Good people need some perm ability score bonuses

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The whole thread, titled "Good people need some perm ability score bonuses" implies that we're acting under the assumption that the game *is* tracking goodness. (...)

 

Yes, there are gray areas to morality, but I challenge you to design a logical system that takes that accurately into account for the purposes of a crpg where the honest communication between the DM and the player do not exist.

 

 

Actually, Pillars doesn't track objective goodness, and therein lies the answer to your second question as well. It is, frankly, irrelevant whether the PC is actually good or just pretends to be good in a cynical attempt to earn other people's goodwill - and short of a setting where all-powerful mindreading creatures can peer into the deepest recesses of one's soul, I can't really imagine a situation where it would ever be relevant. By all means, let the game track a player's reputation as a goody-two-shoes! It just doesn't have to map to any internal value system held by their character (and the game should probably also offer options to game it, because it's always nice if the difference between reputation and reality is actively acknowledged).

 

 

 

you started off with insinuating that he was being dishonest with your "people like you would say that" comment

 

Technically he didn't outright say "people like you". He merely strongly implied it 

 

 

Fair enough, I had completely forgotten that I had made that comment, although I'm glad that this distinction wasn't lost on everyone. Apologies.

 

 

No worries, I appreciate a decent veiled insult delivered with just the appropriate amount of plausible deniability 

[Quillon]

The title of this thread is hurting my brain for some reason.

[tinysalamander]

Well, you did learn the lesson of those 10 coins quite well if you still remember it. Your failure to understand and appreciate that lesson is hardly the game's fault now is it? ^^

I would appreciate less condescending tone even if we disagree on things, thank you.

 

Good is not an emotion, good is not a feeling. You're not truly good until you understand the circumstances of your help and their consequences.

Which means nobody who is not omniscient is truly good.

 

I wonder if those Gypsy children really provoked thoughts in you, or was it merely emotions around which you built thoughts afterwards? Did you take into account the possibility that their parents might have put them up to it so that they don't have to work, and those little children bring in a lot more empathy money than a couple of junkies, or did you just wonder how the world must be so evil when little children have to beg? Did you actually draw insights from that experience with the gypsies?

Don’t be a Captain Obvious now. That’s exactly why I said it is thought provoking.

 

My point is that the well of good and evil is a lot deeper than you think, and the details *do* matter; they're the only thing that matter in the end. Helping someone because you're emotionally compelled to do so is actually quite selfish, it is the easy way to go, not the hard way. Helping someone against your emotions, now that is difficult, and that could be considered selfless, unless you're getting something out of it.

Matter to whom? You seem to operate on some idea of universal good/evil axis which isn’t quite how it works in real life.

Edited February 21, 2017 by tinysalamander

[JerekKruger]

The title of this thread is hurting my brain for some reason.

 

Mine too. I don't really know what the historical Komi state has to do with the ability scores of good people.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Actually, Pillars doesn't track objective goodness, and therein lies the answer to your second question as well. It is, frankly, irrelevant whether the PC is actually good or just pretends to be good in a cynical attempt to earn other people's goodwill - and short of a setting where all-powerful mindreading creatures can peer into the deepest recesses of one's soul, I can't really imagine a situation where it would ever be relevant. By all means, let the game track a player's reputation as a goody-two-shoes! It just doesn't have to map to any internal value system held by their character (and the game should probably also offer options to game it, because it's always nice if the difference between reputation and reality is actively acknowledged).

 

 

I know the game doesn't, but this thread takes on that assumption that "good" does exist and should be rewarded, and the idea of rewarding players for "being good" with stat bonuses is something I'm strongly against, hence my original arguments. Also, the fact of encouraging "good" behavior with rewards robs the game of real moral dilemmas, reducing the whole good/evil thing into a binary choice of "which bonuses do I want". I think the way PoE handled it was good, you paid a heavy price for that stat increase you gained from sacrificing a companion.

 

Since good and evil are not universal forces in PoE like they are in D&D, I'm inclined to agree with you here; having a reputation system instead a morality one is a good thing, but it doesn't work unless the developers are as aware of when *not* to use that reputation as an indication of something as they are of when to use it. Ie, having the reputation for benevolence shouldn't award you some abstract universal goodness points that give you power. Nor an automatic approval, should that omnipotent mind-reading creature happen to cross your path.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Well, you did learn the lesson of those 10 coins quite well if you still remember it. Your failure to understand and appreciate that lesson is hardly the game's fault now is it? ^^

I would appreciate less condescending tone even if we disagree on things, thank you.

 

 

 

That's not a condescending tone, that is a whole point and argument, neatly wrapped in a single line of text. It's funny how you chose to ignore the one line in my post that had meaning and chose instead to focus on the expanded fluff below.

[stiven]

> I demand that my definition of good has to be enforced to everyone around me

 

Yeah, i has guessed as much. All tyrant has started from that, at some point. There is no worse kind of evil that one with complete lack of selflessness. "Good intentions" and road to hell, and all thats stuff. So im still standing for what i has said earlier about those kinder garden tier of "lawfull-dumb good" which prevent actually good guys from emerging. This squabble is perfect example of why decent story never has moral busy bodies in it with high resilient plot armor jacket of "good guys".

Edited February 21, 2017 by stiven

[Ninjamestari]

> I demand that my definition of good has to be enforced to everyone around me

 

Yeah, i has guessed as much. All tyrant has started from that, at some point. There is no worse kind of evil that one with complete lack of selflessness. "Good intentions" and road to hell, and all thats stuff. So im still standing for what i has said earlier about those kinder garden tier of "lawfull-dumb good" which prevent actually good guys from emerging. This squabble is perfect example of why decent story never has moral busy bodies in it with high resilient plot armor jacket of "good guys".

 

That is kinda taking this whole thing out of context; real life doesn't have "good" and "evil" in it, those are arbitrary human definitions in the first place. If you want to use them in a game, you should do so properly or they lose their philosophical meaning. "do I rescue the child and be rewarded, do I do nothing and get nothing, or do I butcher him and be shunned" really is not a moral dilemma in a game where the risk to your person and the physical effort involved are not real.

[Leeuwenhart]

 

> I demand that my definition of good has to be enforced to everyone around me

 

Yeah, i has guessed as much. All tyrant has started from that, at some point. There is no worse kind of evil that one with complete lack of selflessness. "Good intentions" and road to hell, and all thats stuff. So im still standing for what i has said earlier about those kinder garden tier of "lawfull-dumb good" which prevent actually good guys from emerging. This squabble is perfect example of why decent story never has moral busy bodies in it with high resilient plot armor jacket of "good guys".

That is kinda taking this whole thing out of context; real life doesn't have "good" and "evil" in it, those are arbitrary human definitions in the first place. If you want to use them in a game, you should do so properly or they lose their philosophical meaning. "do I rescue the child and be rewarded, do I do nothing and get nothing, or do I butcher him and be shunned" really is not a moral dilemma in a game where the risk to your person and the physical effort involved are not real.

 

But my Bae might leave...

 

"Edér don't go... I'm sorry i sold that baby Orlan for organ harvesting... that sword i bought with that gold tho... please Edér-chan... "

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

"Edér don't go... I'm sorry i sold that baby Orlan for organ harvesting... that sword i bought with that gold tho... please Edér-chan... "

 

 

*Edér-kun

 

weeb correctly, scrub

Edited February 22, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Leeuwenhart]

 

"Edér don't go... I'm sorry i sold that baby Orlan for organ harvesting... that sword i bought with that gold tho... please Edér-chan... "

 

*Edér-kun

 

weeb correctly, scrub

Chan i says

 

 

 

 

In general, chan is used for babies, young children, grandparents and teenagers. It may also be used towards cute animals, lovers, close friends, any youthful woman, or between friends.

 

 

 

 

Bae=>Chan

Edited February 22, 2017 by Leeuwenhart

[Casper]

i don't think an rpg that gives blanket rewards based on being good or evil is truly an rpg. is it still an rpg if you continually bash the character/s over the head for being good, or continually reward evil acts without any consequences as a result (well beyond the act itself)?

 

i want my rewards and "punishments" based off of my actions, regardless of the alignment of said actions. and i'd also like to see some unexpected, unintended consequences or rewards.

 

as to good actions vs evil ones. to me it seems taking the higher road usually makes things more difficult in the short term, but actually makes things go more smoothly in the long run.

where as being "evil" makes you more powerful, and makes the immediate challenges not as daunting as they would be otherwise, however, it seems to add additional problems or makes future issues bigger, or both.

 

i'd rather see bonuses/penalties applied to being patient vs being impatient when the situation calls for it. now, i'm not saying being impatient should always be punished, as sometimes it's better to act than to sit still... the outcome/rewards/punishments should be determined on a situational basis. not an alignment one.

 

---edit typo

Edited February 22, 2017 by Casper

[Kadayko]

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

 

How exactly is that smart? Unless you are thinking about the rewards you will get from happy people. 

[Casper]

for me it was the whole "you're not truly good unless you personally suffer from your own actions" that left me at a loss... from any standpoint that is in my opinion... um, mistaken? (mistaken is my code word for crazy)

 

---edit

typo

Edited February 23, 2017 by Casper

[Heijoushin]

for me it was the whole "you're not truly good unless you personally suffer from your own actions" that left me at a loss... from any standpoint that is in my opinion... um, mistaken? (mistaken is my code word for crazy)

 

---edit

typo

 

I think he meant "Anyone can be good if it's in their best interests. But True Virtue  is being good when you don't benefit."

 

*insert image of Zen Monk bowing*

[Ninjamestari]

 

for me it was the whole "you're not truly good unless you personally suffer from your own actions" that left me at a loss... from any standpoint that is in my opinion... um, mistaken? (mistaken is my code word for crazy)

 

---edit

typo

 

I think he meant "Anyone can be good if it's in their best interests. But True Virtue  is being good when you don't benefit."

 

*insert image of Zen Monk bowing*

 

 

Just about perfect clarification, thanks. I like that Zen Monk quote, where's it from and who said it? 

[Kadayko]

 

for me it was the whole "you're not truly good unless you personally suffer from your own actions" that left me at a loss... from any standpoint that is in my opinion... um, mistaken? (mistaken is my code word for crazy)

 

---edit

typo

 

I think he meant "Anyone can be good if it's in their best interests. But True Virtue  is being good when you don't benefit."

 

*insert image of Zen Monk bowing*

 

 

I like how Zen Monks consider insanity to be a virtue. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

 

How exactly is that smart? 

 

 

It's the most sustainable long-term strategy on the macro level.

[Eumaios]

Over-compensating for past transgressions that benefited goody-two-shoes doesn't legitimize working against them. The benefit of being the good guy is partly how people view you, but it's also party how you view yourself. If loyalty is more than a seven letter word you use in a scrabble game, the result is that you have to sacrifice that idea to back it up, which means that others view you in a more positive light, but also that you the discipline to act with loyalty. Is that 'good?' maybe not. Mafioso can act with loyalty. In fact, it defines them, but the general public doesn't define them as good. The question, in this specific case, is about code. If you act within your code, come hell or high water, then you might get a benefit from society and your peers, but you'll definitely get credit with your harshest judge... yourself.

[Kadayko]

 

 

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

 

How exactly is that smart? 

 

 

It's the most sustainable long-term strategy on the macro level.

 

 

But that strategy only works is you EXPECT other people to treat you nicely as well, not do good for them regardless.