Radish

The big concern seems to be over replacement rather than just modification.

But wait, what the hell does that mean?

@Sim DingO:

If you are suggesting that the host admin would act as a custodian to protect the integrity and quality of your work in your absence (for whatever reason), I would say that sounds like a good idea, and would be in favor of that myself. If nothing else, the natural reluctance of the individual to *be* a guardian would ensure that nothing unpleasant happened to it.

This is what I refer to. The host admin determines who has control of the mod's official info page, official download location, official forum; basically, everything that makes someone's contributions to a mod official. If someone else gets control of all that, then their work now appears to replace any versions that came before. That is the sort of thing we need to be careful about, and strive to obtain permission if at all possible before passing the status of "official" handler of a mod to someone else (or taking up the reigns ourselves).

However, if someone wants to make and release a patch to Gavin to randomly make him part barbarian and remove his ability to rationally discern appropriate romantic partners, that's perfectly acceptable. Assuming all host admins can stay on the ball and consistently practice basic common sense, this person will have to host and support (creating a forum, etc.) their patch themselves, and thus the original author can be secure in the knowledge that no one will be subjected to such travesty unless they deliberately choose to be. However, this all holds true even in the case of rogue patches/upgrades that are actually good - the author (or current author) always has say over what goes in/becomes the official version, even if the decision is arguably to the detriment of the mod.

An author does not have say over whether people can distribute changes or derivative content clearly labeled as unofficial, however. Oh, the law may (may) allow them such ridiculous control, but few are obsessive enough to actually pursue legal action over something so trivial. More importantly, the law only determines legal and illegal, not right and wrong, and as far as I'm concerned it's perfectly moral to enthusiastically ignore an author's wishes on this matter. Because I think wishing that nobody make derivative content of your work is not only unrealistic but selfish; an immoral wish that should be violated.

The rights I believe an author does have: The right to receive credit for their work, the exclusive right to profit from their work unless they grant permission to someone else (for purely practical reasons, and only with completely original work - so obviously this doesn't apply to mods), the right to restrict distribution of their work (otherwise the profit bit becomes hard), the right to be notified of derivative work if it is reasonably easy to do so (obviously it's not easy to notify George Lucas of your Star Wars fanfiction, but notifying jcompton that your NPC mod includes banters with Kelsey is), the right to have their opinion heard about any particular derivative work (if jcompton hates the banters you wrote for Kelsey tell people this up-front before they download anything), and the right to be treated with courtesy and respect just by virtue of being human (which means among other things that you would make a real effort to listen to jcompton's concerns and if they are legitimate, change/remove the controversial Kelsey content accordingly). Adapting my parenthetical examples to other types of "rogue" mod content should be easy enough.

Now, though I basically think anyone is allowed to modify anything in any way they want and make it available for anyone else to download, there should still be some restriction, for the sake of tidiness if nothing else. Mostly just one restriction, though, actually. Don't distribute a repackaged version of a mod with your content added to it unless you are the "official" developer of that mod making a new official version of it. Otherwise, post a link to the official version, and then provide your own content as a patch to it or a separate installation (prominently dated alongside the version number of the official mod it was made to modify). I figure that makes it clearer to lay users exactly what it is they're downloading, and as I said just keeps things much tidier for the community as a whole.

And my personal theory is that "we'll give you protection!" in most cases were said out of personal gain instead of a real concern for the peasants. Most noblemen would say it just because they lean on the peasants to do their dirty work.

Absolutely. No reason the whole arrangement couldn't have been selfishly motivated by all involved from the very beginning.

To me it seems as if both Fade and Nalia were aware of the fact, it's just Nalia might consider using this argument beneath herself(since she thinks that the current system is unjust)

Granted, the better argument for Nalia would be to mention that she probably doesn't spend any more time lounging in her "castle" than she absolutely has to (and certainly isn't right then, is she?). Her father takes good care of their people, after all; the needy are elsewhere. However, Fade's suggested "giving them employment" clearly indicated the need for a bit of education, and you know how Nalia is around the needy Vassals aren't employees. They're just farmers, and they work their own farms, albeit on land belonging to the lord/lady. What food they pull out of the ground is mostly theirs to do with as they please, though the lord/lady might demand a tithe.

As for what Nalia finds unfair, it is not likely any of what I had her describe. After all, pooling shares of wealth from everyone in the land to pay for matters of defense, and having someone or someones in charge of how to put the wealth to that purpose, is the most basic function of every government to this day. Nalia's problem with aristocracy would probably be the selection process for who gets put in charge; that being birthright, a decidedly unreliable method. That would be her core problem, anyway. Most of the time, however, she seems happy enough just complaining about the symptoms of that problem.

However, I somehow doubt that "the reason the nobility exists" in a feudalistic society is to protect the peasants. Although I'm fairly certain many noblemen over the years have acknowledged this duty and lived by it, I don't think it was the fundamental motive of creating a nobility in the first place.

It was surely some part of the equation. Long ago any position of authority would have to be created by those ruled, and no one would consent to such a thing if there was no benefit in it for them. Granted, a roaming war band could demand authority at the point of whatever sharp implements happened to be available, but they certainly wouldn't be deluded into thinking they got any real trust and cooperation that way. Likely part of the reason why they roamed: they couldn't take the risk of closing their eyes anywhere near those they terrorized.

As for this being knowledge similar to rain being made of water, I'm not sure about that either. I believe this has much to do with the environment someone is brought up in - for a peasant living at the mercy of a nobleman who does not abide the duty to protect his peers, it's going to be very hard to accept or understand the concept. Same, of course, goes for the nobleman.

Not every noble would see it as carrying out their duty as a servant of their people, no, but self-interest is a more than adequate motivation in place of duty. Very bad for a lord's well-being to let his farmers be killed and his lands stolen or despoiled. And peasants under a tyrannical lord might know better than anyone that the wealth of the nobility is taken from them, and that the nobles need them alive and working. Which they know may not spare any individual from unfair treatment up to and including death, but does ensure that if they run to the lord's manor to report that the Brandonmire off Wesley is under attack by northern barbarians, they can expect the lord to say, "Those treacherous dogs! Marcus, fetch Captain Higsford! Tell him we march at dawn!"

Or somesuch.

The comment is over three years old, yada yada, don't care.

How about the chance to stop Chloe before she goes too far, and then Renal Killing you all, or at least Chloe, if you allow her to be so rash. For good measure, Arkanis Gath can do it.

A perfect idea ...

No it most certainly is not. No mod should ever acknowledge the existence of Arkanis Gath. Because Arkanis Gath is lame. He's a quick hack to keep players from being stuck in an unfinishable game. In fact, his name should have been simply "Game Unfinishable" because it's not as if he could break the fourth wall more than he already does. (Tangentially related, using Arkanis Gath as an argument for why "Chloe wuld totaly di3!!!!11!1" is rather absurd.)

But I particularly felt the need to comment because the ramifications could affect much more than just Chloe. I dream that someone someday will make a mod eliminating any need for Arkanis Gath, allowing the player to arbitrarily slaughter Shadow Thieves if that is their wish and still finish the game. But if lots of modders make content for this fellow who amounts to little more than an avatar for the developers, that's less likely to happen. (Assuming it hasn't already happened and I need to get out of my bloody cave. ...And someone needs to tell me where I can find it, of course.)

But touching briefly on the excessively technical lengths some people have gone to in arguing over the Renal dialogue, one could bring up that as a quasi-deity Chloe would have a lot more power than just what super-human Dexterity gives her. All of her stats should probably be 14 at the lowest, 18 average, and she'd have immunity vs. damn-near-everything on top of that (most likely including poison).

Personally I use home-made portraits of pictures from an other Chloe.
Some of these to be precise. (nr. 0069 usually)

Faintly appropriate. They're both obsessively dedicated to a violent profession, make equipment choices that would conventionally be considered insane (no armor in a medieval setting vs. throwing knives in the modern era of automatic weapons), and, of course, they're both lesbian. (But the differences do rather outweigh all that )

Anyway, my only problem with Chloe's default portrait is that in the small version the way the sword is cropped over Chloe's head keeps making me think she's wearing a sailor hat

EDIT: I took the liberty of sprucing up Transient's Chloe portrait.

The kind of girl you can take home to mother.


Rough-and-tumble-adventurer version, with the dirt, and the scars, and the GLAYVINGNYAHOYVAHAHEY!