In my opinion, Evil creatures are of different sorts. Even among chaotic evils, you can expect different personalities.

An evil character may fight and kill his good enemy without defiling the enemy's honour. Such an evil character has goals to achieve. He may even let his enemy to write her will and may try to fulfil her last request. He may even take care of his enemy's children after killing her, because her death was needed for his goals but her children's deaths are not needed. We had such respectable evil characters in P&P AD&D. This is much different from an alternate evil character who would rape his enemy before killing her. The latter would have a dirty and cheap personality. This is not the same as being evil. There are both 'cheap' and 'great' evil personalities.

There is also one (perhaps controversial) side point which deserves consideration. Being the slave of one's own sexual desires makes it too difficult for a character to gain great powers. Power calls for discipline and self-control. I cannot imagine a very high level character whose hands and knees start trembling on seeing the opposite sex. High level characters need to have focus and self-control and avoid cheap manners, in my opinion.

As for making a mod in which an evil PC will be given opportunities to rape others and to act cheaply:

1- Such a mod will give the PC the chance to be a cheap character. The PC should also be allowed to avoid those opportunities and to aim for being a great evil character. Perhaps, each time the PC behaves cheaply some penalty to experience points should be applied, to insure that progress needs focus and discipline and a man with sexual lust is hardly a choice for becoming great in his career even as a evil character.

2- Cautions about the content of the mod need to be added during installation so that people know what they are installing and avoid it if they don't like them. I will not install such a mod for sure.

I would be glad if someone made a mod that shows what PC went through.
I think that the way Bioware shown it is very primitive and unsatisfying.
I think that when PC is tortured, player should feel emotional, almost physical pain, not wander "WTF?".
I remember how suggestive were torture scenes in 1984.
I think that Irenicus was doing something similiar to PC and I think it needs a good descriptions.



Boo was killed? PC was raped?
Sounds interesting.
What mod are you speaking about?



Sorry, but to me anyone who is making mods without at least M or R content isn't a real modder.
Making fluffy, sweet mods for underaged is a waste of time.
I don't need excuses to do what I do.




Nope.
They may be not important to writers, but they are there.
There's no modification of the world, because such things are already there and they are important to people affected by them.



I think that it would make BG better and more interesting, if there would be more realistic reputation and law enforcement system.
As long as PC can avoid punishment rape is a good option of showing PCs evilness and cruelity.
And if PC isn't able to avoid it, then the punishment is a good way of showing PCs incompetence.
I don't think that such deeds shall remain without consequences, both negative and positive.
For example getting exposed as rapist isn't a good idea and may cause trouble to PC but from the other side henchpersons may think that PC is a good person, because he/she allows them to rape and pillage, which is a good thing because they risk their lives for him/her and soldiers deserve to have some fun too.



There aren't respectable and cheap evil people.
Frankly, I prefer people who murder and rape because they like to murder and rape.
Peoplo who treat human life as something that can be taken merely because of their pathethic goals are worst scum of the world.
At least having pleasure from murder and utterly destroing an enemy before killing him is a sign of respect to value of life.
People who treat murder as a tool have no respect for life and therefore are more despicable thatn "low" rapists or serial murderers.



I don't think that one needs to be weak to rape a defeated enemy or his/her servants.
One doesn't even need to seek a sexual fulfillment in such act.
One may rape or force victim to commit sexual act without being a slave to desire.
Such act should be commited when there's no danger present and when victim is completely defenceless and broken.
BTW. I wonder if there's magic that would cause enemies hands knees to tremble at the sight of PC?
I think that enslavement and rape of desire and will is a lot more funny than enslavement of body.

An abandoned one, the Midnight Visitor, at G3. PC did not have to be raped, she could have defeated the male in question long before it came to that, or enforced her "no" in that talk, if her willpower was sufficiently high, or she could have been extatic about bedding the man to begin with.



It is an interesting point, but as far as I know, raping is rarely about lust, it is about control and power. Kay's Fionavarian Tapestry -*higher* fantasy than Tolkien (if someone doubts Kay's credentials, he was retained by Tolkiien's estate after Tolkien's death to work on the literary heritage and one of the best fantasy writers today in his own right), if such thing is possible- makes a powerful use of rape as the way to drain goodness from one of the heroines; it is one of the scariest and revolting scenes in fantasy.

In Baldur's Gate PC, the situation is also unique, because by raping PC might acertain his connection to his sire, Bhaal, who concieved the Children by raping women of all races accross Faerun. So, in a way, the dark power can build up in him through such despicable acts.

Oh .




I have to disagree here.
I think that raping is more often about lust than about power.



Hmm...
I have a thought .
I think that the problem of including or not including darker elements of reality is more about pure escapism vs. exploring another reality than about high fantasy vs. low fantasy.
I think that some people want to escape reality by playing fantasy games and some poeple, like me want to explore another reality.

I am not sure if I like the term "escapism" as applied to the works like Harry Potter. After all, some people would want to escape into a simple, but brutal world, say barbarian tribes. Maybe fairy tale? But, then again, the fairy tales of old are pretty grim. Sweet, soft worlds has their appeal, but there was a very interesting quote in Matrix - the first Matrix that was built was a very happy place, but it was a catastrophe; humans did not accept it as a reality, and tried to subconsciously to wake up from a dream. In other words, humans consider a "happy" world as something faux, a sham. The thing is, though, neither FR, nor the vast majority of the fantasy worlds are Harry-Potter-like.

Can we move off the topic of rape now? I think there are those of us who don't agree with adding it to the game and those of us who do.

So long as modders clearly label their work players should at least have an idea of what they are downloading. As for the legality of adding such things to a computer game I would not know but there is surely something in law about it.

I think I can at least say that I will never download, install or advertise any mod that allows a player to assume the role of a rapist even if it is only role "playing" as part of a game.

I think we are already off rape into the "What is escapism?" territory?

Escapism to me has two aspects, they can be separate or together.

First is when you want something to take you away from the real world for a few hours, a light entertainment to take your mind off work or whatever when you get home. This can include playing evil characters for their entertainment value.

The second is when you are severely unhappy with your current life and want to live out your fantasies any way that you can. This can either be dark fantasies that are illegal in most places or just general unhappiness about your current RL situation.

I am not sure where you are taking the idea that dark fantasies are illegal? If you cn point me to the relevant laws, I would very much want to see them.

I can off hand remember that legislation passed in Greece (I think?) that was outlawing video games, and there are muslim countries where iirc rock music was outlawed or some weird stuff like that. Everey time such a statement was made in public on the relatively liberal minded forums there was a fury of disbelief and eye-rolling. I do remeber that there were some americain restrictions on killing children in BG or something to that extent so Dili did not show in the room with the rest of the mad mages.

But I am pretty positive that dark fantasies are not outlawed, since the laws on mind control cannot be enforced. Unless you are speaking about that episode of Star-Treck when that uhm... don't remeber her name was to undergo a foreceful mind purging procedure because it was concluded that she had a violent thought that caused lots of grief in a telepathic society.

I am absolutely sure that the depravations are not forbidden here in Canada from being put into the books, and nobody is going to arrest me for reading Martin, and day-dreaming about escaping to Westerous. Or for re-loading the game and killing a character (in my case Tazok, others may preffer Aerie or Kelsey or Korgan or whoever) again and again and again.

There are obviously areas controlled by law, such as child pronography or rl abuse of all sorts, but that has nothing to do with escapism. It is a real crime, and real people suffer because of it.

I was talking about dark fantasies in your mind, not fantasies as in the fantasy genre of game, book or television.

Dark fantasy of some persons mind who thinks about rape, murder and beating people but never acts upon those thoughts either out of fear or some other factor.

Then I don't understand how that can be legislated. Don't think bad thoughts? I mean, I had day-dreamed about swiping down like a hurricaine, killing left and right to save characters that I liked since I was like 9 yo if not earlier. Gods be good, my earliest Mary-Sue was about being a head of a bloody 19th century rebellion, while being a lover of one of the males involved. I was in love with Robespierre and Saint-Juste, whom Western society thinks to be butchers and mine own pictured as tragic heroes. Even in Soviet Russia I was not condemned for this kind of dreams, though we were strongly encouraged to do something practically good instead, like gather old newspapers, or help the survivors of the World War. People were prosecuted for thr thoughts of a different kind, and that only if they let those thoughts be known.

Cold calculation for example?

What is wrong with it? Ss long as they do not act like this in the real world, it is perfectly fine, and, as far as I know, is within the law in each and every country, except, perhaps, for the North Korea.

I've yet to see a person that never ever desired to kill someone, even momentarily.

I think he probably meant dreaming of the activities that are outlawed, not that dreaming is outlawed. Otherwise we'd be taxed for dreaming about being rich, lol. (Shudders, imaging her tax bill for that).

The topic was escapism, I stated what I consider escapism to be.

I didn't say whether one form of escapism was wrong and another right, I just stated my idea of what escapism is.

Exactly. I would never make mods that I don't enjoy creating (except some small few-minute addons requested by players).
I have written "only for own entertainment". But I may have been inaccurate. I remember that someone (maybe it was you, I am not sure) said the she would make the mod exactly in the way she likes it even if no player would prefer it in that way at all, i.e. that players needs/requests/feedback are not important at all when developing, only what the author likes. I say yes to this, but then such a mod shouldn't be published.


Demons, orks etc. are not nice, and I have never said that low things don't exist, or that mods shouldn't add such. I just mean that adding rape isn't special at all, by 'low' I meant 'ordinary' as well; i.e. no big deal, not original, and something that just doesn't suit BG.
In films about medieval age, do you always see the "evil" side (or just the "enemy") raping helpless people all the time? It comes together with the war (in every age), but it is not so special that it should be represented, especially not in a D&D mod where evil player options can be much better, much more interesting than this.


You took everything personal. (Not the first case.) I haven't written "a real modder (UNLIKE Domi)", I have written "a real modder" which means a "a real modder in my opinion". And I wasn't dividing anything, this "community" stuff is brought up by you. Don't take things always personal.


Exactly. I never said that you (or anyone else) shouldn't. I just said my own opinion. And I'm not alone with this opinion. There are simply no ways in Inf. Engine to integrate such an option properly, and as I've said, it wouldn't be a so special addition that it would worth to be added.

Actually I was talking about a small TC and a TC where rape would be an approciate content.
Why?
It was something like Fallout Tactics, but with action set in semi renaissance world, a lot of dialogs and only one main area.
The PC was an ordinary fighter serving in The Brotherhood of Sword.
He/she had to complete tactical missions just like in FT.
It's worth mentioning that the Brotherhood was a ruthless organisation - for example the first mission was to punish a peasant that refuses to pay taxes by slaughtering him, his wife and his children.
Because PC had no choice but to serve, I thought that he/she should be allowed to do what soldiers do at war - rape, pillage and terrorize innocent civilians.

The Gladiator had a dialogue discussing the rape of the main character's wife. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves has a rape scene. I am sure there are more, but I am not a movie kind of person, sorry.



Like say something rude or kill someone? That's about the extent of "evil" options.... (sigh)



The feedback/ideas/etc are fine, but the descision is ultimately the author's. And I don't understand why it *should not* be published? Especially the use of *should* . I think the author have the right to ultimately decide if s/he wants the feedback during the developmental stage or not, and if s/he wants to put the mod up for download or not. It is also the author's decsision on what to do with the mod after the release - to keep it up for download, discontinue it after a while, etc.

Dorotea's Long Road was done under the heavy stream of critisiszm, and strictly following her own ideas, with heavy editing on her part of everything that was not written by her, solely because she wanted the mod. It was published and proved to be one of the most interesting, unusual, love-or-hate mods. I think, it would have been a pity if she either kept it on her own hard-drive, or have compromized.



But of course I take it personaly, because I gave examples of actually using rapes in my mods. Quite often, really. In your opinion, a real modder won't do that. Hence, I am not a real modder. On another hand, if I am a real modder (in your opinion), than you agree that a real modder can use rapes in his or her stories.



Then, perhaps, you might try to use the constructions like "I think", "In my opinion", as opposite to the "players need", "we want/do not want", "that should not/should be done". In other words, less "we", more "I". Then I won't be tempted to tell you: "You and what army?"

As I said before, the main point is to know that "being evil" doesn't entail "being dirty and cheap". The two are not the same.

Killing an innocent person to gain a goal is an evil task, but raping her is a dirty and cheap behavior. Once one learns the difference, all other related distinctions will become clear. Adding dirty contents to the game cannot be justified by referring to already existent evil contents such as killings. Adding such things to the game through a module will only cheapen and reduce the quality of the game. "Evil" and "dirty" are not synonymous.

Death is dirtier and cheaper than rape.
Especially if dying person defecates, or his/her entails fall out of body or the body is burned or dissolved by acid or cut in half.

None of which you are going to simulate with any success in the IE games.

I'm just pointing out that words noble or grand aren't a good description of murder and that murder isn't less dirty or cheap than rape.
If someone thinks that grand villains are less cheap and dirty than common criminals, I advise googling for pictures of: holocaust, bodies (IMO Hitler was the grandest and the "coolest" villain of XXnd century, who not only had a "cool" and fanatical army, but also thought that he is the good guy.).

Well, again, in the context of BG and BG alone, Bhaal used rape as means of achiving his goal - producing the Bhaalspawn.

And, I would nod to Sorrow that killing or maiming a guy who just happened to cross the street in the wrong place, does not appear grand to me also.


But, since we are getting to the "As I said before..." "Once again..." zone, it seems that all that there was to discuss was discussed in the possibility of rape department.

So, I would go the way of the political debates, and have a shor closing statement to outline my position, and avoid repeating things again and again in a question and answer form:

I don't think that it is arguable that rape was a common-place, tragic and scary event of Medieval and Renaissance reality and warfare. It is a henous crime, and with a 100% certainty pinpoints an evil character. Good guys just do not rape (Tyrion vs Tysha can be an arguable case, but then again, it had happened because of Tywin) As such, it appears in all genres and medias of fantasy (appart from children's cartoons, obviously) that are losely modelled on these historical periods.

The way I see the implementation of the subject in the computer games, I think it is at least admissible to do the same thing BioWARE is doing - making rape a part of both PC and NPCs backstories; I will not disagree with adding a few encounters in the game, where a PC can have his way with the NPCs and vice versa to produce emotional content and instill an understanding of the "how low can you go" in the player, give him/her the feel of his/her own RP'd vileness; I would obviously want to see not just mechanical (such as drop in a reputation) consequences to that behavoir, but dialogues/encounters as well.

Now, that is about as much, as I have to say on the topic.

And pretty much the only way of adding these options to the game is via dialog. I think most players know that if they launch a fireball at a group of commoners in the game it is going to result in death and that would be murder. Rape in the game would be a whole different affair which is why I think it is a bad idea to add it as any kind of random act you can choose to perpetrate. You can't launch a rape at someone and see the effects.

In BG words are pretty much all you have to describe any action other than what is covered by creature animations.

I think the point trying to be made here is that rape is considered more degrading an act than murder. Murder does have a finality that rape does not have, one can murder for various reasons but the result is the same, the death of the victim. Rape on the other hand has lasting and various ill effects on the victim. A rapist goes in to a rape attack with the foreknowledge of this and that is what makes it low, they know that the act they are commiting will effect the victim for a long time to come.

The statement wasn't about villains but about the acts commited. You could have the coolest looking rapist on the planet or the most vicious looking murderer, it makes no difference how cool they are. It is the act they are commiting that is being judged. In relation to the game, it would be very hard to make a rapist "look" cool but I do admit that it might be possible to do that with a murderer, sad though that is.

The Hitler statement didn't really make sense, you imply Hitler was cheap and dirty as a grand villain and yet state that he was the "coolest". You think cheap and dirty is cool?

I think that there are two reasons to introduce rape:
1. Rape is one of main crimes and along with murder and thievery forms triad of human instincts:
Murder - desire to remove existence of other being
Thievery - desire to posess an item
Rape - desire to posess a person

2. <CHARNAME> isn't a normal person, it's a traumatised young man/woman that lives in constant danger and has tainted soul and has power, so I think that he/she is more prone to become a criminal than a common hero/citizen.

So I think that taking in account that PC has a big potential to become a twisted person, I think that providing an option of commiting main violent crimes is a sound idea.



I strongly disagree here.
The problem is that survivor of rape stays alive, can seek help, vengeance or something, while victim of murder can't do nothing and will never be able to do anything and to say anything.
It's easy to say that rape is worser than death, but I doubt you would say that at gunpoint.
IMO staying alive and with all senses/limbs/organs relatively intact is a priority.
Otherwise pointing gun at someone and telling that person to take off the clotches etc. would be very uneffective.

The second thing is that I disagree that attack on someones psyche is lower than physical attack.
Actually, psychical and emotional torture is more subtle, and thus higher than physical attack.
Therefore saying that rape is low because it touches higher emotions of victim than for example beating is contradictionary.




The main line of defence of cool (charismatic) criminals is their coolness and uncoolness of the victim, no matter if they are thieves, rapists or murderers.
Perpetuator of crime tries to make himself look cool and degrade the victim so that it would look like crime was a fault of victim.
Thief will say that he was stealing only from the rich and greedy, while rapist will try to imply that the victim was slut, liked it, wanted it, asked for it etc.
It's entirely possible to make rape look cool, by speaking of victim in derogatory terms.
Perpetuator of crime is higher life form, while the victim is a lower life form (subhuman, ifidel, capitalist, slut, arrogant whore, etc.)
I think that a character with high charisma can get away with rape in game just like in RL.



Hitler based his popularity and success on being cool and telling german people that they are cool and that other people suck.
He told them that being strong is cool and that compassion sucks.
He told them to kill people that suck.
So, there was cool Hitler who had cool army and he created cheap and dirty holocaust.
I've read a novel that was written by the survivor of Aushvitz and he wrote that german SS officers were very narcistic, which included looking cool, and being so absorbed with their coolness that they ignored suffering of victims.
I have an impression that they felt like gods among slaves.
So I'm trying to say that coolness and grandness of villains is an illusion and gloryfying that illusion by placing such villains above common criminals is wrong.
We have two things - high things - Hitler and SS officers who were cool, grand and narcistic and low things - things that happened in concentration camp.
So, Hitler was cheap and dirty and cool at the same time.
So, taking in account that grand villains are cool and do cheap and dirty things at the same time, saying that evil isn't neccesary cheap and dirty is a lie.
Evil is cheap and dirty by definition and coolness and grandour of perpetuator doesn't make it less cheap and dirty.

Practically all of your post is a point of view that you hold and in no way true or false in one way or another. You can't say because nazi's thought they were cool they actually were cool, sure they might have been cool to themselves but not in the eyes of their victims.

This is a point of view you have and not necessarily the point of view that nearly all players of BG would have. Most players do play good characters even if there were more evil options still most players I think would play good. How is <charname> traumatised? It doesn't say that anywhere in the game, the only bad thing that happens early in BG1 is that you are a witness to Gorions death...actually I don't think you even see Gorion being killed as you run away before that happens. Your life before that was a life of peace and plenty in Candlekeep. <charname> probably had a better childhood than most of the people raised on the Sword Coast, probably the one person without a traumatic childhood of all the npc's that you meet. If you choose to play as evil I sincerely doubt you can play the traumatic childhood card with any plausibility.

Sure it is contradictory but I didn't make a comparison between rape and beating I made a comparison between rape and murder. Misquoting me won't make what I said contradictory.

This statement has little meaning as we were discussing actually being raped or being murdered. You can't choose to stay alive if you are murdered. Likewise I am sure rape victims don't console themselves with the thought "at least I wasn't murdered".

This statement contradicts everything you just said. It is not the "coolness" of a character but the acts they commit, this is exactly what I have been saying all along.

It all depends on your point of view. If you have the point of view that evil characters can be "cool" and still commit murder and rape I would say that you are part of a small minority of the general population. The mainstream view would be that murderers and rapists are in no way cool and this is where I base my point of view from.

Perhaps an example can be helpful here:

"Villain A" and "Villain B" are both evil characters. They both seek entrance to planar sphere and hence they seek Valygar. However, they have different personalities. Let's see how:

(I) Villain A finds Valygar in his cabin. Valygar is in sleep. Villain A doesn't kill him in sleep. He awakens him and asks him to help his evil cause by following him to planar sphere. Valygar rejects. Villain A warns him that he will kill him if he rejects. Valygar reminds him that it will be an evil task. Villain A agrees that he is evil by Valygar's standards. Valygar rejects to help. Villain A allows valygar to write a will. Valygar writes a will about his household in the docks district. Then Villain A asks Valygar to follow him out of the cabin and invites him to a fair one-on_one duel (combat). He kills Valygar without degrading his honour. Takes Valygar's body and on his way to planar sphere, he also goes to Valygar's house to accomplish Valygar's will.

(II) Villain B, on the other hand, finds Valygar sleeping in his cabin. Fastens him in sleep and defiles his honour by raping him and then kills him with unnecessary pain.

I think it is beyond question that these two evil characters have different personalities. The latter has a cheap personality, the former a great and respectable one. One can be evil without being cheap and dirty and this is the sort of evil character I like to play, if I ever choose to play an evil PC.

Now, if anybody wants to play a cheap PC in BG2, nobody can prevent them from making such a module for the game, but the result will be a cheaper PC and consequently a cheaper game. I will not say anymore on this topic.

Villain A plainly stupid.
1. She doesn't respect Valygar's refusal to go to Planar Sphere.
2. She tries to intimidate Valygar.
3. She risks her life and his plans by taking part in unnecessary duel.
If she has rules that forbid him attacking defenceless man, she can as well have rules that forbid him to kill the man that didn't harm her, so she has no excuse for that abominable murder.
I think that this makes "rules" of that character are *very* cheap and low.
Geeez she murders a man and goes to his house to accomplish his "will".
Of course her rules didn't respect his will to refuse and don't get murdered.
Now, that's *sick*.

Villain B is doing what she should do as evil character.
1. She proves superiority of evil by not giving him a chance to defend himself.
2. She proves him her superiority (without risking her plan by taking part in unnecessary duel) by raping him.
3. She has fun by raping him.
4. She is honest with him and with herself, she doesn't pretend to be better than she is.
5. She kills him, thus making sure that he will not stop her.
6. She takes full adventage of being evil.

Villain A is a character with rules that fell low and has cheap rules while Villain B is a perfect embodiment evil.
I would kill Villain A for a murder and for being a weak hipocrite that failed to respect the value of life and I would kill Villain B for a murder and being too dangerous.

I can't say that someone who threatens someone innocent with death is respectable or admirable.
I think that such person deserves being hung, not being admired.




I wouldn't be so sure.
Rape often involves death threats, so victim is in situation when doing something against attackers will may end with death, so the possibility of dying is real.
I have never heard about rape victim that impaled herself on attackers knife to avoind getting raped, so I think that Will to live is strongest instinct and that means that murder is the worst and most despicable crime.

My statement was a response to your statement that rape is more degrading than murder.
I'd like to notice that one of most important aspects of being human is being alive and conscious - since murder takes the very thing that makes us humans away, I think that it's one of most degrading things.
Murder takes away *everything*.



Being hunted by assasins, having to kill a lot of people, living in constant danger, being pursued by law, tortures, etc.



It's a dangerous presumption, because coolness isn't about morality.
Cool=charismatic, not cool=good



Sorry, I thought that you are making a comparision between a physical violence present in BG, (which is IMO cheap and dirty[all that blood...]) and rape.
I refered to beating, because murder is ends life, not makes it more unconfortable and therefore is in other category than rape.

That is pure fantasy on your behalf. Evil could just do things because they don't care about it either way and not because it is "fun".

Rape victims don't really have a choice in anything that happened otherwise they wouldn't have been a victim in the first place.

None of which is necessarily traumatic, a player who is following the storyline from the point of view that they are trying to right a wrong (Irenicus kidnapping Imoen and then taking their soul) might not feel traumatised by anything that happens in the game. Trauma is purely subjective in this instance.

When we are talking about evil characters it is. If you are saying evil can be cool then it is about the morality of seeing an evil person as cool. But again that is a point of view you may have. You may see Hitler as cool, I do not. You may see Hitler as not being "evil" but I do (though not necessarily the same type of evil you encounter in FR worlds granted ).

I guess in this case it depends on whose point of view you agree with. From either point of view what we say can appear right and what the other person says appears wrong.

Oh, so she raped him because she didn't care?
It's illogical.
If she didn't care, she would kill him outright.
And believe me, hurting others can be veeeeeeery satisfying and therefore can be called "fun" .



I was talking a specific situation, where attacker uses weapon to force victim to do what attacker wants.
So in that situation there's a choice between getting killed and not getting killed.
I'm talking about this, because I think that despicability of the crime should be measured by how much it violates wictims Will.
If we have a situation in which for example victim has a choice, i.e. get's robbed or get's murdered etc., we can trace victims choices of those situation and use it as a guide to say which crime is more despicable.
And I have a distinct impression that getting murdered/maimed is a choice of minority, so I think that it's a most despicable crime, because it violates victims Will in greatest deagree.



Living in constant paranoia (it's the only way that PC could survive) and in constant danger is a traumatic experience IMO.



I was talking about the fact that cool isn't good, so if evil is cool it doesn't mean that it's less despicable.
The problem is that a lot of people refuse to reject evil people, because they are to cool to be rejected*.
Hitler was cool, because he did get power though being cool, but he also have proven that besides being cool isn't enough - he killed a lot of people and he was a horrible war leader that lost war because he was doing things that were cool (for example he wasted a lot of precious resources for a project of giant tank, he ordered his soldiers to fight to last bullet, etc.), but he was cool and german people believed him.
So, while he was cool and he had great power thanks to his coolness, he was evil.
Same thing applies the person that was described by Sikret.
That person may have some cool rules, but those rules only hide how low and cheap and dirty that person is.
What's the point in having cool rules if the said person kills Valygar anyway after the usuccesfull attempt of deforming his Will?

*There a lot of people that forget that simple truth.
For example when I was in primary school, there was one boy in class that was "cool" and he had done many evil things, like harassing other class members and rape and he got away with everything because he was "cool". He even got a very good mark for his behaviour (I'm not sure how it's called in foreign schools) because teachers liked him and didn't like the girl that he have raped .

I used "we" in the meaning of "we, modders", I'm sure this has been clear from my posts. Feel free to tell what you feel, by the way. I don't have an army, but I do have many supporters in my viewpoint. From this aspect, the word "we" can also be understood as a reference to my "army", i.e. to those who share my opinion; which is correct.


I didn't say you're not a real modder (which can't have an accurate definition anyway); but yes it's true that in this question (integrating that kind of violance to mods), you don't suit my picture of a real modder. I do have right to have an own opinion and picture of a modder.
But maybe I shouldn't examine your thoughts and opinion as the opinion of a modder (in the "strict" interpretation of the word), since you are mostly writing dialogues to my knowledge, which is only one part of modding, with less technical (file editing, complex scripts) work and much more writing work. So in this respect you're a dialogue writer primarily. (Dialogue writing is one of the most important parts of modding, so don't get me wrong: I said it is a part of modding only, but I didn't say it would be less important or less appreciated than other areas.)
And a dialogue writer has other motivations than a modder who creates the mod from the first brick to the last.


Nonetheless Rabain may have a point there that the real personality and desires of villains might be much more complex than just a few bandits' who kill/rape/loot/humiliate/etc. people just for pure fun.

My point was that you assumed it was fun when you do not truly know if it was. If you think it was that is only your assumption and not the actual truth.

Yes but this was in response to a point where I was making a point based on being murdered or being raped not both. Don't change the argument to something else halfway through.

Perhaps you would live in constant paranoia in that situation, I would not. Regardless, I do not think that <charname> could survive through all those events, carry out a romance, pursue a powerful mage, confront other children of bhaal, defeat them and then battle to fulfill his destiny if he spent every minute being paranoid about being in danger. <charname> seeks out danger at every opportunity throughout the storyline of BG! If we were to follow your example <charname> should lock themselves in a room in the Copper Coronet at the beginning of the game and refuse to come out!

Again you are assuming that what has happened in one situation holds true for all. Hitler only had power in Germany, people didn't refuse to reject him because he was cool. They were afraid to reject him because if they did they would be killed. The rest of the world didn't think Hitler was cool, you saying he was cool does not make him cool no matter how much you might want it that way.

I think this debate could go on forever. For my own part I think I've made my point of view clear and so I'll leave it there.

There 254 distinguished shades of gray between black and white I suspect that there are at least that many between good and evil.

Some good points have been made on both sides (to my surprise)

You are right here. Also, when I said that a mod shouldn't be released if the players' needs are entirely different than authors concept, I assumed that the mod did get feedback. If it's a mod developed in secret, then its release will show if it's liked or not liked by most of its players.
I was very vague when I said that when forming opinion, I ignore the attitude (or viewpoint) that says that mods must be done ONLY for own entertaintainment. One of the most important things (in fact, the most important) is that we enjoy what we do. This is true to our job, and to hobbies as well such as modding. What I wanted to express actually is that a modder shouldn't (i.e. it would be unwise to do so) release a mod if the feedback of most players is entirely against the author's concept; the author should change on the mod based on the player suggestions/feedback, but of course only on certain parts, and only if it doesn't violate the main concept.
To sum up, what I wanted to say is: extremes are never good. Player feedback can be often misleading, but it is also not good if the author closes his/her eyes and ears, and doesn't consider the suggestions of players.


SirKill is right in his last post. And I also consider the discussion about rape closed from my side. I would like to finish my post with three quotes:

Constant paranoia - not trusting anyone outside the team, being ready to defend against attack in most of time, casting stone-skin and other protection spells that have a long duration etc.
And since PC seeks out danger at every opportunity, she/he has to have a lot higher level of agression than a normal person.
Try playing through BG2 without cheating (reloading after something goes wrong, including PC's death) and we may be able to talk about what PC feels.



Yes, but becoming an embodiment of evil may also be a good motivation.
I've read Avatar series and avatar of Bhaal was mostly murdering people in most gruesome ways possible.
A character tainted by the essence of Bhaal may want to attain power by emulating him, just like Sarevok was trying to do.

I think that in becoming an embodiment of evil there's is beauty, pleasure and certain simplicity... peace.
Evil deeds stop being tools and become an art.
For example character may strive to murder someone in most cruel way or rape someone in most exquisite and degrading way, seeking perverted aesthetics and evil glamour.
Goddess, it's so simple and beautiful at the same time ...


Those who treat evil as a tool are fools, weak heretics that are misguided tools themselves.
They are nothing, but a pitifull parody of good heroes and a pathetic parody of evil.
I feel strong hate and disgust towards those who kill and hurt people just to reach their pathetic goal...
As for people who hurt people just for pure pleasure of doing so, for pure joy of being evil I can't help but admire.
But of course they need to be exterminated anyway, because they don't respect the fact that most people don't want to be hurt (i.e. murdered, raped, mugged etc..).
And before they are exterminated they should be hurt ...*purrrrs*



Sadistic chaotic good elven f/m/t for example ?



I did get a good feedback from at least four players that had seen said dialogues and at least two of them were relatively sane persons without sadistic tendencies, who just wanted a hardcore, realistic low fantasy instead of an infantile fairytale.
I 'm not making a mod for all players, especially not for a players who have something against doing unheroic things, like executing defenceless civilians for sheltering guerillas/bandits.
In my country low fantasy and realism is a lot more popular than fairytales.

Gods be good, Sorrow, you just have to get A Song Of Ice and Fire; you are likely to enjoy it greatly. Just don't get a translated version. The translations are

I will get them as soon as I'll pay penalty for not returning books in time to my local fantasy library (i.e. not very soon).

Sadly I will not be able to get an orginal version, so I will have to read the translated one .
I hope that polish translation isn't very bad.