Messages

Nope, everything is up to date there.

Yeah, not enough is changed for me to want to buy this game for the fourth time. Beamdog screwed up all their previous releases of old Bioware games, so as history has taught us, this will be an equally hot mess.

We're all nerds here. But we all started in different ways and from different things. So what got us all started on the path to nerddom? For me, this scene was my 'eureka' moment where I knew I was a nerd.



What cemented my infamous love of comics, it was this big bad boy right here! (Yes, my first comic at 5 years old was "Spawn". That says a lot.)



So what about you? What started you on your geeky path?

Also have to consider that animations and item appearances change with gender also. So that would be...well, a hellish undertaking to script.

I will be back to DMing soon and playing full time. I had recently had a pretty bad stint after a personal tragedy which left me pretty messed up for a while. It was already a pretty stressful time before that due to a really garbage physics/science professor who is likely going to destroy my GPA (This is why you do not hire professors who barely speak english). But I done boozing myself into oblivion and will get back to trying to kill all characters again soon enough.

May 15, 2017 1:13:36 GMT -5 spamtastic1979 said:

I was just wondering why Eldritch Knight gets tumble as a class skill and not Spellsword? Does Parry even work in NWN that it was added to Weapon Master?

Comparing the two, Spellsword is vastly more powerful. Eldritch Knight gets absolutely no abilities save for the one free feat at first level. Spellswords are ultimately best as tanks, all of their abilities are based about armor and shields and using them with their magic. Eldritch Knights gaining Tumble and Uncanny Dodge sets a feel and design for them as a class that is more nimble and not based about armor and these two changes give them a good bit more power to close the gap between the currently underwhelming EK and the vastly more powerful Spellsword. Stylistically, Eldritch Knights are not really armored mages (Though there are the rare exceptions) but they are in combat just as much as them so it would make sense that they would be learning to evade attacks and minimize moments where they are dropping their guard.

I forgot to mention. Eric Boyd, the main writer of Faiths and Pantheons? He wrote the Forgotten Realms 4th Edition Campaign Setting. Which that book was another mess of contradictions (Contradicted itself,  other source material, novels, and the word of Old Greenbeard). So this is not a new thing for him (And that book was an abomination).

Mar 26, 2017 11:41:27 GMT -5 Edge said:

It doesn't help that WOTC has been extremely inconsistent about this across different books, as this very thread has provided so many examples of. Even more so when adding in non-FR expansions and setting-neutral books that while not necessarily designed for use with the setting contain information and mechanics we do make use of here.

The bulk of the examples that have been offered are from FR sources. WOTC is actually very consistent on this matter, of the two dozen or so examples that we have presented so far, there is only one example that speaks to the contrary. Different settings have different rules and the PHB (one of the examples offered) is one that is written largely with Greyhawk in mind. It is worth mentioning that the source for the conflicting information comes from a rather "eh" source. Faiths and Pantheons was written by Erik Mona and Eric Boyd were rather new to the FR setting when they wrote that book, and it was really their first (And close to last) FR book. Their career was largely involved with Greyhawk, setting-neutral books (Fiendish Codex 1 for example) and Pathfinder.

As much as I would love for any excuse to punch on WotC, this simply looks to be the fault of the two writers who have very little experience with the setting, judging from their resume. Add to the debate, this book has always been on that is highly controversial and the information represented within was something shunned by a lot of developers and players alike. It drove a HARD wedge into third party developers and even places like Dicefreaks simply because it did something that was considered heretical at one point in time. It stated gods. People didn't want to see gods stated. It took away that aura of mystery and omnipotence and turned them into a "Well, I could easily kill this god with my level 40 Soul Knife/Pyrokineticist ogre who has two pairs of Glabrezu arms grafted to his pecs". In addition to this, the statistics presented within this book were largely considered by third party developers and most major D&D forum sites to be the stats of -avatars- and for the REAL gods to remain unstated so they did not simply become a benchmark for gank-tanks to go after.

Ultimately, there is so far only one source listed that contradicts the dozens of sources that say otherwise, just throw out the lego that doesn't fit.

Gelgar Talonguard - Helm - FRCS 3rd Ed page 10
Chvar Eldenbow - Oghma - Cloak and Dagger page 30
Myrmeen Lhal - Tymora - FRCS 3rd Ed page 112/113
Martine - Tymora - 'Soldiers of Ice' A novel written by David Cook, one of the leading 3.5 sourcebook writers.
Minsc - Never stated to have a deity and no statistical information has a deity listed in-game (Baldur's Gate 2/Neverwinter. BG2 is canon, referenced several times in books. Can get page numbers if need be. It is also a common theory that Minsc worshipped Boo.)
Brenvol Whitebrow - Selune - Champions of Valor page 80
Rindon Wasatho - Selune  - Champions of Valor page 150
Jehastra Wintergaze - Selune - Champions of Valor page 82

Page 26 of the FRCS states an example of Bane following Rangers, as well as detailed rangers loyal to organizations.

Vince says: I have hundreds of bones. I could bone for days.

Mar 19, 2017 5:43:57 GMT -5 trylobyte said:

I think Elz is mixing up the Lawful and Good parts of the alignment in his arguments.  Celestials are not mindless purge-bots, but they do have codes and laws that they follow that may result in them not being shining paragons of super-awesome goodliness by our real-world standards.  Their default response to a minor transgression like littering is generally not going to be murder because they have enough intelligence to understand what disproportionate retribution is and enough sense to not commit it.  They're much more likely to grab the offender, give them a stern lecture (which may make the target wish they were dead), then make the offender fix the problem.

The vampire case is more complicated.  Yes a celestial is more likely to go right to killing even if the vampiric victim is innocent.  But there are logical reasons for that.  The celestial's thought process is going to follow a chain and come to the conclusion that killing the person, innocent though they may have been, is the best solution for everybody.  Remember, vampirism is hard to cure and in the time that it takes to find someone to cure it their 'innocent' vampire is slowly getting more and more evil, their soul getting more and more corrupt, and they're hurting more and more people just to survive.  Thus by killing them immediately the celestial is making the decision that sending their soul to its proper afterlife now is better for that person than going on a wild goose chase and potentially losing that soul to darkness.  The more kindly among adventurers might say 'But there's always a chance!' but the celestial has been around long enough and seen the situation often enough to know that no, for most people, there really isn't.

I did not mean to suggest that celestials might kill people for minor transgressions (Mass purges require Sodom and Gomorrah levels of screwed up), but from the eyes of an average townsfolk, this could be a valid fear when he suddenly is faced with a giant winged celestial being that is shattering his perception of the world. The vampire example was meant to show that it's really hard for us, as humans, to really be able to look at every situation and be a true impartial judge of morality without the tools I've stated previously and then some. Morality is a really tough subject and everyone will view it different because we all -are- so vastly different. That's why the array of evil characters we could see would be wildly varied and to best tend to it, one could be better equipped by understanding these moral systems and such. We as a species have been debating what is good and what is evil and why evil even exists in the first place since...Epicurus. Hell, one of the more popular debates in my circle of friends is "How evil is Batman? Is the Joker really a better person than Batman?" No, the Joker is evil as hell. Batman is...pretty evil too. That said, one of the best exchanges in comic history that is relevant to this conversation came from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.

Batman: All the people I've murdered...by letting you live. (IT'S A LOT!)

Joker: I never kept count.

Batman: I did.

Joker: I know. And I love you for it.

Mar 18, 2017 17:31:00 GMT -5  @belladonna said:

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

That's a rather limited and poor example, as once an angel or deva goes down that path, they quickly become a fallen celestial.  Those that are truly celestials ARE all good (as far as base mechanics go).  As far as the celestials go, fallen celestials are no longer considered truly celestial (much like paladins falling are not paladins without atonement).  Likewise, if a fiend rises, they are no longer considered truly a fiend.

That's the point I was getting at. Outsiders have physical changes that reflect their alignment and place on the Wheel. Asemodeus is another example of an outsider who has changed alignment and become something else and there are hints that the army that Asemodeus holds in reserve contain a great number of fallen celestials who were with him at the time of his fall from grace. D&D has many examples of this happening (Tons of Planescape: Torment), in every instance they gain a new type or gain the 'augmented' subtrait. This is reflected in characters such as O, as well who was a human who spent so much time on the Astral Plane that he lost his physical form and ceased being human. There are minor examples of this within the Githzerai/Githyanki culture with material that ranges from Core, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms and Planescape in the form of the many Illithid prophecies and the Pronouncement of Two Skies. The Hag Countess is another such character who defied their typical roots and ended up becoming something else entirely. The planes and those who can walk them are morphic and everything is fluid on the Wheel.

As for the rest of the example I presented, look to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels would view something as evil that another group might not either due to desensitization or what have you. A victim turned into a vampire from an unfortunate attack would simply be viewed as something needing to be purged by a deva or paladin, meanwhile more open minded people might try to help the newly turned vampire try to get back to their life or find some medium for them to feed on besides blood. There is another interesting example presented in the Book of Vile Darkness about two fiends who just want to be left alone and live out their life in married bliss, but the paladin who finds them has to decide between letting them live a peaceful and happy life, or just kill two "Evil" beings because they are evil. That kind of blind "kill it cause it's evil, there's no hope for its redemption" is a kind of evil in and of itself. It's kind of like how Batman can be viewed as the bad guy because he keeps up the stupidly pointless struggle with the Joker instead of saving lives and just ENDING the Joker already.

It's nice to try and simply morality and alignment, but it's just not something that easy. Hell, even Star Wars, which is viewed as the simplest and most effective form of alignment systems has some odd cases. Knights of the Old Republic II (Also by Chris Avellone) show Revan making a massive personal sacrifice and turning to the dark side because he NEEDED the power it brought to stop an even great evil when the True Sith would return and served as a potent villain in order to help strengthen the Republic so they can stand a fighting chance when the True Sith arrived (A good thing to do). Kreia who is a grey jedi uses the Dark Side and the Light Side in her quest to destroy the Force because she views the Force as the ultimate puppet master and robs everyone of free will (She is trying to do good here).

TL;DR Impartial viewing of actions on a moral scale is really impossible without examining it through multiple perspectives and evaluating the outcomes because we ourselves are biased creatures. Kantianism vs Utilitarianism.

Mar 18, 2017 14:25:36 GMT -5 Arya Kalarathri said:

Yet the good vs. evil can be muddied up even in D&D.

Book of Vile Darkness goes into some scenarios where people who mean well can accidentally cause collateral damage due to a short sight on their end. This in itself is not evil, though they as goodly sorts would feel bad and try to make up for it. On the other hand, when someone anticipates and knows they are about to do some collateral, that is when it becomes evil. When they do not care that the collateral happened.

Book of Exalted Deeds mentions also that trying to redeem someone is a good act. Though some people, including some goodly sort, will be afraid of such people getting corrupted. It may not always be wise to try redeeming, of course. However, it is considered one of the purely good acts out there.

Intention should not be the main factor, but as demonstrated in the BoVD example, it plays when someone knowingly does something bad. If a person uses a relic and does not know it would cause contagion, they may not get those evil points (unless the relic magic-induced shift). When they know it does, though, boom. Evil.

Again, though. As demonstrated in previous portions of the thread, a single small act of malice or otherwise is not enough to make a major shift. It's degrees and quantities.

On that point, this is a +2 to what Edge said. Quantities and degrees, again.


Sincerely,
Arya

Postscript:

Also, on the note slightly less related pertaining to objective good vs. evil in D&D regarding monster types: Planescape has a few examples of fiends and celestials who go against their types. However, these should be treated as incredibly rare and at best only epic level characters with extraordinary experiences will ever be exposed to such nuances. You will find information on such things in the books, including Faces of Evil and the game, Planescape: Torment. 

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

On the note of short sightedness and fluid alignment, there is an amazing example presented in Magneto issue 17. When Magneto is trying to build up a new Genosha, a series of mutants are murdered by a nazi who is taunting Magneto. It turns out that the nazi is an illusion of someone from Mangeto's past, Hitzig, one of the men who commanded Auschwitz during his stay there. The illusions are the creation of a young mutant girl whose powers are spiraling hopelessly out of control and without someone like Charles Xavier around (BECAUSE CYCLOPS FUCKING KILL HIM), there is no hope of stopping her powers from growing more and more powerful and more mutants dying because of it. Magneto HAS to do something about it, so he kills the girl to save ALL of the mutants in Genosha, and potentially the world. Now, Magneto did the right thing in a lot of peoples eyes. He traded one life to save BILLIONS. Magneto understood what he was doing. On the surface, this is an evil act, but when examined in the long term it is not. Ultimately, when I view whether or not a character needs an alignment change, it is because of their motivations with the facts that have been presented to them. A character cannot be held accountable for unknown consequences that arise due to their actions, that's not something they decided, but if they know FULL AND WELL what will happen, than the blame solely lies with them. If a paladin was in the same situation as Magneto, they'd likely have not killed the girl and it would have resulted in many, many more deaths.

Also, seriously. Read this series. It's amazing.

D&D's alignment system is frankly crap. I've always been more in favor of the Bedlam Axis manner of determining alignment. That being said, a few examples of how common tropes fail when applied to D&D.

As per D&D, Wolverine would probably be considered True Neutral, a lot of the bad things he does, he enjoys. He'd gone on berserk killing sprees tons of times because of [insert any damn reason ever], and just acted out on what he wants to do. Wolverine has always been a good guy, but he's just emotional and not mentally equipped to deal with a lot of the things he's gone through.

Magneto is another great example of an anti-hero that muddles up in this system. By the book, he would be considered Lawful Evil, when really Magneto is always forced into the "Evil" acts that he commits, and even states that he only accepted the name "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" because it allowed the X-Men and Xavier to play the heroes, drawing positive attention to the mutant plight. Magneto is LN, really.

Xavier on the other hand is considered...practically a paladin, the system would define him as LG. When you look at what Xavier does at times though, like robbing people of free will, changing who they are at the drop of a hat with his powers, sending children off to their deaths, being so selfish in never even THINKING that there is any other way than his way, and that stubbornness leading to the deaths of more people? Xavier borders on evil a LOT, but I'd still say he is LN as well.

Now we have Sabretooth, someone who would be categorized as CE. This does not take into account that Sabretooth is a slave of his biology and his upbringing, he's as much a victim as any other member of the X-Men. Many times Sabretooth talked about wanting to be good, aspiring to be good, wanting to be more like Wolverine, but there's this sickness inside him that is either a mental problem or a part of his mutation that does not allow him to stop killing (even though he has been doing a great job of holding that off). Sabretooth is really hard to define alignment wise, he is a rather complex character.

The problem that D&D faces once it tries to talk about morality, is that it forgets that there are many ways to judge it and simply saying "From the viewpoint of a bystander" doesn't work. If that DID work, there would not be centuries of philosophy debating what is and is not evil...and even then, they all look through the reference point of their own philosophy in relation to another philosophy. What is evil to an Existentialist is not necessarily evil when viewed through the eyes of a Theologist. Xavier stands as a good example here, Xavier has good intentions, he does, but it comes with such a massive body count, wouldn't the 'good' path be to lessen the thousands who have died because of Xavier's vision? Xavier is evil if judged by...say...a utilitarian.  What about Magneto? Magneto never throws the first punch, he does not initiate fights against humans, he does try to talk to people a lot like in the UN/Genosha storylines or most recently when he was dealing with the Hellfire club. Magneto, unlike Xavier, also really does not want to take a mutant life and avoids killing mutants unless he has no other option, and he ALWAYS grieves those mutants he kills after the fact. Xavier just bottles it up and moves on. And even at the end of the day, less people have died for Magneto's beliefs than Xavier's...by a MASSIVE margin. There was a rather potent scene when sentinels were burning down Genosha where Magneto did not wish to be saved, and instead die fighting alongside his fellow mutants, but the citizens of Genosha demanded that he hide and survive in order to bring some form of justice later on...and that surviving DESTROYED Magneto.

So when we're looking at how anti-heroes fit into this equation of "evil or not-evil", think we should look at it like this instead. Are they like Wolverine who weigh their options and only kill when they have to? Or are they like the Punisher style who just gun the hell out of anyone?

The other problem we have is that there is a massive misconceptions drifting through NWN about how alignment is determined on the Lawful/Chaotic standard. A lawful individual can be lawful and not adhere to local or government laws, Batman is a great example. Batman has his creed, he does not break from this creed, but he also operates outside of, and without concern of the laws of Gotham and the US in...practically every issue ever printed. A chaotic individual can certainly be someone who does not care about laws, has no morals, but follows the law because it makes like easier. Honestly, I think the problem would be better if "Lawful" was replaced with "Order" (Kind of like how this is depicted with Master Order and Lord Chaos in Marvel). Not all who are 'Orderly' are paladins or cops or boyscouts, and not all who are 'Chaotic' are LOLsoRANDOM! We further see the problem when we remember that this is a setting where manipulation, mind control magics, and brain washing are a common thing. Actions performed under mind-control/insanity/blahblah don't really play into the alignment of that character in most cases. Wolverine for example was one under the control of The Hand, they sent him out to try to kill a ton of superheroes. Does this give Wolverine evil points? No, he had no way of resisting or even knowing what he was doing. Now, Spider-Man for instance was INFLUENCED by the Venom Symbiote for YEARS. The symbiote never MADE him do anything, but just encouraged him to do things that he would normally resist doing. How does that play into alignment? Honestly, I think it shouldn't. Part of the alignment system is resisting what you do not want to do, no matter how hard it is. If you get drunk and punch a baby because you're acting like a dumbass, that doesn't mean that you really hate babies. It just means you're a drunk moron, essentially.

As Bella mentioned before, the "Tendencies" system is one that works very well, and one that I have been using for at least a decade when I can't convince people to go for Bedlam.

TL;DR: Alignment system in D&D is stupid. We should more carefully judge and measure alignments.

Mar 14, 2017 20:12:30 GMT -5  @belladonna said:

Just as a reminder, there's absolutely nothing against PvP on the server.

I have to respectfully disagree completely. My first DM application was denied purely because I engaged in PVP (I was attacked in a way that violated the rules, yet I got thrown under the bus). I've been told not to run certain events purely because they -might- encourage PVP. I have been told NOT to run events that require consent and sign up because they had PVP elements. PVP is a very touchy subject on NWN as a whole.

Mar 14, 2017 23:28:10 GMT -4 trylobyte said:
Remember that this is an epic server and the playing field is certainly not level.  While I'm not saying the players would do it I can point out that it'd be perfectly IC for characters like Elf, Aelie, Elzevir, or Kimbell to simply go down there and annihilate any evil PC that's offended them lately and they can do it so quickly and so thoroughly that they will never be caught.  You probably won't even ICly know it was them, so you can't even retaliate without metagaming, which is precisely why those characters would operate like that.  This is, from past experience, asking for trouble, especially since Shindig is also a starting city.

Remember that the good guys and antiheroes have a decade-long headstart and there are very few evil characters who could stand up to them one on one let alone in a group.  This makes open PvP a generally bad idea.  I know most of you guys and generally trust you, but I've seen this sort of thing far too many times to ever trust it.  PvP is competitive and competition brings out the worst in people.

Servers like POTM, Sinfar and few others I could name all have some form of areas or rules where open PVP is permitted. POTM sees TONS about monster or Dark Power 5 characters who gain immunity to PVP rules, and a lot of the time start chain killing low level characters with their level 15 werewolf, or whatever or just a player in an open PVP area. I agree completely with Trylo that open PVP at ALL is a terrible idea, regardless of how limited a form. With places like Sinfar that have entire areas with open PVP, there is inevitably the one person who just camps in there and attacks everyone they see, which results in sore feelings when someone is just trying to move through the area to either visit a dungeon, shop, what-have-you.