 1 as in the original. Once "Mortuary_Alert" is set to 0 (AFAIK, when you leave the Mortuary or if they manage to kill you) the new variable is again set to zero. Alignment hits should happen only if the variable is 1 (or in the case of a successful neck-snapping, but that case is dealt with in the dialogue mode).

Would that do the trick?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Edited by nevill, 16 June 2009 - 02:10 PM.

[Qwinn]

That's not what I thought I could pull off - I was just talking about taking an alignment hit at time of force attack, BUT, your suggestion has a lot of merit. I may be able to make that work, indeed.

The dialogue is trickier. Take these examples, if you say you aren't lost:

"If you are not lost, what is your business here?"
"That is none of your concern."
"I'm afraid that it is my concern. Mayhap the guards can loosen your tongue." The Dustman takes a step back; he looks like he is about to summon the guards.

Snap his neck before he can call out.
OR
"Summon them, then. I'd like to meet them."

"If you are not lost, what is your business here?"
"I awoke on one of the slabs in your preparation room."
"Do you speak in jest? Perhaps you would like to share it with the guards." The Dustman takes a step back; he looks like he is about to summon the guards.

Snap his neck before he can call out.
OR
"Summon them, then. I'd like to meet them."

All of these result in your getting attacked. Alignment hit on "Summon them, then. I'd like to meet them."? It pretty much comes off as a "Oh good, it's clobbering time." to me, but maybe you'd choose it as being really naive.

Bleh. My enthusiasm for doing this mod is decreasing rapidly, heh.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

If I did go with your idea, Nevill, I should probably turn that variable on if you tried the neck-snapping thing and failed, as well.

Just noticed something pretty significant. When you tell the Dustmen you're there to see someone, you can choose:

Lie: "Uh... Adahn. Does he still work here, or...?"

But guess what? You -can't- do this if your Intelligence = 12 exactly! And if your intelligence is -greater- than 12, you never get the option to say it where it increments your Adahn counter and a chaotic hit!

Why not? There's actually two responses, with different triggers, where you get to say that. Here are the triggers:

CheckStatLT(Protagonist,12,INT)
NumTimesTalkedTo(1)

CheckStatGT(Protagonist,12,INT)
NumTimesTalkedToGT(1)

The first one, you get a bump to the "Adahn" counter and a Chaotic hit. The second one you don't. This is, I believe, meant to be based on the part where it checks how many times you've talked to the Dustman, so you can't just keep doing it repeatedly forever. That is the way it works when you claim you're there for Adahn's interment, only there it just does the "NumTimesTalked" check, it doesn't to an INT check.

What -should- be the case, both of the triggers should be >12 Int, not one less than and one more than. So, you always get the option if you're smart, but only the first time will you get the Adhan and Chaotic hits, option doesn't exist if you're dumb. (You can still tell them you're there for Adhan's interment if you're dumb).

Qwinn

[nevill]

All of these result in your getting attacked. Alignment hit on "Summon them, then. I'd like to meet them."? It pretty much comes off as a "Oh good, it's clobbering time." to me, but maybe you'd choose it as being really naive.

Nevertheless, it is not like you started it. Unless you attack them when they are not hostile (or attack those who do not fight back, like Dhall - another exception to the rule), it's self-defence.

Alternatively, you can make it this way. Each time you strangle a Dustman, you take a CE hit. But if an alert ensues, you can give an alignment change for the whole affair, based on who's fault it was. Or you could enhance the first idea further by creating a kill counter (my idea was flawed in a way you could wipe the whole floors again and again without penalty - it would be too far-fetched to call this a self-defence). Killing a Dustmen or two (or five... they are waiting for death to come anyway! ) while defending yourself is fine, murdering each and everyone is not. It's very easy to code, btw.

Bleh. My enthusiasm for doing this mod is decreasing rapidly, heh.

I understand that every decision is hard to make unless it's "do nothing". I am a bit puzzled by how much thought you give before changing something, though. It's your mod, isn't it?

And since it's your mod... why don't you add an option to the dialogue when you think one is missing? The game already has tons of Fight/Flee responses that doesn't make any difference; this would be perfectly consistent, not to mention convenient.

If I did go with your idea, Nevill, I should probably turn that variable on if you tried the neck-snapping thing and failed, as well.

Of course. That counts as an attack and the consequences are the same. I have said that when the alarm is sound and you are at fault, the variable should be set to 1, and this is the case. But there is a nuance. You might want to turn the variable on even in the case you've been successful with the silent killing. I mean, a single case proves your malicious intent and that is the whole point of the said variable.

Just noticed something pretty significant.

If you have two or more similar replies, the conditions for replies should cover all possible combinations. If you see something that does not abide by this rule (like the example above, it doesn't take in account the case of CheckStatGT(Protagonist,12,INT); NumTimesTalkedTo(1)), it's clearly broken.

Did you find the reversed CHR check in one of the dialogues? Does that make sense?

Edited by nevill, 17 June 2009 - 03:52 AM.

[Qwinn]

I understand that every decision is hard to make unless it's "do nothing". I am a bit puzzled by how much thought you give before changing something, though. smile.gif It's your mod, isn't it?

Nah, not every decision is hard, but some are. And yes, it is my mod, the discouragement comes from finding cases where -I- can't decide which way I like better, not that I think people will disagree.

Did you find the reversed CHR check in one of the dialogues? Does that make sense?

Er, there were lots of screwed up checks in game, including with CHR, that I've found and fixed. Are you referring to something specific?

Qwinn

[nevill]

Nah, not every decision is hard, but some are. And yes, it is my mod, the discouragement comes from finding cases where -I- can't decide which way I like better, not that I think people will disagree.

Then it's my guess that you are open to suggestions? What we are talking about is whether the killings in the Mortuary are intentional or not, right? I think that you can clear this up with a line of dialogue in which a player can claim he's not that eager to meet the guards and would rather prefer to leave peacefully.

Er, there were lots of screwed up checks in game, including with CHR, that I've found and fixed. Are you referring to something specific?

I am talking about the check which triggers when you are disguised as a zombie. It's either in Soego's dialogue or in the regular Dustmen ones.

As for the stated principles.

1. Under normal circumstances, asking to be reasonably paid for your work on someone's behalf is not an evil act. Volunteering to do it for free is a -good- act, but asking for pay is at worst a neutral act.

I understand your point, but I prefer to view Neutral Alignment as a result of combination of good and evil deeds (or lack of thereof). The game is pretty schematic anyway. Even if requiring money for your time is not by any means evil, being a greedy bastard not-willing-to-lift-a-finger-unless-paid is (at least for those who are in dire need, and no, you don't know if they can afford it before you ask). And if you remove those slight alignment hits, there are not that many ways of not being nice to people (safe for killing them, of course).

Besides, if the task you have accomplished was a good thing, there should be no shift in alignment (a penalty is compensated by a bonus). I think it is an intended behavior.

And if you are bothered by the size of those hits... well, there isn't much you can do. Under no circumstances taunting Morte or stealing money from a blind poet's hat should be considered 1/n-th as evil as a single murder, but that is how game mechanics work.

2. Killing innocents currently gets you 1 point toward evil (and I -think- 1 point toward chaotic also). Again, it's a bit absurd that in the vanilla game asking someone for pay for work rendered is every bit as evil as randomly killing an innocent person. I intend to raise both alignment hits for murder to 3 points per.

Definitely a good idea. I wonder if it should increase you chances of meeting a certain Lady , but I think it's out of a scope of the mod.

And, AFAIR, in the vanilla game asking for a reward is actually MORE evil. I don't remember being penalized for killing Hivers.

4. I accept the general rule that lying and breaking vows makes you more chaotic, and making and keeping Vows makes you more lawful.

It would be hard to find anyone who disagrees.

5. Some odder hits such as becoming more chaotic for taunting Morte, I'm not sure about. Willing to entertain arguments from people if they think it shouldn't be considered chaotic to have a sense of humor.

Some jokes are rather cruel. What are you mocking him for? Not being able to hold your tongue sounds chaotic to me. Look at the lawful NPC's in the game - Grace, Dak'kon and Vhailor certainly know the weight behind their words, while Annah and Morte are speaking their mind more often than they should.

Edited by nevill, 17 June 2009 - 05:04 AM.

[Qwinn]

Then it's my guess that you are open to suggestions? smile.gif What we are talking about is whether the killing in the Mortuary are intentional or not, right? I think that you can clear this up with a line of dialogue in which a player can claim he's not that eager to meet the guards and would rather prefer to leave peacefully.

Yeah. Actually, other states where you're given a choice simply have the option "Leave. Quickly." You still get attacked, but there'd certainly be no alignment hit for that. I'd probably just add that option to the places where it is missing.

I am talking about the check which triggers when you are disguised as a zombie. It's either in Soego's dialogue or in the regular Dustmen ones.

I'm having trouble finding this. I don't think it can be in a regular Dustman dialogue, if you talk to them while a zombie, hostilities are inevitable, no checks I can see. Soego has a bunch of charisma checks but I'm not finding one that appears reversed.

Qwinn

[gothemasticator]

Qwinn,

I really like the idea of an Alignment Mod. I feel that there are many places throughout the game where little fixes would really help make sense of things, and make managing TNO's alignment a task worth a little thought.

I won't have time to do a playthrough looking for these things for quite a while, though, unfortunately. Working nights and attending school during the days.

But please don't give up on the idea. Just because the discussion hasn't really left the Mortuary doesn't mean that there isn't more such a mod could accomplish!

gothemasticator

[Tassadar88]

Unless something goes badly wrong at work, I will be installing PST on my notebook and I suppose I could do some light playing. Is there some easy way of getting the atual value of alignment variables ingame?

[Qwinn]

Sure, install the Scale of Souls tweak. You can see the values by hovering over TNO's alignment button.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Pretty interesting news here. Scient has just discovered something that I think means I'll feel able to do a lot of alignment fixes within the actual Fixpack.

None of these are in dialogues. Rather, they will be fixes to alignment hits you get when things die. In 90% of the cases, it means that you will get negative hits for killing critters that you did not get hits for previously. So far, none that I've found that this new information applies to would strike me as particularly controversial.

Here's what we already knew: there's a field in the CRE file that tells the game that, when this creature dies, whether or not to increment the LAW, GOOD, MURDER and LADY global variables.

Here's what scient just discovered: there's another field that tells the game -by how much- to increment them. So when I said I'd be wanting to increase the hits to 3, I could do that just by altering this newly discovered area (marked "Unknown" in Near Infinity). No, I'm not doing that in the Fixpack, just saying.

Anyway, the area we knew about with the flags was highly inconsistent. Why are they not set for Able Ponderthought, or Ghysis, or artists hanging out in the Clerk's Ward? Lots of Sigil residents inexplicably don't have these flags set, even when surrounded by other NPC's who -do- have it set. I didn't like it, but I didn't feel I could just arbitrarily decide who should get them and who shouldn't.

But now, it's no longer arbitrary. Most of these creatures who don't have the old flags set DO have the new flags set. The new field's settings make a LOT more sense. They are in fact set up for Able and Ghysis and lots of others, but the alignment hits don't happen because of the old field flags being turned off.

So we've got two fields, one saying don't give alignment hits, the other saying do. The ones saying do make tons more sense and are much more consistent with what you'd expect and common sense. I'm okay with turning the old field's flags on based on values existing in the new field.

There's also a few corrections to make in this new field, heh. Baen the Sender, and Dhall from the mortuary (the only Dustman for whom you get a hits for killing) actually -decrease- your MURDER count when you kill them, instead of increasing. But other than odd and very sporadic exceptions, the new field's alignment hits make much much more sense than the flags set up in the old field, and I am comfortable declaring the setting of the flags in the old field of lots and lots of creatures as bugged and that were preventing the new fields from actually working.

Qwinn