"You can tell I'm a villain, because I cheat at solitaire."
You'd better hope the people in your life never find out you play violent video games. They might wonder what you would do if you ever got your hands on a sharp sword.
@Gallowlgass, it's not a "common reaction" to wonder if somebody has an ethics problem because they cheat at computer games. You're not the only one to complain about cheating, but you are the only one to have expressed this particular sentiment, at least as far as I know.
You suggest I look at it from another person's point of view. That's a good idea. But this person, as you describe him or her, is so suspicious that they would doubt my motives based on how I play a game in my room. No other person I've ever met has lived like this. Nobody I know has possessed so little trust, either in me or in others. And if I were to imagine somebody watching me cheat in a single-player computer game... I honestly cannot imagine them being worried about my moral character because of the cheating. I cannot imagine somebody with so little trust in other people.
The person you describe is not normal. This person is paranoid. I know somebody who has suffered every form of abuse and exploitation there is, throughout his or her life, and even s/he is not that suspicious of other people.
I mean no offense, but the position you hold does not sound healthy. Second-guessing other people's motives sounds like a very dark way to live one's life--and it does not seem like a reliable way of finding out other people's motives. It's all well and good to make oneself follow a moral code, but when you're trying to measure the character of another person--by what criteria are you judging them?
This very thread proves that we can't agree on if this particular action (the importing thing) constitutes cheating in the first place. We don't even have a rule that somebody could break. You notice somebody is breaking rules. Are they breaking the rules, or are they breaking your rules?
Maybe I'm just naive. But the level of mistrust that you claim to be normal is utterly alien to me.
Very entertaining! Guys I forgot to mention one tid bit. Having already beat SoA through a solid run through by exporting a character directly from the BG:EE main plot to BG2:EE would you consider it cheating to buff a character's XP with Black Pits on a "2nd" run through? To simplify, after beating SoA once does one earn the right to use maxed BG2 chars or is it still cheating in your eyes?
On the other hand, if anyone finds out that you even cheat yourself and even when you gain nothing by it, then you can't blame them for wondering whether you might also be a cheat in more important matters when there might be something real at stake, so it reflects rather badly on your character.
I find this statement rather exaggerated. I wouldn't care if I found out someone I knew was cheating in games, no matter if we were doing business, had a relationship or if I was in any other way interacting with that person.
Noloir: "Will you marry me?"
Skatan: "No...no. I can't."
Noloir: "But why?"
Skatan: "Because you imported a character into baldur's gate that had too much experience and equipment. If you are willing to cheat in Baldur's Gate, then how can I trust you not to cheat on me? I'm sorry Noloir, but how can I trust you?"
Noloir: "But Skatan!"
Skatan: "Don't! Just don't. How can I even know if Noloir is your real name?"
[Noloir runs away crying. He goes home and rolls up a wizard slayer to make up for his misdeeds.]
... it's not a "common reaction" to wonder if somebody has an ethics problem because they cheat at computer games ... The person you describe is not normal.
I didn't assert that it was "normal" in the sense of being how an actual majority of people might react, but yes, I do assert that it's a fairly common way of thinking, and therefore "normal" in the sense of being within the range of ordinary behaviours.
No other person I've ever met has lived like this. ... I honestly cannot imagine them being worried about my moral character because of the cheating.
I take your word for it that you've never met such a person, but I'm rather surprised because I've met lots.
I've no idea what country or culture you live in, but (as an example) consider Christians of the more puritanical sort, or indeed believers in various other traditional religions. If you take it as axiomatic that the nature of man is inherently inclined to be sinful (which is a standard Christian teaching, and not unique to Christians), then it's very easy to suppose that evidence of a trivial sin increases the risk that the same person might turn out to be morally weak in the face of some greater temptation. I know numerous people who think like that, and it's a pretty standard traditionalist view where I am, but I guess you live somewhere where the culture is different, perhaps less influenced by puritanism.
You suggest I look at it from another person's point of view. That's a good idea. But this person, as you describe him or her, is so suspicious that they would doubt my motives based on how I play a game in my room.
For sure. If someone knows little else about you, yet for some reason needs to form an opinion in spite of lacking information, then of course they'll extrapolate from whatever meager data they have available. If the meager data includes "he cheats at games", then it'd be hard to see how that'd be taken as a positive sign ... at best it might be disregarded as irrelevant, and perhaps it ought to be, but many people would take it into account (and negatively) when they've little other evidence that you're actually a great guy.
Mostly, of course, sensible people would rather not be forced to form an opinion on very thin information, but life's not always so kind as to allow that luxury. I've often had to take a view when I'd rather have been able to wait until I had much more information, and I'm certain that's a very common experience.
Second-guessing other people's motives sounds like a very dark way to live one's life--and it does not seem like a reliable way of finding out other people's motives.
Sure, it's not reliable, but it's often all one has to go on, if you don't know much else about someone.
It's all well and good to make oneself follow a moral code, but when you're trying to measure the character of another person--by what criteria are you judging them?
People might use all sorts of criteria, but I guess the sort of people I'm thinking about would mostly be basing their criteria on their understanding of religious scriptures ... whatever that might be in any particular case.
Maybe I'm just naive. But the level of mistrust that you claim to be normal is utterly alien to me.
I suspect it's mostly a matter of different cultural assumptions. You're surrounded by people who mostly trust quite easily (which does indeed sound rather pleasant), I'm surrounded by a more reserved lot.
Perhaps it's not only an issue of time and place - what one does for a living might also be a factor in our different perceptions of the people around us. In the sort of business I used to work in, back-stabbing unpleasantness was distressingly commonplace, so I got out of that field, but along the way I met a lot of people who had learnt the hard way to look over their shoulders.
Well sure, @semiticgod, that's fine and decent, but it's not quite the point. It's not a matter of whether a game's "feelings" might be hurt, it's a matter of what impression your behaviour might convey to other people. The game (obviously) doesn't have feelings, but other people do.
Look at it from the other person's point of view: they can't know for sure what feelings are going on inside your head, they have only the evidence they can see. If all they can initially see is that you cheat at trivial things, then of course it's a common reaction to wonder whether you might also cheat at serious things. That gets trust off to a poor start, even though (of course) you might eventually be able to overcome that bad initial impression.
This is the very essence of honour: integrity at all times and in all matters, no matter how trivial and regardless of whether anyone else is watching.
I hear what you say, but I don't agree. Do you apply this to EVERYTHING or just cheating? So everyone who has ever speeded with their car is untrustworthy 'cause they break the law there and might just end up breaking the law in other things? (Potential murderer, can't be trusted!) Everyone who has lied when cancelling a meeting or appointment? (Sorry, burned for life you untrustworthy bastard!) etc etc..
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that it's quite unreasonable to go around judging people in that way. I mean, if you know the shit people jerk off to, and judge them on that, I guess you would prolly have to cut off your entire friends list on facebook :P
@Gallowglass and @semiticgod This discussion is going off-topic, this religious thing and everything.
I reiterate: The thead is about whether maxing a character in the BP before exporting to BG2EE is cheating or not, not about your feelings of a person who use cheating in games. For that, create a separate thread.
it's not about ethics per se, but cheating in games is i think indicative of not being able to delay gratification. people with this psychological trait may exhibit frustration earlier than other people which may lead to dishonest behavior when they're unable to get what they want.
if person A told me that he regularly cheats in games, and person B told me that he doesn't i would rather hire or collaborate with B
Well, some people would apply it more widely than others.
I've mainly been describing how some people can develop a poor opinion of someone else by extrapolating from minor behaviours. Personally, I'm rather cautious about this sort of thinking, although certainly I do it some extent when I've very little other knowledge about someone - this is often how "first impressions" are formed, and potentially negatively. But sure, some people apply such thinking quite widely, even when they know more about someone. They can get irritatingly censorious ... but the point is that (in my experience, YMMV) there are quite a lot of such people, and sometimes they're people whose opinion might matter in some way.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that it's quite unreasonable to go around judging people in that way.
I'll defend it as reasonable when it's all you've got to go on but nevertheless need (for whatever reason) to form an opinion. Applied widely, yes, I agree it's unreasonable, but the world is full of unreasonable people.
... I guess you would prolly have to cut off your entire friends list on facebook :P
True. And in a way, I have actually done so - of course I came across some nice people on FB, but also far too many jerks for my taste, so I left FB several years ago.
if person A told me that he regularly cheats in games, and person B told me that he doesn't i would rather hire or collaborate with B
Thank you, @bob_veng, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I'm glad to have some support in this debate. When you don't have full information but must nevertheless make a choice, you choose by extrapolating from whatever minor details you have on whatever basis you can devise, and lots of other people would think similarly.
it's not about ethics per se, but cheating in games is i think indicative of not being able to delay gratification. people with this psychological trait may exhibit frustration earlier than other people which may lead to dishonest behavior when they're unable to get what they want.
if person A told me that he regularly cheats in games, and person B told me that he doesn't i would rather hire or collaborate with B
This is exactly one of the reasons why I spoke out against @gallowglass 's initial post. Since you will never actually be in that situation (@Noloir is using an alias/nickname and the odds of you encountering him/her in any RL situation is ridiculously low) why even bring that up as a potential risk for her/him to taint his/her character?
To me it feels more like you want to project your views onto his/her behaviour rather than objectively state whether or not it is cheating. It's like @semiticgod said: "Are they breaking the rules, or are they breaking your rules?"
Once again, I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is completely unnecessary in a place like this.
I've no idea what country or culture you live in, but (as an example) consider Christians of the more puritanical sort, or indeed believers in various other traditional religions. If you take it as axiomatic that the nature of man is inherently inclined to be sinful (which is a standard Christian teaching, and not unique to Christians), then it's very easy to suppose that evidence of a trivial sin increases the risk that the same person might turn out to be morally weak in the face of some greater temptation. I know numerous people who think like that, and it's a pretty standard traditionalist view where I am, but I guess you live somewhere where the culture is different, perhaps less influenced by puritanism.
Not really. I grew up in America, mostly in Texas. America is the one country most influenced by puritanism. My direct family is arguably more culturally Chinese than American--but, stereotypically speaking, Chinese culture doesn't place as much trust in other people, and my family doesn't fit that. For the record, Americans according to polls are much more trusting of strangers than people in most countries. And though there are fields of thought in Christianity that say that humankind is naturally sinful, there is also a lot emphasis on love and trust and a hesitance to lay judgment, particularly in Christ's own words.
Your position would be much more common in China than the Christian West. China is puritanical, granted, but mostly just in the physical sense (sex is dirty, cover your body), not the religious.
I suspect it's mostly a matter of different cultural assumptions. You're surrounded by people who mostly trust quite easily (which does indeed sound rather pleasant), I'm surrounded by a more reserved lot.
Perhaps it's not only an issue of time and place - what one does for a living might also be a factor in our different perceptions of the people around us. In the sort of business I used to work in, back-stabbing unpleasantness was distressingly commonplace, so I got out of that field, but along the way I met a lot of people who had learnt the hard way to look over their shoulders.
I think this is the key difference between our experiences. What kind of business were you in?
I would be very cautious about condemning players for choosing how they want to play a particular game. Using the Black Pits to give yourself a leg-up in Baldur's Gate II is cheating, but it still requires you to play through the Black Pits; it's not like activating debug mode and using Ctrl-Y to defeat your enemies (which, true story, is exactly what I did the first time I played Baldur's Gate II, because I had friends I wanted to play with and homework I needed to do and I didn't have time to get frustrated by a fight with trolls).
I can see the point about drawing conclusions about someone based on their cheating behavior. But "Person A cheated in a single player video game one time" is different from "Person A cheats in games". The first statement is a description of someone who made a specific choice and could probably defend that choice if asked about it; the second statement is a description of someone exhibiting a pattern of behavior. The second statement is certainly a useful determining factor when hiring somebody; the first statement is not.
Baldur's Gate is a long game. It's very long. If you take a shortcut because you want to play Baldur's Gate II (and you want to start at a higher level because you want to experience the story of Baldur's Gate II and not the challenge of it), that doesn't make you a cheater. It doesn't make you anything, really, but a Baldur's Gate II fan.
it's not about ethics per se, but cheating in games is i think indicative of not being able to delay gratification. people with this psychological trait may exhibit frustration earlier than other people which may lead to dishonest behavior when they're unable to get what they want.
if person A told me that he regularly cheats in games, and person B told me that he doesn't i would rather hire or collaborate with B
This is exactly one of the reasons why I spoke out against @gallowglass 's initial post. Since you will never actually be in that situation (@Noloir is using an alias/nickname and the odds of you encountering him/her in any RL situation is ridiculously low) why even bring that up as a potential risk for her/him to taint his/her character?
To me it feels more like you want to project your views onto his/her behaviour rather than objectively state whether or not it is cheating. It's like @semiticgod said: "Are they breaking the rules, or are they breaking your rules?"
Once again, I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is completely unnecessary in a place like this.
it's certainly unnecessary, i'll give you that. but is it *bad*?
i mainly wanted to say that cheating in singleplayer is not ethically relevant as-such, but still tells you something about a person. not about their moral character - just about the way they are, character in the broadest sense, or personality. it's not about passing judgement or "tainting" as you said (which would be bad in this case) but getting to know someone
say, if person X told me that he enjoyed playing the game with this, or other such exploit more than playing it normally, i'd think: 1. X doesn't like challenge, because starting out weak in order to become strong is not a fun journey for him - he wants to have a big edge over his enemies right from the start (not a bad thing irl but kinda monotonous in a video game) and/or 2. X doesn't have the patience, he picks a path of lesser resistance that doesn't require him to spend precious minutes and units of brainpower to get a hold of the rules from the outset, or to devise strategies, retry when he loses etc. and/or 3. X doesn't have the actual time to play the game properly, so he uses exploits and cheats to make things go faster so he can get to the end
this tells me something about X but i can't slide any of it into moral categories. only after going a long way down the road with much additional information would those come into play.
@bob_veng: I use exploits to better explore the game engine. The main reason I do no-reload runs and the like is because it lets me stress-test the exploits and find out their limits. Then, once I've explored the technique in some depth, I phase it out of my repertoire.
So there's another possibility: 4. X likes variety in gameplay.
@Noloir As you say, you've already done the hard yards and completed SoA the usual way so you've proved to yourself that you can beat the game. Therefore I see no reason at all why you shouldn't try to play it again some other way for your own interest, just to see what happens. I try weird stuff with the game all the time - mostly the result is a mind-numbingly boring or catastrophically-disastrous game but sometimes an idea works and I add that to my library of "Fun things to do with Baldur's Gate".
I, myself, like to export from BP to BG. I'm not sure it'd be totally impossible story-wise for your characters to have experienced it before. I see it more like a convenience tweak. It allows me to skip the fight that I find boring and go directly to SCS and maximum HP/difficulty enhanced fights. But well, that's just one way I play BG.
Comments
You'd better hope the people in your life never find out you play violent video games. They might wonder what you would do if you ever got your hands on a sharp sword.
@Gallowlgass, it's not a "common reaction" to wonder if somebody has an ethics problem because they cheat at computer games. You're not the only one to complain about cheating, but you are the only one to have expressed this particular sentiment, at least as far as I know.
You suggest I look at it from another person's point of view. That's a good idea. But this person, as you describe him or her, is so suspicious that they would doubt my motives based on how I play a game in my room. No other person I've ever met has lived like this. Nobody I know has possessed so little trust, either in me or in others. And if I were to imagine somebody watching me cheat in a single-player computer game... I honestly cannot imagine them being worried about my moral character because of the cheating. I cannot imagine somebody with so little trust in other people.
The person you describe is not normal. This person is paranoid. I know somebody who has suffered every form of abuse and exploitation there is, throughout his or her life, and even s/he is not that suspicious of other people.
I mean no offense, but the position you hold does not sound healthy. Second-guessing other people's motives sounds like a very dark way to live one's life--and it does not seem like a reliable way of finding out other people's motives. It's all well and good to make oneself follow a moral code, but when you're trying to measure the character of another person--by what criteria are you judging them?
This very thread proves that we can't agree on if this particular action (the importing thing) constitutes cheating in the first place. We don't even have a rule that somebody could break. You notice somebody is breaking rules. Are they breaking the rules, or are they breaking your rules?
Maybe I'm just naive. But the level of mistrust that you claim to be normal is utterly alien to me.
I've no idea what country or culture you live in, but (as an example) consider Christians of the more puritanical sort, or indeed believers in various other traditional religions. If you take it as axiomatic that the nature of man is inherently inclined to be sinful (which is a standard Christian teaching, and not unique to Christians), then it's very easy to suppose that evidence of a trivial sin increases the risk that the same person might turn out to be morally weak in the face of some greater temptation. I know numerous people who think like that, and it's a pretty standard traditionalist view where I am, but I guess you live somewhere where the culture is different, perhaps less influenced by puritanism. For sure. If someone knows little else about you, yet for some reason needs to form an opinion in spite of lacking information, then of course they'll extrapolate from whatever meager data they have available. If the meager data includes "he cheats at games", then it'd be hard to see how that'd be taken as a positive sign ... at best it might be disregarded as irrelevant, and perhaps it ought to be, but many people would take it into account (and negatively) when they've little other evidence that you're actually a great guy.
Mostly, of course, sensible people would rather not be forced to form an opinion on very thin information, but life's not always so kind as to allow that luxury. I've often had to take a view when I'd rather have been able to wait until I had much more information, and I'm certain that's a very common experience. Sure, it's not reliable, but it's often all one has to go on, if you don't know much else about someone. People might use all sorts of criteria, but I guess the sort of people I'm thinking about would mostly be basing their criteria on their understanding of religious scriptures ... whatever that might be in any particular case. I suspect it's mostly a matter of different cultural assumptions. You're surrounded by people who mostly trust quite easily (which does indeed sound rather pleasant), I'm surrounded by a more reserved lot.
Perhaps it's not only an issue of time and place - what one does for a living might also be a factor in our different perceptions of the people around us. In the sort of business I used to work in, back-stabbing unpleasantness was distressingly commonplace, so I got out of that field, but along the way I met a lot of people who had learnt the hard way to look over their shoulders.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that it's quite unreasonable to go around judging people in that way. I mean, if you know the shit people jerk off to, and judge them on that, I guess you would prolly have to cut off your entire friends list on facebook :P
I reiterate: The thead is about whether maxing a character in the BP before exporting to BG2EE is cheating or not, not about your feelings of a person who use cheating in games. For that, create a separate thread.
if person A told me that he regularly cheats in games, and person B told me that he doesn't i would rather hire or collaborate with B
I've mainly been describing how some people can develop a poor opinion of someone else by extrapolating from minor behaviours. Personally, I'm rather cautious about this sort of thinking, although certainly I do it some extent when I've very little other knowledge about someone - this is often how "first impressions" are formed, and potentially negatively. But sure, some people apply such thinking quite widely, even when they know more about someone. They can get irritatingly censorious ... but the point is that (in my experience, YMMV) there are quite a lot of such people, and sometimes they're people whose opinion might matter in some way. I'll defend it as reasonable when it's all you've got to go on but nevertheless need (for whatever reason) to form an opinion. Applied widely, yes, I agree it's unreasonable, but the world is full of unreasonable people. True. And in a way, I have actually done so - of course I came across some nice people on FB, but also far too many jerks for my taste, so I left FB several years ago. Thank you, @bob_veng, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I'm glad to have some support in this debate. When you don't have full information but must nevertheless make a choice, you choose by extrapolating from whatever minor details you have on whatever basis you can devise, and lots of other people would think similarly.
To me it feels more like you want to project your views onto his/her behaviour rather than objectively state whether or not it is cheating. It's like @semiticgod said: "Are they breaking the rules, or are they breaking your rules?"
Once again, I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is completely unnecessary in a place like this.
Your position would be much more common in China than the Christian West. China is puritanical, granted, but mostly just in the physical sense (sex is dirty, cover your body), not the religious. I think this is the key difference between our experiences. What kind of business were you in?
I can see the point about drawing conclusions about someone based on their cheating behavior. But "Person A cheated in a single player video game one time" is different from "Person A cheats in games". The first statement is a description of someone who made a specific choice and could probably defend that choice if asked about it; the second statement is a description of someone exhibiting a pattern of behavior. The second statement is certainly a useful determining factor when hiring somebody; the first statement is not.
Baldur's Gate is a long game. It's very long. If you take a shortcut because you want to play Baldur's Gate II (and you want to start at a higher level because you want to experience the story of Baldur's Gate II and not the challenge of it), that doesn't make you a cheater. It doesn't make you anything, really, but a Baldur's Gate II fan.
i mainly wanted to say that cheating in singleplayer is not ethically relevant as-such, but still tells you something about a person. not about their moral character - just about the way they are, character in the broadest sense, or personality. it's not about passing judgement or "tainting" as you said (which would be bad in this case) but getting to know someone
say, if person X told me that he enjoyed playing the game with this, or other such exploit more than playing it normally, i'd think:
1. X doesn't like challenge, because starting out weak in order to become strong is not a fun journey for him - he wants to have a big edge over his enemies right from the start (not a bad thing irl but kinda monotonous in a video game)
and/or
2. X doesn't have the patience, he picks a path of lesser resistance that doesn't require him to spend precious minutes and units of brainpower to get a hold of the rules from the outset, or to devise strategies, retry when he loses etc.
and/or
3. X doesn't have the actual time to play the game properly, so he uses exploits and cheats to make things go faster so he can get to the end
this tells me something about X but i can't slide any of it into moral categories. only after going a long way down the road with much additional information would those come into play.
So there's another possibility:
4. X likes variety in gameplay.
And so I cheat the bag of holding into BG1, because I find inventory management a pain in the ass.
I see it more like a convenience tweak. It allows me to skip the fight that I find boring and go directly to SCS and maximum HP/difficulty enhanced fights.
But well, that's just one way I play BG.