The Sensuous Permission-Free Crossmod Banter Author

[SimDing0]

"Playing Devil's Advocate" is kind of a poor cover for "taking a stance people don't agree with". You've already said you've lost respect for people. I think we're beyond the point where you can claim to be arguing for the sake of good old-fashioned debate.

[Sorrow]

You are not the sole arbiter of how NPC-X must act and speak.

You are not the sole arbiter of whetever the author is the sole arbiter of how NPC-X must act and speak or not.

[Wounded_Lion]

"Playing Devil's Advocate" is kind of a poor cover for "taking a stance people don't agree with". You've already said you've lost respect for people. I think we're beyond the point where you can claim to be arguing for the sake of good old-fashioned debate.

 

I fight tooth and nail. Remember when I mentioned rhetoric earlier? Go back and read my earlier posts if you missed it. Do you know what rhetoric is? Saying things that pull emotional strings rather than appealing to reason is part and parcel of that. Even when I play the Devil, I fight to win.

 

Perhaps, tho, I crossed the proverbial line. If so, I apologize. But I love the conflict.

 

aWL

 

Here's the quote:

 

...I'm a bit of a philosophy addict so it wasn't too difficult to grasp the gist of it. Heck, I even used a bit 'o good old fashioned rhetoric back there...

 

EDIT: quote, spelling

[Wounded_Lion]

@Sim

 

You might also have noticed that I was feeling a bit guilty about employing those tactics against Cam. I tried to patch things up a bit without compromising the character that I was playing:

 

Btw, Cam, you remain one of my modding heroes, despite our difference of opinion. No hard feelings, eh?

 

jcompton, tho, I never respected in the first place.

 

If you remain unconvinced, then I suppose I'll have to find a way to continue life knowing that SimDing0 thinks lesser of me. It'll be hard, but I'll find a way... somehow, someday.

 

aWL

 

EDIT: quote

[cmorgan]

OK, temporarily dropping the philisophical considerations and personalities involved (Yup, I know, impossible; but just so I can baseline this from a practical point of view) the summary so far is:

• There are three "Banter Packs" (non-romantic content between NPCs) currently available for BG2 content: PPG BanterPack, G3 Crossmod, and SHS Extended Banters Project.
  
• PPG Banterpack is a mature stable mod which deals with 10 of the BioWare NPCs. It currently is not accepting submissions and does not currently include any content for newly created NPC interactions. Authorship rights (should any arise for some strange reason) derive from and are are arbitrated by JCompton.
  
• SHS Banters Project is a new community project which any person can contribute to, and deals exclusively with BioWare NPCs. There are little or no authorship rights, as participating in the community project basically is a fun and friendly thing; in cases of dispute, "authorship rights" are arbitrated by K'aeloree.
  
• G3 Crossmod is a mature stable mod which accepts new submissions. It deals with the "silent minority" which is rapidly becoming the "silent majority", Mod - added NPCs, some based on BioWare and some completely new. Authorship rights are restricted to agreement by all authors whose NPC is included in a banter; if one author objects it vetos inclusion.
  
• Some authors (especially in Tutu, where there is no crossmod mod) have opted for mutual inclusion between mods for crossmod content, relying on teamwork and install order to open up Indira/Finch or whatever banters.
  
• There is a community debate on what is fair, appropriate, consistent, and respectful when it comes to adding banters where someone else's authorship has created a new character and the new mod author wants to incude cross-NPC content.
  

 

 

OK. Correct the above if it is wrong.

 

So here is the operationalization question, the Ethical Proof, so to speak.

 

I have an NPC in development. I have come up with a cool "joke" banter, based on Deer Camp and Scout Camp campouts. Currently, it is BioWare only, but say I wanted to include any currently existing male NPCs if they were in the party. Where do I shill out the banter, or am i forced to create a separate mod of my own? Keep in mind that many of the authors are no longer in the community. And from the content, you will see that it is harmless to anyone's "interpretation":

 

/* Realistic Male Campfire Banter */
CHAIN IF  ~%BGT_VAR% Global("c-menatrest","GLOBAL",1)~ THEN ~C-ARAN~ c-menatrestbanter
~Fire needs tendin' a bit.~

DO ~SetGlobal("c-menatcamp","GLOBAL",2)~

== ~KELDORJ~ IF ~InParty("Keldorn") InMyArea("Keldorn") !StateCheck("Keldorn",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Yes.~
== ~KORGANJ~ IF ~InParty("Korgan") InMyArea("Korgan") !StateCheck("Korgan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Yep.~
== ~YOSHJ~ IF ~InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~I saw some wood over there.~
== ~JANJ~ IF ~InParty("Jan") InMyArea("Jan") !StateCheck("Jan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~This reminds... err... Yes.~
== ~ANOMENJ~ IF ~InParty("Anomen") InMyArea("Anomen") !StateCheck("Anomen",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Correct.~
== ~VALYGARJ~ IF ~InParty("Valygar") InMyArea("Valygar") !StateCheck("Valygar",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Indeed.~
== ~HAERDAJ~ IF ~InParty("HaerDalis") InMyArea("HaerDalis") !StateCheck("HaerDalis",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Hmm.~
== ~CERNDJ~ IF ~InParty("Cernd") InMyArea("Cernd") !StateCheck("Cernd",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~...~
== ~MINSCJ~ IF ~InParty("Minsc") InMyArea("Minsc") !StateCheck("Minsc",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Yes.~
== ~EDWINJ~ IF ~InParty("Edwin") InMyArea("Edwin") !StateCheck("Edwin",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Do it then.~


== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(pokes fire with a stick)~
== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~...~
== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Not much goin' on, is there.~


== ~KELDORJ~ IF ~InParty("Keldorn") InMyArea("Keldorn") !StateCheck("Keldorn",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~No.~
== ~KORGANJ~ IF ~InParty("Korgan") InMyArea("Korgan") !StateCheck("Korgan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Nope.~
== ~VALYGARJ~ IF ~InParty("Valygar") InMyArea("Valygar") !StateCheck("Valygar",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Uhuh.~
== ~YOSHJ~ IF ~InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Very little.~
== ~HAERDAJ~ IF ~InParty("HaerDalis") InMyArea("HaerDalis") !StateCheck("HaerDalis",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Nothing.~
== ~ANOMENJ~ IF ~InParty("Anomen") InMyArea("Anomen") !StateCheck("Anomen",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Correct.~
== ~JANJ~ IF ~InParty("Jan") InMyArea("Jan") !StateCheck("Jan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~There never is.~
== ~CERNDJ~ IF ~InParty("Cernd") InMyArea("Cernd") !StateCheck("Cernd",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~...~
== ~MINSCJ~ IF ~InParty("Minsc") InMyArea("Minsc") !StateCheck("Minsc",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~No.~
== ~EDWINJ~ IF ~InParty("Edwin") InMyArea("Edwin") !StateCheck("Edwin",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Watch the fire, idiot.~

== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) InParty("Cernd") InMyArea("Cernd") !StateCheck("Cernd",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~You don't talk much, eh, Cernd?~
== ~CERNDJ~ IF ~InParty("Cernd") InMyArea("Cernd") !StateCheck("Cernd",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~No.~

== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Bet I can get you to say three words, Yoshimo.~
== ~YOSHJ~ IF ~InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~You lose.~
== ~KORGANJ~ IF ~InParty("Korgan") InMyArea("Korgan") !StateCheck("Korgan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Heh.~


== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(pokes fire with a stick)~
== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~...~
== ~C-ARANJ~ IF ~InParty("c-aran") InMyArea("c-aran") !StateCheck("c-aran",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Right. I'm off to bed.~


== ~KELDORJ~ IF ~InParty("Keldorn") InMyArea("Keldorn") !StateCheck("Keldorn",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Goodnight.~
== ~KORGANJ~ IF ~InParty("Korgan") InMyArea("Korgan") !StateCheck("Korgan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(grunts)~
== ~YOSHJ~ IF ~InParty("Yoshimo") InMyArea("Yoshimo") !StateCheck("Yoshimo",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Unhuh.~
== ~JANJ~ IF ~InParty("Jan") InMyArea("Jan") !StateCheck("Jan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Me too.~
== ~VALYGARJ~ IF ~InParty("Valygar") InMyArea("Valygar") !StateCheck("Valygar",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(begins cleaning armor)~
== ~ANOMENJ~ IF ~InParty("Anomen") InMyArea("Anomen") !StateCheck("Anomen",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~Goodnight.~
== ~CERNDJ~ IF ~InParty("Cernd") InMyArea("Cernd") !StateCheck("Cernd",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(leans back and stares at the night sky)~
== ~MINSCJ~ IF ~InParty("Minsc") InMyArea("Minsc") !StateCheck("Minsc",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~*snore*~
== ~EDWINJ~ IF ~InParty("Edwin") InMyArea("Edwin") !StateCheck("Edwin",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ THEN ~(opens spellbook for study)~
EXIT

 

Put aside the relative merit of adding a banter which is scenery and adds nothing to plot. What really are my options for inclusion, given the fact that most of the following folks (taken from Amber's files)

 

Name("SUBRU",Player2)		// Bons' Bruce PPG
Name("JCBruce",Player2)		// Compton's Bruce PPG
Name("G#CASS",Player2) 		// Cassius CoM
Name("FWGHARETH",Player2)	// Ghareth PPG
Name("CLFHSFNX",Player2)	// Fonick Modlist
Name("lrirenic",Player2)	// Irenicus (Longer Road) FW
Name("DKido",Player2)		// Kido Modlist
Name("Kindrek",Player2)		// Kindrek CoM
Name("NATH",Player2)		// Nathaniel CoM
Name("SK#NEHT",Player2)		// Neh'Taniel Blacksheep
Name("Therrin",Player2)		// Therrin Modlist
Name("TSUJATH",Player2)		// Tsujatha CoM
Name("VANIM",Player2)		// Vanim Modlist
Name("Wikaede",Player2) 	// Wikaede CoM
Name("TLXAN",Player2) 		// Xan Modlist
Name("O#Xan",Player2)		// Xan (Kulyok's) PPG 
Name("SDNPC",Player2)		// Yikari FW
Name("Robilard",Player2)	// Robillard (TDD) Modlist		
Name("Avaunis",Player2)		// Auvanis (TDD) Modlist		
Name("Adario",Player2)		// Adario Kalvaras (TDD) Modlist			
Name("KAGAINdd",Player2)	// Kagain (TDD) Modlist				
Name("KIVANDD",Player2)		// Kivan (TDD) Modlist				
Name("montaron",Player2)	// Montaron (TDD) Modlist			  
Name("xzardd",Player2)		// Xzar (TDD) Modlist				
Name("yeslicdd",Player2) 	// Yeslick (TDD) Modlist
Name("BOLIVAR",Player2) 	// Bolivar (SoS) FW		
Name("TOMASTM",Player2) 	// Tomas (SoS) FW

 

plus Gavin and Ajantis in development, Jon, Domi's Kivan, etc. etc...

 

I can't get permission from folks who no longer are in the community and active. I could respectfully post in all communities something like

 

"Hey, all these guys are going to say ~Yes~ , ~Hmmm.~, ~*grunt*~, ~(scratches chin)~, ~*belch*~ is that ok?" and wait a requisite time, then cut off the non-responding ones and submit to crossmod.

 

No answers here; just posing the RL question.

[CamDawg]

...should we deny players more content because of Petty Modder Dispute #945,325?

 

So to summarize: You arbitrarily rank (an imagined) players' right to additional mod content above modders' rights to basic respect.

Sorry, that's not an accurate summary of my argument. You're missing where I qualify the circumstances, and where I pose this as a possible alternative instead of a blanket declarative.

 

I used to advocate permission-only. However, I watched as the biggest mod organized under this idea got held hostage by one contributor throwing a tantrum. By whatever standard you wish to measure--in your case, respect for all authors--this is far, far worse than if it simply used a different contribution setup. In a world where we have constant bickering and pettiness between modders, it's simply impractical.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but that situation could have been prevented. It's simple: Want to add a new bit of content to the Crossmod Banter Pack? Check with the authors in question. If permission is given, permission is permanent. Note however that this is a specific permission for the material in question and not blanket permission to do whatever the hell you want. Had you been operating under this principle in the first place, Moongaze's tantrum (or whatever, I didn't witness it) could have simply been ignored because he would have already given blessing to whatever content was included in CBP.

My comments were not about XBanter, nor was the situation in any way preventable given the contributor setup. I know I'm being intentionally vague--this was an old (but bitter) incident that most folks don't know about, and there's no real reason to revisit it now save to reinforce some old feuds. My point in referring to it is that any system built upon the goodwill of modders towards one another will ultimately fail, and sometimes spectacularly. I don't know why we have an abnormally high percentage of contention between modders, but we do, and I feel it's a lot more pragmatic to safeguard against it while simultaneously encouraging better behavior.

 

If you'll indulge me in a bit of pride, I'd like to think I have a pretty good track record of both managing large, multi-author projects and encouraging good behavior.

[Domi]

The tantrum prevention per se only requires a new writer/coder whatever to sign off on the entry to the project a commitment that all the material provided for the project stays with the project and determines the extent to which the content can be modified by the project. Then the individual tantrums and follow up whining and mud throwing can be ignored in a good faith at no loss of work. This arrangement does not require the 'no permission required' to submit material premise, and will work just fine via pre-arrangement. The old problem you allude to was difficult to resolve because such safe-guard was not in place at the time.

 

The ethics of project participation and the breeches of thereof, I think is a separate issue from the 'I want to write for an NPC created by someone else w/o having to ask their permission.'

 

In the literature world this prohibition does exists, as prohibition on fan-fiction for their work by a number of authors.

 

In gaming industry, BioWARE explicitely forbids modding of KOTOR 1.

[Kelenthial]

In gaming industry, BioWARE explicitely forbids modding of KOTOR 1.

 

Um, I know this is rather OT... but why? Do you know? (hm, I guess that they don't have anything against modding IE games, then... You know, I always wondered what did they think about it...)

[Domi]

I think it's LA issue rather than BioWARE. Practically, the game is modded, but any mention of KOTOR1 mods is prohibited at the boards and the moderatorss will lock the threads. Hence, KOTOR is the only game I played unmodded. Well, actually JE as well, but that's because I haven't had a chance yet to make my own run through it.

[berelinde]

Cmorgan's post has a practical issue to illustrate, though. If you want to add a mod NPC to that banter, it would be tricky. You'd have to code it as an ICT after a line of Aran's that always plays, as a separate file that detected if the resource was available.

 

Despite what Grim Squeaker said about using IF_FILE_EXISTS in a D, I've never been able to get it to compile. So the only way to include a mod NPC in a free-for all banter would be to code it as an interjection. Which is probably why most group banters are a mod NPC and the BioWare cast, if they exist at all outside BG1 NPC.

 

 

If you wanted to stick a Gavin line in Aran's banter, though, and you tried to insert it after Minsc's, for example, you'd have a problem, because the EXTERN would be from Minsc's file. But if you stuck it in after the fire-poking bit, immediately after Aran speaks, you'd probably be all right.

[Wounded_Lion]

Sorry, that's not an accurate summary of my argument. You're missing where I qualify the circumstances, and where I pose this as a possible alternative instead of a blanket declarative.

 

Sure. But it wasn't meant to be a summary of your entire argument. Just the important part. Most of what you say makes sense (which is why I didn't bother summarizing the rest). However, if you're willing to result to "no permissions" when push comes to shove, then you're still in the red.

 

My comments were not about XBanter, nor was the situation in any way preventable given the contributor setup. I know I'm being intentionally vague--this was an old (but bitter) incident that most folks don't know about, and there's no real reason to revisit it now save to reinforce some old feuds. My point in referring to it is that any system built upon the goodwill of modders towards one another will ultimately fail, and sometimes spectacularly. I don't know why we have an abnormally high percentage of contention between modders, but we do, and I feel it's a lot more pragmatic to safeguard against it while simultaneously encouraging better behavior.

 

That's a cynical viewpoint. Possibly true, but definitely jaded.

 

If you'll indulge me in a bit of pride, I'd like to think I have a pretty good track record of both managing large, multi-author projects and encouraging good behavior.

 

You do. I've got nothing against you in particular. I was trying to stoke the flames of war and galvanize the (apparently) spineless permissions crowd into chiming in and taking up arms (plus I just can't stand a one-sided discussion where everyone nods their heads and agrees). I want to see some blood...

 

aWL

 

EDIT: spelling

[jcompton]

I was trying to stoke the flames of war and galvanize the (apparently) spineless permissions crowd into chiming in and taking up arms (plus I just can't stand a one-sided discussion where everyone nods their heads and agrees). I want to see some blood...

 

Basically everybody basically agreeing with me is a millennial event. Unlike Halley's Comet, there's no way you'll see it twice in your lifetime. Enjoy the unique spectacle, muted though it may be.

[Wounded_Lion]

I have an NPC in development. I have come up with a cool "joke" banter, based on Deer Camp and Scout Camp campouts. Currently, it is BioWare only, but say I wanted to include any currently existing male NPCs if they were in the party. Where do I shill out the banter, or am i forced to create a separate mod of my own? Keep in mind that many of the authors are no longer in the community. And from the content, you will see that it is harmless to anyone's "interpretation":

 

Apologies in advance for using you as an example, but I just can't resist.

 

Two examples wherein the author of an NPC might think your scene much less harmless than you intend:

 

- a no-nonsense, ultra-serious NPC (who'd never participate in a joke and think your NPC a fool for telling one)

- a NPC of a strongly opposed alignment (who'd rather bury an axe in your NPC's head than jest around the campfire with him)

 

My point here is that asking permission (and even better, working with another author) prevents two things:

- inconsistent characterization

- modder vs. modder strife

 

Now, if you had a good grasp of the character in question, and created appropriate dialogue (or lack thereof), the author would likely have no issue with you.

 

Honestly, I don't see you in particular having too many issues (I've never observed you acting in anything other than a friendly, helpful manner towards fellow modders). However, I did feel the need to raise the point. Really, its like a freakin' disorder that compels me.

 

aWL

 

EDIT: changed numbers to dashes (just looks better)

[cmorgan]

I understand your points. For those folks who are around and still modding, it would be a matter of "I'm ok, you're ok [Transactional Analysis]". Or not, as the peronalities and actions dictate. Utilitarianism rules as a guiding philosophical principal - all opportunities are accompanied by costs.

 

I also understand that under the Crossmod permission system, the modder has a vested interest to work well/play nicely with others. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, their mod will not have crossmod content added; folks looking to play with added banters who find out that I have no Gavin-Aran crossmod content because berelinde and I couldn't agree on whether or not Gavin should make Blazing Saddles style bean-jokes with Aran, well, why take that NPC when Kivan and Aran have fun banters?

 

We still don't have a place or way to work content with only one side in existence. I can't go "hey, JCompton, include this Aran vs Saerileth banter" or any of the other folks. I know I could technically create my own, fly in the face of convention, and operate rogue, but this is an atomistic view (Ayn Rand would be proud).

 

If the upshot of this is that someone steps forward and creates a third "Cossmod Community Mod", where folks drop their offerings at the door after having made attempts to work with others, and a Content Czar is set up, I would happily contribute to the project. But it would be much much more positive for the community to concentrate rather than divide; either BanterPack (giving full authority to JCompton in this case) or a change in rules structure (given to Grim and his team) or even SHS's Extended Banters, given that it is a Community -based contribution system, with everyone agreeing up front that it is everyone's work.

 

The thought that this many well meaning folks with this much experience would broach the topic and then not resolve it with actionable resuult seems to me a way of saying "It is broken. But it is too much work to fix it." This does not seem to be the way the three homes of some of the most rigorously tested, created, and accepted mods (including several dedicated entirely to fixing problems for players) operate. So what is the outcome? Do we ask to change BanterPack? Do we ask to change Crossmod rules? Do we dump this on SHS's Community banter project? Or do we establish a new Crossmod Committee of Liberation (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - Bring on the Guillotine )?

[berelinde]

My point here is that asking permission (and even better, working with another author) prevents two things:

- inconsistent characterization

- modder vs. modder strife

That statement tells me that you didn't quite get the point CamDawg and others were making.

 

The permission system increases modder vs. modder strife. Ask anyone who has been there.

 

Let me use a real life illustration. Based on the theory of the chemical equation, it shouldn't matter whether I add acid to water or water to acid. But if I had a dozen chemists telling me that adding water to acid is a bad idea, I would not need to try it myself, and risk being scarred by the experience, to realize that they were probably right. Here you have a dozen modders sharing their experiences with you, all telling you that the reality of the situation falls short of its theoretical expectation, yet you blissfully insist that the reverse is true.

 

Sure, modders who want crossmod usually can and do cooperate. If I were writing a banter between Kivan and Gavin, I'd be foolish not to take advantage of Domi's willingness to review and tweak the dialogue. But then, Domi's a better writer than I am. So I'm not saying that having a permission-free crossmod banter pack would make cooperation impossible. It would just make things easier when that isn't possible.

 

Here's another example: I wrote Gavin after Andyr, Bons, and Ghreyfain had already pretty much dropped out of modding. So I can't have Gavin-Finch, Gavin-Indira, or Gavin-Mur'Neth banter. What a bummer! In an open system, would I treat any of those NPCs with disrespect? Of course not. But it enables crossmod where it isn't possible now.

 

As for inconsistant characterisation, I've already stated my position that such a thing is impossible. Sure, another modder can and will imagine my NPC differently than I imagine him, but that's because he's interacting with that modder's outlook and experiences, and being shaped by them. Suppose that modder chooses to portray him as an irresponsible liar. Maybe he stirs a memory of someone else? Maybe he just touches a nerve? I don't know. That modder might go on and write banters that demonize Gavin, playing up the modder's perceptions based on personal experience. Or the banters might just make him look like an idiot compared to the other NPC, or just show the other NPC in a far better light than Gavin.

 

So, who loses? Gavin? Not exactly. The other NPC would come out of it looking like a Mary Sue.

 

As for applying the permission system in the situation above, that would generate exactly the kind of bad writing that JCompton doesn't want. In order to work around the difference in perceptions, the banters would have to be pretty insipid.

 

... folks looking to play with added banters who find out that I have no Gavin-Aran crossmod content because berelinde and I couldn't agree on whether or not Gavin should make Blazing Saddles style bean-jokes with Aran, well, why take that NPC when Kivan and Aran have fun banters?

You mean you didn't think Gavin should make jokes like that? I don't think Mel Brooks would mind.