Mask of the Betrayer Redux

[Cantousent]

No, Gorgon, you the player have one motive. However, your character sure as hell doesn't want to "use his spirit eater ability for the day." The idea behind the spirit eater mechanic, for the player, is certainly not shared between the player and the PC. Suppress is lawful as evidenced by the text and mechanics within the game.

 

Hey, I hate the alignment rules also. I don't think you should take a hit one way or the other, but that's what happens. Your response is an excellent example of why the alignment rules suck, by the way. You argue from an outside perspective about something with a far different perspective within the game.

 

BTW, you didn't go from chaotic to lawful for using Suppress one day. It's the frequent use of suppress that will, over time, have a significant impact on your alignment. If you use suppress consistently, you're being lawful whether you want to admit it or not. At least as defined by DnD in general and MotB specifically.

[Gorgon]

No, Gorgon, you the player have one motive. However, your character sure as hell doesn't want to "use his spirit eater ability for the day.

If she can't find any tethors, thats exactly the motivation. Why would she take leave of her senses and purposely grow weaker when she posesses a means to fight the curse. No clear explanation exists as to why resisting an undesirable effect should be a

'lawful' act.

 

And why on earth would dividing devour and supress 50/50 be a neutral one.

 

If there is a huge gap between my own (the player's) and my character's motivation, and that gap is forcefully introduced by the developers, that is pretty disasterous designwise.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Cantousent]

No, if she can't find any telthor's, she gets hungry. At that point, she can find more telthors, feed upon herself in the form of Satiate, Suppress, or simply do nothing. Being hungry isn't a deicision. It's a condition.

 

Suppression is an act. The character must decide to suppress. In terms of game mecahanics, the character will never accidently suppress. It is a conscious decision on the part of the character. Just as satiate and devour are active decisions. Not only are they decisions, they are actions. Your character might decide to suppress but not do so. That means she'll be hungry. She might decide to suppress but instead devour a spirit. That's another reason alignment rules suck. All of the underlying process of thought goes out the window.

 

There's no getting around the fact that they made Suppress an action. If they'd made suppression automatic at a certain point of hunger, I would agree with you.

 

You can think of it this way. The character is hungry and wishes to eat. She can devour a spirt, but none are available. She could satiate, but fears feeding upon herself. She could go hungry, but fears for her life. Instead, she sits down and concentrates on her dilemma and uses the force of her will (meditating of sorts) to hold her hunger in abayance. By that act, she has mastered, temporarily, her hunger. However, it is still a lawful act.

[Gorgon]

That explanation is hardly sufficient to explain an alignment shift, we need an abstract moral choice here, not what chance and practicality throws your way. Remember, your hypothetical scenario doesen't exist in the game.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Cantousent]

It's not a hypothetical scenario. It is the exact same scenario the character faces regularly. The only stumbling block is that you wish to view the character's in game actions by the light of your desires as a player. Suppress and devour are inherently moral in nature and so therefore fall under the alignment rules of the DnD system. Hunger for spirit energy is not hypothetical within the game. Your character's actions in dealing with that hunger are not hypothetical.

[Gorgon]

The stumbling block is that the developers introduce an illogical or at the very least far feched moral condition, that is in practical terms removed from any sense of moral consequence, with the exception of devour, I can see why repeated use of that would be considered 'chaotic', or 'evil' depending on circumstance.

 

It's the Jedi syndrome all over again, practically all the brances of choices lead to one extreme.

 

Where is the gray path here, dividing devour and supress 50/50 ? Ludicrous.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Tigranes]

I may quote Simonides here - "As any man is good if fortune grant it, so if his fortune bring him evil, evil is the man.... necessity not even the gods resist."

 

[/nerd]

 

If we want to talk about good and evil and morality, then yes, spirit eating, understood as a permanent destruction of an entire spirit/soul, is an evil act. There is no buts and conditionals, the act is an evil one. Yet the PC may or may not be evil. Is a good man, who is driven to evil acts by necessity not only to save his own life but to end the curse and thus bring peace to the region and resolve the fate of Akachi, an 'evil man' because of this? The act is evil, but the man may be good, driven to it only by necessity. This is why Suppression is 'Good'.

 

In terms of lawful and chaotic, the Spirit Eater curse is described here, with much contention, as 'unnatural'. 'Natural' simply means, status quo, the way the world is. That 'natural' state is of course constructed (i.e. somebody had to make the Wall and the laws at the start, so back then it wasn't 'natural'), but let's not go into that too much, it's not relevant. The point is, the Wall is 'natural', despite the fact that it was so cruel even Kelemvor himself wanted to end it. The Spirit Eater curse is not. It is a disruption in the equilibrium of the universal status quo, an anomaly that disrupts the harmony of other 'natural' things. This is the reason why the Gods and 'lawful' NPCs and Okku want to see the curse destroyed forever. Suppression, which is meant to serve as a (pale) substitute for devouring, is thus lawful because at that moment in time, you have chosen to contain the disruptive potential of the curse rather than expand it or allow it to manifest. Thus your willpower has acted as a force that has prevented the curse from disrupting the 'natural' way of things by devouring a spirit or soul.

 

So I see the alignment points in Suppression as making sense. Now, the player's intentions could be evil and he could still suppress, though. This is where I see it break down. If I am an evil character, I might devour a lot of spirits, to gain the spirit essences. In that way, I could be materialistic. But, being an evil character, I could also say, I do not want this curse to take over and kill me. That's how I felt playing my evil PC. My PC had no problem with evil, with murder, with whatever, for power. But my PC had big big doubts over allowing some random dead curse to inhabit his body: he also was faced with the knowledge that with the increase of craving came increased dependence. Thus, my PC decided, get rid of this curse ASAP - whether permanently or not - and I can get on with my life doing whatever evil I want to do without the Spirit Eater consequences. Thus he suppressed. Was that 'lawful and good'? Well, maybe, by result. But if we get into Intention v. Result debate in D&D alignment it will never end.

[Gorgon]

I want to make a moral choice that makes some modicum of sense, I don't want a bunch of far fetched metaphysical lore forced down on my head that will decide for me. If the distance between my experience of playing the game, and all those conditions set out by the developers is so vast as to force me out of my chosen class, it's quite simply a fundamental flaw in the design.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Cantousent]

It's not a fundamental flaw in MotB design. It's a fundamental flaw in DnD design. Those are the alignment rules. At any rate, Starwars already told you that he went through the whole game using Suppress without shifting to lawful from neutral. It is, therefore, possible to go through as chaotic without shifting to neutral.

 

Once again, by the premise of the game and under the rulezzzz of DnD, Suppress is a lawful act. Sorry. That sucks. I agree with you that having these sorts of shifts suck. It's still reasonable within the confines of the system and the feat as described. :Cant's shrug and conciliatory icon: Them's the breaks, kid.

 

This is only an issue because you don't like what the game did to your warlock. At least that's what I'm getting. When I first heard the complaint expressed, it had to do with barbarians. Pretty much the same thing, neh?

[Tigranes]

There's no FR lore in there - hell, I hardly know any. I only use stuff I picked up from the game.

 

The thing is Gorgon, I get what you are saying, but as I showed above, there is no way to cover for every contingency in terms of player motivations, and still have a D&D alignment system. So, if we have to use the D&D alignment system, then some measure of creative license *has* to be taken. And in development sense, I think it's much more prudent to cater to the assumption that the PC cares about the world around it and the central part of the plot, rather than the assumption that he/she doesn't, if it comes down to it. I understand how it wouldn't fit with your RP, but I'm at a loss to suggest how all such player motivations could be encapsulated in a D&D alignment system as executed in NWN2.

 

I don't know why you think it doesn't make 'a modicum of sense' though. Morality is a social thing and not an individual thing, remember. For the most part, an act of Suppression in the MOTB campaign will be seen as a lawful and a good act thanks to the reasons I stated above (which can be expressed as simply as, "its lawful and good because it preserves status quo and doesn't destroy others' spirits"). I don't think it's a 'fundamental design flaw' to go with the most general understanding of a morality in that campaign.

 

I note, also, that for Suppression to have forced you to give up your chosen class you must have used it quite frequently. Is this because you couldn't often find spirits to feed, or something like that? If so I can understand your grievance (and you would probably rather cheat your alignment back a bit and, well, move on). As Cant says, though, its a problemw ith the entire D&D ailgnment mechanic rather than MOTB making some random and nonsensical decision. The most prudent decision in design was for Suppression to be Lawful and Good, very obviously. I know it doesn't work for you (and as I said above, doesn't work 100% for me either), but well, we can hope that morality is represented better in future games and D&D.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tigranes

[Gorgon]

Having alignment shifts dependant on simply pressing a gameplay button is just not smart. It should be something a bit more momentous than simple chance. It might be an abstract choice, but it's one thats forced down your throat and also completely nonsensical considering the fact that there is no choice that would allow you to remain true neutral short of dying from the curse or evenly splitting devour and supress 50/50.

 

Consider the Chaotic Good ranger again, losing his class because he doesen't wan't to surrender to an ancient curse. Sure part of it is a problem with the D&D alignment rules, but it's a problem that should have been very carefully compensated for.

 

I say again, I wan't decisions that affect my alignment to be made consciously, by me not a stupid plot mechanism.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Pop]

In terms of lawful and chaotic, the Spirit Eater curse is described here, with much contention, as 'unnatural'. 'Natural' simply means, status quo, the way the world is. That 'natural' state is of course constructed (i.e. somebody had to make the Wall and the laws at the start, so back then it wasn't 'natural'), but let's not go into that too much, it's not relevant. The point is, the Wall is 'natural', despite the fact that it was so cruel even Kelemvor himself wanted to end it. The Spirit Eater curse is not. It is a disruption in the equilibrium of the universal status quo, an anomaly that disrupts the harmony of other 'natural' things. This is the reason why the Gods and 'lawful' NPCs and Okku want to see the curse destroyed forever. Suppression, which is meant to serve as a (pale) substitute for devouring, is thus lawful because at that moment in time, you have chosen to contain the disruptive potential of the curse rather than expand it or allow it to manifest. Thus your willpower has acted as a force that has prevented the curse from disrupting the 'natural' way of things by devouring a spirit or soul.

Exactly. Perhaps I was too distracted by the way the SE mechanic played into the game thematically to address it in such a succinct fashion. But I do so love analyzing the way they set up MotB from an ethical standpoint, in its dilemmas and conundrums.

 

Also, kids, we might want to be careful with the spoilers we throw around, at least as it pertains to

the wall

and such.

 

it's one thats forced down your throat and also completely nonsensical considering the fact that there is no choice that would allow you to remain true neutral short of dying from the curse or evenly splitting devour and supress 50/50

As Cant pointed out, devour (of spirits, at least) has no real alignment ramifications so evenly dividing suppress and devour will make you more lawful and good, but not too much. But as far as I know, given craving and how engaging in one action will preclude the other until rest, it'd be very difficult to "balance" the SE mechanic that way.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Pop

[Gorgon]

Also, kids, we might want to be careful with the spoilers we throw around, at least as it pertains to

the wall

and such.

yeah, but you don't know any of that stuff starting out now do you. How could you make conscious choices on something you don't know.

[Cantousent]

Having alignment shifts dependant on simply pressing a gameplay button is just not smart. It should be something a bit more momentous than simple chance. It might be an abstract choice, but it's one thats forced down your throat and also completely nonsensical considering the fact that there is no choice that would allow you to remain true neutral short of dying from the curse or evenly splitting devour and supress 50/50.

 

Consider the Chaotic Good ranger again, losing his class because he doesen't wan't to surrender to an ancient curse. Sure part of it is a problem with the D&D alignment rules, but it's a problem that should have been very carefully compensated for.

 

I say again, I wan't decisions that affect my alignment to be made consciously, by me not a stupid plot mechanism.

 

Okay. You don't like it. Fair enough. There are other ways to deal with the curse, but you want to use one that denies personal freedom. Instead you want to impose a strict regimen upon yourself but not have it reflect in your alignment. *shrug* That's too bad.

 

I'm happy that something so monumentally important of a moral decision has some impact on gameplay. The way the spirit eater mechanic works in MotB is good. Sorry you didn't like it. I did. I do.

 

Suppression IS a decision. You have other choices. You want to make choices but don't want to have consequences. You're a good example of why the alignment rules are bad. After all, players complaining because they can't have their cake and eat it too come hand in hand with the system.

 

BTW: You can even stay chaotic while suppressing, but even that isn't good enough. Suppression must not have any consequence. Devour soul shouldn't either, I take it? After all, we need to account for Gorgon's intent.

[Azarkon]

This is why alignment systems suck... For every rationale you invent with regards to the shifts an action should produce, somebody will argue the opposite. It just goes out to show that in the real world, morality truly is, to a large degree, relative.

Difference of opinion =/= lack of objective fact phi 101, kids. MotB shows a pretty strong thomistic undercurrent in the D&D universe. The curse is unnatural, using it disrupts the natural order, thus it is evil.

 

The presence of objective facts =/= a counter-argument to moral relativism. Alignment systems never reflect the moral complexities intrinsic to real life, and that's why players feel restrained by them.

 

You'll have to do better than that, pops

[Spider]

I started out in MotB as Chaotic Good and I ended it as chaotic good. I used suppress every now and then and Devour at times as well. But there are many, many, many opportunities in the game to gain a fairly significant amount of chaotic points.

 

For reference, I went through the game having my alignment shift exactly four points toward lawful (right before the end fight).

 

As far as the wider suggestion at hand, yes the alignment system does suck. But if it's used suppress is definitely a lawful act. I don't think it needs to shift your alignment two points towards lawful though, one would have been enough.

[Pop]

This is why alignment systems suck... For every rationale you invent with regards to the shifts an action should produce, somebody will argue the opposite. It just goes out to show that in the real world, morality truly is, to a large degree, relative.

Difference of opinion =/= lack of objective fact phi 101, kids. MotB shows a pretty strong thomistic undercurrent in the D&D universe. The curse is unnatural, using it disrupts the natural order, thus it is evil.

 

The presence of objective facts =/= a counter-argument to moral relativism. Alignment systems never reflect the moral complexities intrinsic to real life, and that's why players feel restrained by them.

 

You'll have to do better than that, pops

You misunderstand me. That there exist objective facts unrelated to morals doesn't disprove relativism, but the argument from difference is logically invalid. It might be the case that morality is subjective, but the fact that different people have different ideas of it doesn't tell us that. Two different people might both be wrong, or one of them could be right.

 

If you didn't misunderstand me, and you are in fact asserting that there are objective moral facts but moral relativism is still valid, then you need to evaluate your definition of "moral relativism". By its very definition, it cannot abide by objective moral truth, because relativism seeks to prove that morality is dependent upon the subject (the observer) rather than the object (the action), but if we say that there is moral fact in the object, then morality cannot be dependent upon the subject and vice versa, because otherwise one could be both right and wrong in the same sense at the same time, which is logically impossible and unacceptable.

 

You can make a better case for subjectivism, which is sublty different from relativism and applies to better, more tenable theories (utilitarianism, the social contract, etc.) but there are better arguments for at least a degree of objective moral value, in my opinion.

 

Also, kids, we might want to be careful with the spoilers we throw around, at least as it pertains to

the wall

and such.

yeah, but you don't know any of that stuff starting out now do you. How could you make conscious choices on something you don't know.

Consideration of conscious choice means toss all to me. This isn't the spoiler thread. The SE mechanic isn't spoiler territory, but the rest of the stuff is. So clamp it down.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Pop

[Azarkon]

You misunderstand me. That there exist objective facts unrelated to morals doesn't disprove relativism, but the argument from difference is logically invalid. It might be the case that morality is subjective, but the fact that different people have different ideas of it doesn't tell us that. Two different people might both be wrong, or one of them could be right.

 

I think you're asking too much from my argument. Fundamentally, a logical proof of moral relativism is extremely difficult, if not outright untenable, because this is - after all - abstract philosophy and not symbolic mathematics. However, that a correlation exists between vehement differences of opinion and the validity of moral relativism is a reasonable hypothesis, and that's all I meant by "goes out to show." It is by no means a proof because, as you said, difference can merely be explained by error. Of course, I am severely skeptical that difference is only error, but by no means am I going to claim that I have the answer to one of moral philosophy's most profound and controversial questions based on how people view alignments in games.

 

By its very definition, it cannot abide by objective moral truth, because relativism seeks to prove that morality is dependent upon the subject (the observer) rather than the object (the action), but if we say that there is moral fact in the object, then morality cannot be dependent upon the subject and vice versa, because otherwise one could be both right and wrong in the same sense at the same time, which is logically impossible and unacceptable.

 

That would depend on the definition of objectivity. My view of it has always been that moral "objectivity," insofar as it exists, refers to a shared sense of morality derived from fundamental symmetries in human experiences, and not because there is intrinsic moral value to the object of attention. Thus, my perspective is - indeed - that morality is principally relative, but that it can be functionally "objective" with respect to a group due to similarities of embodied perception. As the size of the group increases and its differences compound, however, this "objectivity" includes less and less universally shared values by virtue of statistical variation - until, at last, we arrive at humanity as a whole, which certainly still shares some values (much more so than if we were to start including other species), but in a much less capacity than, say, a single nation or culture.

 

But of course, this is only my personal, subjective view, and as a relativist I can say that and be consistent

Edited October 30, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

Well we have already been around this a couple of times, but let me just sum up my position.

 

Now I understand that it is quite possible to enjoy the spirit eater skills and abilities, but if you have a character class dependant on alignment and you have imported that character from NWN, chances are very slim that you would happen to be at the inceptual alignment numbers, and therefore considerable that the spirit eater mechanism might push those numbers over the edge and interfere with your class, and depending on class it might do so in a manner that doesen't make sense at all.

 

This should be compensated for.

 

Also, the player's experience of choices in the game is the only anchor there is for presenting alignment changes. It's never nice to have those decisions forced down your throat. A high browed exposition on why resisting the effects of a curse should make you shift towards lawful ,however succinct, is not an experience of choice. It doesen't do to seperate the motivations of the player, and the motivations of the character in the game world either, all there is to go on are the choices presented in gameplay; those choices define your game character's motivations.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Gorgon

[Cantousent]

I feel you, bro. I really do. ...And I'm happy to give you the last argument. No one at Obsidian asked for or wanted my opinion regarding this shift, and I didn't effect me. However, I know at least one person who railed (absolutely railed) against this outcome for alignment based characters. At the time, I agreed with him that it sucked, even though I continue to believe that it makes sense.

 

The fact is, I'm not belittling your irritation. I've already stated my reasons for disagreeing with you, but I understand that you've made a cogent argument for your position, even if I don't share your view. Regardless, I can understand the irritation folks feel for being forced to switch classes because of alignment shifts.

[Xard]

Hah, I KNEW Gann and Kaelyn were the ones that were heavily written by Avellone. Yay for me!

 

I just finished designing a few of the companions for Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer expansion (Kaelyn the Dove and Gannayev-of-Dreams, based on concepts by George Ziets and brought to you in stunning visuals by Justin Cherry) and I'm now back on the Aliens RPG with SEGA, so here are some thoughts on dialogue writing - for games.

 

 

From some older codex interview.

[Morgoth]

Yeah Kaelyn and Gann are awesome, although Gann seems to be a bit too much on the Emo side.

 

Okku is cool too, although he goes down too fast now in my current God's Vault battle.... these pesky Vampires, gotta find a way how to deal with them properly.

[Xard]

Apart from hair (and even that ain't exactly emo hairstyle) there's nothing emo about Gann

 

Oh yes, those vampires are pain in the ass - they bring your casters down with their quivering palm attacks in very first rounds if you ain't careful, then they bring down Okku with sheer numbers (that neither doesn't take too long...) and then you're all alone

Edited October 30, 2007 by Xard

[Starwars]

I was always afraid that Gann would be just that, emo. But if anything, I think he's emo done right. He's obviously got issues on the inside, but he's not the "woe is me!" type. I think it was a pretty nice touch to make him as charismatic and flirtatious as he is.

 

Again, it's really to bad that there are not more interactions between the party members. Lord knows there are possibilities for some really interesting ones with these characters.

[Xard]

Uhh, having issue =/= emo