The use of death magic and what it means to virtue.

The Priests of Rathma would disagree with the OP's logic as they work for neither good nor evil. Society shuns them because society fears them but the Priests do, in fact, fight both demons and angels to protect humanity.

We need to establish whenever or not summoning "undead" actually involves taking a corpse from those who perish from New Brittania or bringing another being from another plane of existence.

 

I don't know if this goes too far outside the scope of the discussion, but I think the lack of consequence for virtue either way makes the virtue concern without risk and likely to be ignored by most players. So far, from what I've read, the only impact of virtue is the outcome of the story experience. Most alignment systems I am familiar with affect your ability to use certain skills or wield certain weapons or tools, or affects your economic interaction with NPCs...i.e. material impact on your game play. I fear, without these types of consequences, most players will simply choose the path of least resistance, and all of these interesting conversations about how to sculpt the virtue system will be for naught.

 

I once attended a lecture on perceived morality and the speaker used two contrasting illustrations that fit this discussion well:

A vicious dog attacks a family. The father steps in and beheads the dog with an axe to save them. His family views him as a hero despite their witnessing dad commit a violent act. And even the media portrays him as a hero.

vs...

A friendly dog approachs a family. The father suddenly beheads the dog with an axe for no apparent reason. The family views dad as a monster and begin to fear him. He is jailed as a criminal and demonized in the media.

Same family, same axe, same arm motion, same blood... but two very different perceptions of the man's morality.

It would be awesome if this concept could made it into the game, but it's also understandable if 'intent' proves to be too difficult to program and interpret.

 

It's worth noting that so far the quest systems being incomplete, probably contribute much to the idea that virtue "doesn't matter", which is understandable at this point in development.

There are however some "minor" examples where virtue does matter.

• If you steal from NPC's, merchants will stop trading with you.
• If you don't tell the guards your name, some NPC's will not talk to you.
• If you have a good or bad virtue score in the PVP town of Blood Bay the NPC's may or may not deal with you.

I totally agree with what you're saying overall though. The cost associated with a bad virtue score appears to be very low at the moment.

 

Right, but is death magic really the same as that?

With death magic (in our game, not Diablo or some other example) the spells always TAKE something that doesn't belong to the caster. Be it life force or a summoned creature and uses that to the casters will. Of course the will could be of the best intentions, but imagine if for a moment the illustration you used sounded like this?

A man presses a button he knows will kill everyone in the room.

vs...

A man presses a button that he later finds out kills everyone in the room.

The use of death magic is something that the caster knows will take that which is not theirs by force. That's the difference.

 

I didn't realize this was the case. Everything I'd read so far indicated limited consequence to story. But, yes, this is the type of thing needed for the average player to take notice.

 

But this whole discussion could become a slippery slope because intentional violence is weaved into the very tapestry of the game. We deliberately seek mobs to kill for our own gain after all. Is that virtuous? For example...

Why is intentionally walking into a Kolbold camp wiping everyone out and looting their bodies ok? I'm the armed trespasser. They were all minding their own business until I came along and ruined their day. Does killing them make their possessions 'belong' to me and now 'honest'? Or am I a murderer and a thief that deserves a virtue hit? Did I forcefully take something that didn't belong to me just as the death tree does?

My point is if my concept of morality doesn't agree with the developers, I may inadvertently lose virtue misunderstanding the intent. And that may not be worth all the angry threads it could generate. Although it could be fine as long as the virtue system was clearly communicated through in-game dialog. If people keep losing virtue and don't understand why, we'll have big mess on our hands.

 

I don't think it's ok.

If my character cared about virtue, I wouldn't be doing that. Because my character doesn't care about it, I expect to take a virtue hit for things like that. Which is why I made the OP, I also expect to take a virtue hit for using death magic.

 

Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.

 

This makes sense.

+1

 

As far as I know, Virtues have nothing to do with good or evil. It's not something to care about. It's what you do given a choice.

In this game, attacking a Kobold camp is more of a context rather than a choice. Once engaged, do you run away? You'd be a coward. Do you stay and fight? That's honorable. Not about whenever or not you should attack the Kobold unless a particular quest presented it as a choice.

Attacking a Kobold camp could, in theory, make you less compassionate but then you'd be forcing the players to stop and question their actions every single time they do something and that's inherently bad... or force them to game the system by trying to get the Kobolds to attack them first, so that they don't take a Virtue hit.

You want to make them think when it matters.

If you stop and say to yourself "If I do this, I'll gain/lose Virtue" rather than "If I do this, these people will benefit/suffer", then I'd say the Virtue system has failed.

If no one else suffers from someone practicing Necromancy, how is it an un-virtuous act?

 

Agreed. Where does virtue come from then?

It is a construct of order, no? RG and Starr have said that Chaos and Order are not opposed to one another. Certainly death and life are part of an order. But we're talking about death magic being virtuous or not.

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

Look at the example in your own screenshot and explain to me how drinking or smoking is evil? Or are you suggesting that those who do have low moral standards or are un-virtuous?

"Principled" or "exemplary", sure... and concepts like "righteousness" (and any other listed as a synonym) are a question of one's own perspective... So my point still remains. I believe you're interpreting the definition wrong.

 

Are you suggesting that evil actions can be virtuous simply based on perspective?

They're still evil actions no matter why they're performed.

And yes, being of virtue is being "good". If that's not true, what's the point of the virtue system?

 

That's the genesis of any war (holy or otherwise), yes... but what I'm really suggesting is that nothing is inherently good or evil.

And who's the judge of that?

What do you define as an "evil action"? Is killing an evil act?

How do you account for police officers or soldiers who have killed in the line of duty?
Are they evil because "killing is bad"? What about my uncle when he ended the life of his dog because she was old and suffered from a disease. Is my uncle evil?

Who's judging and who draws the line? Before you say "context", you JUST said:

For the reasons I asked the previous questions in this post: to make us think about our actions and the consequences behind them.

I see the Virtue system as a way to identify if you can achieve things and, if you did, recognize if it was done at the expense of others.

Necromancy is certainly a dark and shocking practice but, objectively (especially in the eyes of the Oracle... which is, as far as I can tell, a computer), practicing the arts is only at the expense of the ones who are already dead... It's what you DO with the dead, however, that will be judged like any other combat action.

 

No, that's not how this works. Virtue is good because that's the definition of good.

I completely understand the concept of perceived good and evil. But this isn't a perception system, it's a virtue system.

The Oracle is judging, btw. So regardless of what you or I think our actions might be or might not be, that's how it is. What I'm saying is that the act of using Death Magic is very far from being virtuous.

 

Is the Oracle good or evil? ... and who's judging it to make that claim? Repeat ad-nauseum...

Why?

 

Contradicting yourself a bit I think? If the Oracle doesn't object to the use of death magic, it is by definition not anti-virtuous. I happen to agree with that assessment which is where the subjectivity of 'good and evil' (or virtuous and vile) comes into play. Repeatedly stating that something is virtuous or not, doesn't make it so. For me, death is not to be feared nor obsessively avoided, it's simply an extension of life.

Specifically regarding the summoning of undead creatures, although it may be considered distasteful, these beings are usually soulless constructs that use the physical remains of former humans. I would liken the practice to making armour out of skins and bones - they're no longer of any use to the original owner and it would a shame to let them go to waste!

And while you have stated several times that certain death spells 'steal' life, that suggests a very deep understanding of the fundamental nature of magic which I dare to suggest you might not have; though we perceive a direct relationship between the reduction of one individual's health and the improvement of another's, we can only guess that it's a transfer rather than a more subtle aetheric realignment beyond our comprehension. (more simply - regardless of how selfish you consider it, the universe might view such an act as more virtuous than simple damage spells, since it heals as well as harming even though the effects are applied to different bodies)

 

And if the devs change it, then it is anti-virtuous.

That's what this thread is about, trying to get them to change it. Because it makes sense to change it.