variable for any active PC romance

[Kulyok]

Kulyok: I didn't, ever, talk about integrating reactions to other NPC romances without the author's consent. I was asking whether it would be possible to generalize this via Crossmod, as it was done with the romance conflicts.

 

I got you, I think. It's just I completely dislike the idea - as I would, say, dislike the idea of making generic RE_HadSexWithSomeone or RE_HowManyTimes variables for RE mod, so I wouldn't want to participate here. I don't know, it just makes me wince, for some reason.

 

And since it seems I can't get a general trigger to prevent Bjornin to romance a committed PC (I am pretty sure we could get an agreement for Xan), I don't see myself writing a Bjornin BGII romantic encounter.

 

My question is: would a non-joinable NPC even know that PC is comitted? To me, he or she has no way of knowing, unless PC tells them, or unless the romance interest kisses PC in broad light and says "Hey, we're getting married!". (Yes, paladins have "detect evil", but "detect sex"?)

[jastey]

(Yes, paladins have "detect evil", but "detect sex"?)

ROFL

 

Well, in a way he would, but more like "detects a lie". I can't imagine a paladin to have a one-night stand with a woman if he isn't sure she is not committed, especially a paladin of Helm. It's a Helm cleric's doctrine to remind an unhappy couple of the commitments of being married, so I really don't see a paladin of Helm sleeping his way around with engaged woman. EDIT: And since getting close was the theme I had in mind, this somehow doesn't work.

 

I don't know how to handle Ajantis engaged path either, to be honest, as long as the inconsistency I mentioned in my last post (i.e. Crossmod does not handle mod-romance conflicts in a final form for all mod romances) remains. Until now I thought "final romance conflict (in the sense of only one romance will remain) was handled by Crossmod, so I can savely leave it there", but it doesn't seem to be the case.

[Kulyok]

Well, in a way he would, but more like "detects a lie". I can't imagine a paladin to have a one-night stand with a woman if he isn't sure she is not committed, especially a paladin of Helm. It's a Helm cleric's doctrine to remind an unhappy couple of the commitments of being married, so I really don't see a paladin of Helm sleeping his way around with engaged woman. EDIT: And since getting close was the theme I had in mind, this somehow doesn't work.

 

The sad truth - or so it seems to me, at least - is that the staunchest paladins will sleep around with an engaged woman, if the said woman has kept her silence about her engagement, and her Occlumency skill charisma is sufficient.

 

I don't know how to handle Ajantis engaged path either, to be honest, as long as the inconsistency I mentioned in my last post (i.e. Crossmod does not handle mod-romance conflicts in a final form for all mod romances) remains. Until now I thought "final romance conflict (in the sense of only one romance will remain) was handled by Crossmod, so I can savely leave it there", but it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

I think I might've misunderstood. Crossmod does the standard "JohnRomanceActive to 2 -> all others to 3, only one romance - John's - remains" route. Or did you mean something else?

[jastey]

The sad truth - or so it seems to me, at least - is that the staunchest paladins will sleep around with an engaged woman, if the said woman has kept her silence about her engagement, and her Occlumency skill charisma is sufficient.

Where did you get that impression from? Nothing in BG1 or II let me think this.

And, anyway, not Bjornin.

 

Second thing:

I mean Soaufein's "Can be killed by other romances?: 0", which, as I understood, does exclude the Solaufein RA = 3 for other NPC RA = 2, so it would be Solaufein hitting on John's fiance (without John noticing). And if this is allowed for one NPC, others will follow.

Or maybe I misunderstood?

[Kulyok]

Where did you get that impression from? Nothing in BG1 or II let me think this.

 

Um... from real life.

 

I mean Soaufein's "Can be killed by other romances?: 0", which, as I understood, does exclude the Solaufein RA = 3 for other NPC RA = 2, so it would be Solaufein hitting on John's fiance (without John noticing). And if this is allowed for one NPC, others will follow.

Or maybe I misunderstood?

 

Ah, I checked the wiki, and it seems that Sola is the only exception - he kills romances, but he isn't killed by romances. My understanding is that killing Sola romance in any mod will break Weimer's intent, or something like this - so I guess the only way to prevent conflict here would be to kill all other romances, if Sola's is active.

[jastey]

I guess the only way to prevent conflict here would be to kill all other romances, if Sola's is active.

I don't think that was Weimer's attempt, either, plus this approach is not feasible. If I'd write NPC mod XY with a romance that can't bekilled, and the player takes XY and Sola in the party.. which romance is going to remain? None? Both? There we are again.

Secondly, this would be "making players choice for the player" that I can't accept.

 

As I said: If this is allowed for one NPC others will follow, and I want my NPC to be able to detect what's going on - via Crossmod. Either that, or not allowing certain NPCs to go on. Until then, Crossmod is useless for (definite) romance conflict handling.

[jastey]

Um... from real life.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the concept "paladin" does not exist in real life. It's a bit like the "would paladins drink alcohole" discussion, where connections to RL knight orders were drawn. One thing are RL knights, the other one a god-gifted, fighter for righteousness paladins in a fantasy setting.

[berelinde]

And since it seems I can't get a general trigger to prevent Bjornin to romance a committed PC (I am pretty sure we could get an agreement for Xan), I don't see myself writing a Bjornin BGII romantic encounter.

 

 

In Laran, I gave the PC several opportunities to tell him she's already involved. I think that's about the best I could do.

 

After all, it isn't as if he's got psychic powers and can tell which of the four male party members is <CHARNAME>'s fiance, if any. For all he knows, her betrothed might even be somewhere else entirely.

 

If the PC lies about it, shame on her, but Laran would never know. How could he?

[Kulyok]

Yes, I noticed that Laran's replies and options during testing, and I loved the way it was handled a great deal.

[jastey]

Heh, I didn't mean to bash Laran. I am sure I will enjoy the encounter tremendously. I am not saying that I would detest such a paladin's behaviour if introduced by another mod, it's only that I can't write it, since I think the Paladin should fall if he slept with a bounded woman. So for Bjornin it would be the case of "we don't do this", which makes the encounter maybe not unappropriate but a great deal unsatisfactory for RE content.

 

And for Ajantis I am a bit in despair because of what I wrote above, I have to admit.