Skip to content

this is cheating ?

2»

Comments

  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    joluv said:

    @Gallowglass I don't know who these people through the centuries were who were so concerned with others' solitaire habits, but I'd say they should relax too.

    That's always the message from unscrupulous con-men and inveterate liars: "Hey man, jes' relax, all that in the past don't mean nuthin', man, ah'm a diff'runt man now, youse ain't gots nuthin' ta worry abaht, you jes' trus' me and b'lieve whut ah say ... ah nevah dunnit, officer."
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    @Gallowglass I might just be being sensitive, and maybe you're just joking around, but it kiiiinda seems like you just called me a liar and then did an impression that drew on some racial stereotypes. I'm not really sure why you would do those things.
    KilivitzjackjackBlackraven
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Wowo said:

    While I generally agree with the premise of your argument I think that you're being overly hostile and negative.

    Well I'm sorry if it looks hostile and negative, it looks to me like a fairly neutral statement of the philosophical position, but of course such appearances are inherently subjective.
    Wowo said:

    In an absolute black and white sense it is obvious what is cheating and what is not however the same logic would suggest that any mods to the game are also cheating even if the mods increase the overall difficulty of the game rather than decrease it (ala SCS).

    No, I wouldn't say that. I haven't yet had time to see what your link says about it, but my view is that mods are (or at least can be) quite a different thing.

    The element of deception (or perhaps self-deception) is intrinsic to cheating - claiming victory in a game of Baldur's Gate (or for that matter claiming to have won at the Olympic Games) when in fact you didn't actually do so within the rules is where the cheating comes in ... whether that's by using the console in BG to grant your character benefits which weren't obtained through gameplay, or by stuffing yourself full of steroids before competing in the Olympic final. If you're using a mod and have the scrupulous honesty to say "I won a game of Baldur's Gate modified by (InsertNameOfModHere)!", then you haven't made a false claim of achieving something you didn't achieve, so that isn't actually cheating ... it's merely playing a different game than actual BG, and in some cases (such as SCS, as you point out) may even be a more difficult achievement than the normal game. Similarly, I suppose someone who said "I'm the fastest steroid-enhanced runner in the world!" wouldn't actually be cheating, since someone who openly admits that their performance is drug-enhanced is clearly not pretending that this should count in any drug-free contest.

    In the case of what we might call "respectable" or "serious" mods, there's no intention to deceive (or instigate self-deception), because they're up-front about changing the game into something else. Certainly SCS is very clear that it's making a considerable change to the way the game works ... there's nothing wrong or "cheating" about choosing to play BG-with-SCS, provided that you're clear (both in your own mind and in what you say to others) that BG-with-SCS is not the same thing as BG.

    Those packages which are sometimes labelled as mods but which are actually just bug-fixes are also legitimate, since they're merely trying to ensure that the game is actually functioning as designed. Those bug-fix packs we remember fondly from the days of the original game (when they were needed because official support patches ceased while the game still had numerous bugs), but with active official support still continuing for the Enhanced Editions, it ought not to be currently necessary for people to produce many unofficial fix-packs (although I realise that's a "counsel of perfection").

    Where mods become cheating is when they're those little hole-in-the-corner mods to introduce (for example) BG2 equipment into BG1 gameplay (or vice versa), or to grant significant new bonus powers to some character or item, whilst still pretending to be "real BG". (I've seen other games eventually be totally ruined by an overwhelming prevalence of such childish nonsense, and I hope that never happens to BG.)
    Wowo said:

    @Gallowglass do you have any other evidence that you could share with us to support your statements?

    Most of what I said is an argument of logic, not requiring external testimony, but I guess the point which could benefit from external testimony is my assertion that there is a long-standing tradition that he who cheats in single-player card-games may also cheat in everything else. Hmmm ... I took it for granted as a matter of common cultural knowledge, so I initially felt slightly surprised that anyone was surprised by it, but on reflection it's obvious that in an international forum we're not all coming from the same cultural background. Certainly it's a common theme (or indeed meme) in English literature that cheating in single-player games indicates moral deficiency for the reasons I stated, and I seem to recall the same in French literature too (although I'm much less familiar with French writing), but off the top of my head I unfortunately can't cite specific sources or quotations ... I'll go have a look, but for the time being I merely give my assurance that this concept is very well-known here in England.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited March 2015
    I would say yes, it's cheating. At least I would consider it cheating. Or challenge-destroyer to be exact.
    If you want a challenge in BG2, I would propose not doing that and continuing with that character.

    I once finished with my 30 level Paladin with Carsormy +6 and then started BG1 Tutu again and went solo and basically semi-speedran through it for the fun of it.

    But if you haven't finished BG2EE yet, I would say you don't do it. The difference wouldn't be that big in challenge but you might find BG2 far easier than intended and you might not like that.

    If it was a serious playthrough, I wouldn't consider it.
    Post edited by Archaos on
    Eadwyn_G8keeper
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    joluv said:

    @Gallowglass I might just be being sensitive

    A little, I reckon.
    joluv said:

    and maybe you're just joking around

    Yes. I thought that was obvious, but I know these things don't always show when all someone else can see is the typed words and not the grin on the typist! :-)
    joluv said:

    but it kiiiinda seems like you just called me a liar

    No, I've no reason at all to think that you're a liar. However, what I'm asserting is that your argument would be music to the ears of those who are liars, because it'd be very useful to liars to encourage people to overlook the little tell-tale signs of dishonest character. After all, "relax" is pretty much the opposite of "pay attention to the details".
    joluv said:

    and then did an impression that drew on some racial stereotypes.

    Well, the stereotype in my mind was some of the "dodgy geezers" (as we'd call them here) who live in my town and talk in rather the way I tried to convey, but the stereotype is criminal rather than racial. (I'm not even entirely sure upon which racial stereotype you thought I might be drawing, since I don't know where you're from and stereotypes vary between countries.)
    joluv said:

    I'm not really sure why you would do those things.

    Hmm, well, the idea was to offer an example of how your argument could be (mis-)used by the ill-intentioned.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    I can certainly see that if deception is involved then cheating is certainly taking place. However, there isn't any deception involved in the OPs case is there?

    What society teaches is subjective I think. "Cheaters cheat only themselves" is a moniker I've heard repeated but at some point you realise that when you want to get ahead in life it's only cheating if you get caught. The world is full of successful people who have broken the rules and got away with it in one form or another because, for better or worse, that is what our society is.

    In fact, one of the most complicated feats that out brains can achieve (as a species) is to fabricate a deception. Only a few other animals can do so and nothing like what we can do. Furthermore, our ability to promote a deception vastly exceeds our ability to perceive one which has had some interesting consequences for the development of society.
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Wowo said:

    I can certainly see that if deception is involved then cheating is certainly taking place. However, there isn't any deception involved in the OPs case is there?

    You may note that I've been talking only about principles, and carefully avoided expressing an opinion on the specifics of the OP's question.

    However ... the OP isn't deceiving us about the fact of what he's doing, but he may well be deceiving himself about the meaning of his actions. I don't what to get into a discussion about the particular case, though.
    Wowo said:

    What society teaches is subjective I think. "Cheaters cheat only themselves" is a moniker I've heard repeated but at some point you realise that when you want to get ahead in life it's only cheating if you get caught. The world is full of successful people who have broken the rules and got away with it in one form or another because, for better or worse, that is what our society is.

    Arghhh! Yes, I'm well aware that there's much cheating going on all around us, but I count that as a moral evil against which good people should struggle, not as a model to be emulated. Of course we're only human and therefore often fail, but many people don't even seem to know evil when it slaps them in the face, and thereby become part of the evil themselves.
    Wowo said:

    In fact, one of the most complicated feats that out brains can achieve (as a species) is to fabricate a deception. Only a few other animals can do so and nothing like what we can do. Furthermore, our ability to promote a deception vastly exceeds our ability to perceive one which has had some interesting consequences for the development of society.

    Yes indeed, humanity has a tremendous capacity for evil. Free will depends upon the capability to make choices, and that necessarily includes the possibility of evil choices, many of which are based on deception.

    Note, however, that the power of deception (in its broadest sense) includes many things which aren't evil. For example, writing a novel (or indeed an RPG) heavily involves our capacity to fabricate a "deception", a coherent story which isn't true, but it is spared from being an evil act by explicitly presenting itself as fictional.

    I know it was me who introduced an element of philosophical debate into the thread, but now I reckon we're getting too off-topic.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064

    Wowo said:

    I can certainly see that if deception is involved then cheating is certainly taking place. However, there isn't any deception involved in the OPs case is there?

    You may note that I've been talking only about principles, and carefully avoided expressing an opinion on the specifics of the OP's question.

    However ... the OP isn't deceiving us about the fact of what he's doing, but he may well be deceiving himself about the meaning of his actions. I don't what to get into a discussion about the particular case, though.
    Wowo said:

    What society teaches is subjective I think. "Cheaters cheat only themselves" is a moniker I've heard repeated but at some point you realise that when you want to get ahead in life it's only cheating if you get caught. The world is full of successful people who have broken the rules and got away with it in one form or another because, for better or worse, that is what our society is.

    Arghhh! Yes, I'm well aware that there's much cheating going on all around us, but I count that as a moral evil against which good people should struggle, not as a model to be emulated. Of course we're only human and therefore often fail, but many people don't even seem to know evil when it slaps them in the face, and thereby become part of the evil themselves.
    Wowo said:

    In fact, one of the most complicated feats that out brains can achieve (as a species) is to fabricate a deception. Only a few other animals can do so and nothing like what we can do. Furthermore, our ability to promote a deception vastly exceeds our ability to perceive one which has had some interesting consequences for the development of society.

    Yes indeed, humanity has a tremendous capacity for evil. Free will depends upon the capability to make choices, and that necessarily includes the possibility of evil choices, many of which are based on deception.

    Note, however, that the power of deception (in its broadest sense) includes many things which aren't evil. For example, writing a novel (or indeed an RPG) heavily involves our capacity to fabricate a "deception", a coherent story which isn't true, but it is spared from being an evil act by explicitly presenting itself as fictional.

    I know it was me who introduced an element of philosophical debate into the thread, but now I reckon we're getting too off-topic.
    Why not get into a discussion about the particular case when your posting in a thread created to discuss the particular case?

    Why do you interchange deception and evilness? Is a parent evil when they lie to their child? Is a sick person evil when they lie about their health? Is a job applicant evil when they lie about their qualifications? Is a politician evil when they lie about policy?

    I'd suggest that it isn't the act of deception that is evil but the motivation behind it. A person can be evil without being a deceiver and vice versa.

    In the OPs case I think the bridge of understanding that has to be built is that the game designers created a particular experience and if that experience is subverted then you only cheat yourself of the amazing experience that was designed for you. Which has probably been said already.
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Wowo said:

    Why not get into a discussion about the particular case when your posting in a thread created to discuss the particular case?

    Politeness.
    Wowo said:

    Why do you interchange deception and evilness?

    It's not exactly an interchange, deception is a subset of evil rather than the whole of evil ... but yes, I count deception as evil by default, although excusable depending upon circumstances.
    Wowo said:

    Is a parent evil when they lie to their child?

    Usually yes, but not always. (Evil much more often than parents usually seem to believe ... kids often aren't as stupid as parents usually seem to assume, and often see straight through the BS, which seriously damages the familial relationship because the kids lose respect for those liars.)
    Wowo said:

    Is a sick person evil when they lie about their health?

    Usually yes, but not always. (Sick people who don't want to discuss the issue usually just give a bland non-committal answer rather than outright lying ... outright lying usually seems to occur when the sick person is exaggerating the problem for personal gain.)
    Wowo said:

    Is a job applicant evil when they lie about their qualifications?

    Yes.
    Wowo said:

    Is a politician evil when they lie about policy?

    Usually yes, but not always. (It is possible for lying about policy to serve the greater good, but not nearly so often as politicians claim this to be so!)
    Wowo said:

    I'd suggest that it isn't the act of deception that is evil but the motivation behind it. A person can be evil without being a deceiver and vice versa.

    Yes, absolutely so. However, the motivation for deception usually serves evil, and evil-doers are usually deceivers, so there's a strong correlation even though I agree that they're not automatically the same.
    Wowo said:

    In the OPs case I think the bridge of understanding that has to be built is that the game designers created a particular experience and if that experience is subverted then you only cheat yourself of the amazing experience that was designed for you. Which has probably been said already.

    Okay.

  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    Okay this thread has certainly gone off on a tangent. I'll close it for the OP to stop the notifications. I think his question has been answered to satisfaction.

    @Gallowglass and @Wowo you guys are welcome to open a philosphy thread in Off-Topic to further discuss this subject if you wish, but as always, please remain civil about it.
    JuliusBorisovSkatan
This discussion has been closed.