79 replies to this topic

[Grey Acumen]

Ah, I see now, I hadn't thought about the free hand idea, I tend to focus on either unarmed attacks, or weapons only(which is why I prefer quarterstaff)

Yet again I offer kudos on this beatiful piece of work.

[Littiz]

Thanx GA!
It seems we share something about the "True goodness" concept...
Anyway I don't think it can exist in RL. Even a "saint", in the deepness of his heart, expects something in the afterlife for conducting a righteous life.

Human actions are not without interest (mine certainly aren't...), but portraying this kind of character in a game is a fun attempt.

[T.G.Maestro]

if I'm a monk and I knock out an opponent who's trying to kill me, it's not "good" to wait for him to get up and fight him again. It's just dumb

I agree.

[Schatten]

Wait, if i knock someone down i am not allowed to finish him off? :-|

[Grey Acumen]

This actually does make sense, at least to me. It has to do with killing in cold blood. Its one thing to kill someone in the heat of battle when your opponent has a fighting chance to either stop you, or run away, but if you kill him while he's knocked out, that gives no chance to make amends/surrender/repent/whatever (Okay, in the game that's not going to happen, but the point here is the philosophy)

And I was thinking, if the whole point of having onehanded weapons is to have a hand free for unarmed strikes, then it should be even more likely for him to try to disarm his opponent.

Would it be possible to write a short script that if the enemy is unarmed, they automatically try to get their weapon back and reequip it, that would rebalance just how powerful the disarming technique would be.

(I'm almost certain I remember seeing a command for picking items up off the ground, and another for equiping an item)

If this could be done, but you still felt it would be overpowered, you could have it so the Sword Angel could only attack an unarmed opponent if he was also unarmed. (It's what I would do if I were in a fight; disarm my opponent, then go in unarmed)

I apologize if it feels like I'm pushing too much for this, but its such an obvious technique to be used by someone who is trying to preserve life.

[Jinnai]

Anyway, since I've asked for support from the Virtue Mod, I hope something can be done on that side, after all it should affect Virtue of ANY character...

As I posted on my own forum, I disagree. While it might cause the Sword Angel kit to fall due to the merciful requirements of that paricular kit, if I'm a monk and I knock out an opponent who's trying to kill me, it's not "good" to wait for him to get up and fight him again. It's just dumb.

However, if its an hororable duel, that is exactly what you would do.

[Schatten]

Grey Acumen: I understand what you mean but you have to look whats possible in the game and what not. i fully understand what knock down is for but do you think they should make a script for every "human" creature wherein this creature gives up and you get the exp? i dont think so.
yeah, a script to pick an item up, what stops me from dropping beforehand a simple dagger and what about non-droppable items?
Jinnai: There are three honourable duels in the game i can remember right now. Copper Coronet and Mage Duels. The third is the monster duell (not really a duell because you have a whole party)

a simple question: would the elemental lich who guards a piece of kangaxx say to you if you have knocked him down: forgive, my lord, here take theses pieces and led me be. most certainly not. so why is it not allowed to kill him? same for the djinns in windspear. i agree if it is a duell like copper coronet but otherwise i have to kill the opponent.

[Littiz]

As somewhere in the docs is emphatized, this kit is meant to be kinda extreme. I know many people won't even be interested in *trying* a character like this.
With Sim' Virtue Mod installed, this character will fall easily: like for paladins, a single virtue drop is enough to trigger the falling.

But I couldn't be content yet, so I added extra conditions of my own. Now even attacking a neutral creature triggers the falling, no matter if "innocent" or not: one hit is enough. It is just something out of the character's behaviour, and I do want the status to be hard to keep. B)

About helpless victims, the point remains.. it's not a question of intelligence, honour, or anything, just pity! With enemies lying on the ground, I really don't see this character whacking them coldly, no.
But here we have a serious technical issue, since, quite frankly, I don't know how to implement such a trigger, and I've already tried something: scripting, spellcasting conditions applied to enemies via melee effect... nothing works (if someone has suggestions...)

Anyway, most monsters (and certainly undead) cannot be knocked down, so it wouldn't be a great problem
As I've said, I've tried before to simulate in actual play such an extreme behaviour: it's hard, but not impossible. If you leave some enemies alive, the game doesn't stop. You can just go on: most of the times, what happens it's just that you miss some items, and maybe some quests cannot be abused to the maximum.
Nobody says that you *have* to do (and kill) everything. You have choices, and you go on, accepting the outcomes of your choices (in RL, you don't really have a "choice" about that, do you?)

Still I want to refine the "instruments" for this character as best as possible. For example, I think that allowing some enemies to turn neutral is possible. One could do a generic script, and apply it via "change script" (melee?) effect, with some chances to trigger.
The script would check the "current" creature, and start a dialogue accordingly. Of course there's no turning back once you've changed script, so this effect should be limited somewhat (not affecting some races, enemies with too many hit-dices and so on) and probably some creatures should be made purposedly immune to it. But in theory, I think it's doable.

[Schatten]

well, then this kit is nothing for me.

[Littiz]

well, then this kit is nothing for me.

It's not that I'm not open to suggestions, I've already modified many things after debating with TGM.

What I certainly don't want to lose (and this is true even for TGM at this point, I figure), is the main concept behind this kit.
It portrays an extremely good character, so, indeed, it's only for players who want to try such a challenge.
If you want to play evil, or just run through the game killing everything in your path, there's plenty of classes and custom kits to do it already...

What I can guarantee, is that it will be a complete and detailed work, as much as we can do, at least.

EDIT: thanx Sim, it's a nice suggestion, I have two doubts though. First, I'm not sure if those script are checked while in helpless state. Second, they are really too many Maybe if it worked with Wtasight or something...

[Littiz]

Something I wanted to add.

These concepts are not put there for no reason, they're all tied together, in the intentions at least (as always).

This kit *HAS* to be merciful and pitiful: the theme is that if you are not totally "in peace" with the world, you cannot attain abilities such as Spiritual Integrity

[Kish]

It seems odd to me that the character's companions can kill downed opponents and it won't negatively affect the character. It appears that that part of the code of ethics this kit goes by is, "You can't killed a downed opponent, even if you know that s/he will only rise to attack you again, even if that's all s/he can do, but you bear no responsibility for what your group members might do, even if you're the leader, even if you told them to do it." That looks really messed up to me in both directions.

Can't attack blue-circled opponents--what about those who attack while remaining blue-circled, like the false peasants at the circus? What about a slave trader who drags a slave past in front of you in the slums during one night encounter? Being unable to initiate combat with blue-circles means you can usually (not always) use violence for self-defense, but it bars violence in defense of others, and that seems wrong to me.

[Littiz]

It seems odd to me that the character's companions can kill downed opponents and it won't negatively affect the character.  It appears that that part of the code of ethics this kit goes by is, "You can't killed a downed opponent, even if you know that s/he will only rise to attack you again, even if that's all s/he can do, but you bear no responsibility for what your group members might do, even if you're the leader, even if you told them to do it."  That looks really messed up to me in both directions.

Hm, it's up to game mechanics and interpretation, here. It's not that you can watch every single move of your companions, you can just try to morally direct them.
I don't really know if I entirely agree on how the game handles "group" reputation (or "virtue" ). Don't know, should be debated further..
Anyway, right now *nothing* works for this kind of trigger.
I'd be more than happy to realize a version that affected all the party

Can't attack blue-circled opponents--what about those who attack while remaining blue-circled, like the false peasants at the circus?  What about a slave trader who drags a slave past in front of you in the slums during one night encounter?  Being unable to initiate combat with blue-circles means you can usually (not always) use violence for self-defense, but it bars violence in defense of others, and that seems wrong to me.

Yes, you have some points here, but I plan to revise/refine things when we have testers.
These triggers are placed in the "shouts" scripts, possibly the false paesants are not even using those. I fear some issues will have to be evaluated case by case.
One could think to allow only "limited" violence, somehow, for the last case you mentioned. We'll see... Anyway, in doubt, I prefer to swing this part:
SA could always just place himself between contendents, while "less pure" party members could attack on their own
Actually it's not that much of a joke, I've "roleplayed" things like that at times, but if you want to consider all the actions of each party member strictly as a responsibility of the protagonist, we have a clash again

[Schatten]

its what i said. if i cant kill an opponent who is down and he can only attack me (or do you intend wo make a dialog for every enemy?) then something is wrong here. know what i mean?

[Kish]

Actually it's not that much of a joke, I've "roleplayed" things like that at times, but if you want to consider all the actions of each party member strictly as a responsibility of the protagonist, we have a clash again

You've already got the protagonist responsible for the party members' actions in every other context. Korgan chops a peasant up with his axe? Fallen Sword Angel. Edwin Knocks open a chest in an occupied house and tries to loot it? Fallen Sword Angel. Haer'Dalis is caught with his hand in Ribald's pocket? You know the drill by now, hmm? Just in combat, the Sword Angel can stand and watch as members of the party he or she leads slit the throats of downed and helpless opponents.

[Littiz]

I understand your points @Shatten, but let me clarify three points.

-You're not forced to use Merciful Fighting (ok, I'd like to "force" it for some situations, but I can't )

-As I repeat, if you want, sparing people is doable even in this game. You just have to disable them and go away! Choices...
E.g.: I can't really kill Ellesime's clone. I can't even know that she has a key to disable a trap. So my characters usually use stun spells or even fists (before S.A. ) to disable her, then proceed.
The game doesn't crash for such an action! And they'll have to do without that key: choices and outcomes.

-I realize the game has not been planned for such kind of situations, and it may look a bit odd at times. But, if you have a look at the last post of the first page (which you have maybe missed), you'll see that I do think that it's possible to give dialogs to some opponents.
It'll be a matter to investigate, maybe for version 2, but I'll try my luck sooner or later


@Kish:
I fully see your points, but I still think that you have to use some interpretation, at some point. That system isn't fully satisfying after all, don't you think?
I'd say a middle point could be to discriminate between combat and non-combat situations.
In non-combat time, [CHARNAME] can control his companions better, commanding to "keep swords in their scabbards", so to speak. Or he can (try to) limit thieving. But in combat, can he direct any single blow? (I know, the player can...)

As for the "attacking neutral creatures" trigger, I figure that adding it to the whole party would be really too much and would make the kit almost impossible to play.
But if people think it'd be better that way, I'll do it...

[Kish]

I'd say a middle point could be to discriminate between combat and non-combat situations.
In non-combat time, [CHARNAME] can control his companions better, commanding to "keep swords in their scabbards", so to speak. Or he can (try to) limit thieving. But in combat, can he direct any single blow? (I know, the player can...)

So perhaps CHARNAME can't stop party members from attacking downed foes. So they kill an opponent CHARNAME knocked down once, and s/he doesn't Fall. S/he would say something to them about it, right?

And then they do it again. And again. And again. And does CHARNAME never bear any responsibility for it, no matter how many downed foes the party members kill? If nothing else, s/he could certainly boot them out of the party.

[rreinier]

How about having the PC fall if any party member commits more than a certain number of attacks (one or two or three perhaps) against a downed creature?