Thraxen

We are assuming that we are in the context of the thread, don't we? No, just that you're on the run from whoever is chasing your companion. Maybe you aren't even aware of the main threat at this point.

In reality, in different circumstances, yes, but we're making a game. I don't see value in spending resources to make weapon types (and skills/talents/perks/whatever to use them) that are designed to be inherently inferior in all circumstances. We spent plenty of time making weapons in IWD (especially) and IWD2 that no one used because they were fundamentally bad at a base level. So it's more likely that you'll be going for greater variation between different weapons instead of a multitude of fairly similar weapons where the chance for a clear front-runner to emerge would be greater?

You can put value on life. Everybody does that, all the time, but denies it. A researcher working in CERN is far more valuable, than a wife beater pissing himself in front of a TV in a drunken stupor. Angela Merkel is worth more than a random warlord in Somalia. There are also historical examples, such as the "Women and children first" policy that contributed to the atrociously high male fatality rate during the Titanic disaster. There are many, many more examples. We speak of equality, but we do not practice it. It's impossible. Sure, you CAN put a value on life. Makes it easier to make big decisions that shouldn't be easy. We're not military commanders, we're not in a war, it's not vital to think like that.

Seems like there'd need to be some kind of extra benefit to having a slave, otherwise it could just be seen as a waste of money. Also, I imagine there would need to be an option to just free the slave immediately, so no-one gets angry at you for slavery when you're only trying to free them. However, if you have a house then maybe the slaves could keep that in good nick while you're off stabbing things. Maybe having slaves could even INCREASE your standing in the eyes of some nobility types, which would increase as you gained more and more of them.

I would. Worthwhile people should only sacrifice themselves, if the net gain is greater than zero, i.e. sacrificing themselves to save a library holding the collected, priceless knowledge of many generations or a town whose inhabitants and infrastructure is vital to the region or significantly improves people's lives by providing workplaces. Sacrificing important people for a village of replaceable peasants is foolish. I can understand delaying the enemy long enough to allow the people to escape, but paying with life for that? Too steep a price I say. Choices have to be made, together with calculations. We cannot assume that every life has the exact same value in these kinds of situations. A general is not worth the same as a private - why should that be false for civilians? Also, Luckmann, I sincerely hope you're not the same guy I ran into earlier, who claimed that Alfred Rosenberg was a rational theoretician of a rational doctrine called national socialism. That'd make everything you post pretty skewed. There, now we see the point of this thread. You see, I'm pretty much the opposite of that - you can't put a value on a life so you can't compare two lives and just say one is objectively more valuable. I want to see how Obsidian will include things like this, differeing viewpoints but you can't really outright state that either of them are a "Good" option, or that either are exactly Evil.

Consider it as if they are a large group. A huge group, that have pretty much surrounded the village that you're trying to hide in. They've got better weapons and armour than you, as well as more mages. Even if you attempted to form a militia with the villagers, they're either too scared or too resentful of you bringing this threat to them to try and fight. Also, would you still let him go if you had the inkling that he's not only trying to save the village, but you and your other companions too? Could be that he's just using the village as an excuse and that he's only doing this because he knows that it'll save you from suffering the same fate.

No real need for an actual meter, you could just look around a factions HQ or similar location and listen in on what people think of you. Maybe even break in to one of the higher-ups offices and see if they've got a report on your actions.

Wait, relatives and friends would be unhappy with me deciding not to push them in front of trains to save hapless strangers gallivanting along the railroad tracks? And how do you involuntarily sacrifice someone? Doesn't the very meaning of sacrifice suggest voluntary action, a concious decision? What about the way the Aztecs did it? Or they could just go Wicker Man on your party.

Of course not. Your question was whether we'd sacrifice a companion to save a village. If he chooses to sacrifice himself, I will be right there beside him, helping to save the village. Which I even said, plain as day. What if you couldn't help him? You couldn't stand side by side with him, just leave him to his fate? Say your companion is on the run for a severe crime. One that you know he didn't commit, but don't yet have concrete proof that you can use to exonerate him. The people chasing you, bounty hunters or guards, track yo down as you pass through this village and send an ultimatum. Either your companion gives himself up to the hunters so that his sentence can be carried out (execution), or they'll raze the village and kill everyone in it. You could probably escape in that kind of Chaos, but your companion is adamant on giving himself up so that the village is safe. What would you do, let him walk off as you continue on with whatever your quest is, knowing that he'll be forever remembered as a terrible criminal, or would you try to convince him to run? This companion who you've been traveling with, helping him discover who had framed him and why, trying to get the death sentence hanging around his neck loosed. Would you just let him save these people who probably would've turned him in if they knew he was wanted?

Eh, I'm not sure what this question - a moral question posed to the members of the forum - has to do with the morality in Eternity. That said, it would all depend on the "Companion". Despite what some may try to tell us, I do not believe in "everyone's equal value". Nobody does. Some are more important to you than others, and the fact that people prioritize their loved ones or their friends is entirely natural. A stranger is just a stranger, and you can relate no more to someone in an isolated village or a far-off foreign nation much more than a house fly. The idea that I would sacrifice someone I called a friend and had bled with in battle for complete strangers is crazy. That said, it is entirely up to him if he wants to help me help the village - which I would likely be want to do. There's a lot of circumstance involved in this. But my immediate reaction, knowing not who the companion were, our relationship, if we have taken oaths together, his personality, is "Hell no." So they shouldn't do it because their life is worth more than those useless peasants - A single person for twenty isn't worth it? How about fifty, or a hundred? What number does it need to be to make it a worthwhile death? Even if it was their decision to sacrifice themselves to save these people, would you attempt to stop them? By force if necessary? How many peasants is your mother worth? Your brother? Your friend? Your comrade-in-arms? Would you throw your father in front of a train to save 10 rapists? Don't be ridiculous. So you'd try to stop him if he attempted to save it by himself? You'd restrain him, let the village die?

So they shouldn't do it because their life is worth more than those useless peasants - A single person for twenty isn't worth it? How about fifty, or a hundred? What number does it need to be to make it a worthwhile death? Even if it was their decision to sacrifice themselves to save these people, would you attempt to stop them? By force if necessary?

So, judging by the blurb we've got so far it seems that some of the major themes of Eternity are going to be morality and what constitutes "Good" or "Evil". One of the examples was asking whether sacrificing someone for the greater good could, in itself, be a good act. Of course, you may not be playing through the game as yourself and instead be roleplaying your character as much as possible, but it's still an interesting question to ask. Would you consider the sacrifice of, let's say a companion, to be a good act if it helps save a village? What if the sacrifice wasn't their choice, but still saved those lives? Would a character who lived in what could possibly be a fairly brutal world hold the same view?

I'd like the characters to level up so that they're not too far behind whoever actually comes with you, but I'd like there to be a reason for it. Maybe seeing your companions training with each other, or maybe even training them yourself?

Sure, but it'd just misfire. Maybe fire spells could cause it to backfire horribly, possibly even destroying the gun? Lightning too, I suppose.

THAT. I want rain spells, and I want them to be useful (besides the obvious "increased damage of frost/lightning type attacks"). But guns can work in rain, just not as reliably.