questions Rogue playthrough - Contacts and Patrons

[Mister Mass]

2 hours ago, tanglin said:

My rogue is now level 23 and I've run into a problem with playing just rogue-like missions from roguish contacts. I often need to work for a certain contact before being able to get work from a roguish contact. For example, to get Operative Vargas, I need an introduction from Lorenz Ansaldo, who seems really villainous. Using the Find Contact button doesn't give me some of the roguish contacts. Is there a more direct way of getting contacts that I don't know about?

This is actually a good point about the way that redside chains contacts.  Despite the advice above to run newpaper missions in order to convince a broker to give you a bank mission, & then after the bank mission a new contact, certain contacts are not gained that way redside.  Instead they are gained by an introduction from the previous contact in the chain.

 

The problem here is that Lorenz Ansaldo & Operative Vargas are in the same level band, 20-24.  If Lorenz was in a lower level band (say 15-19) he might give you the introduction to Vargas when you hit level 19 or 20, even without doing any missions.  (I don't know that this is true, since I always do all of the missions from all of the contacts redside anyway, but this seems to be how the origin contacts work blueside.)  But with the 2 contacts in the same level band, I don't see how you can get the introduction to Vargas without doing missions for Lorenz.  As far as I know, you can't get Vargas as a contact through the brokers or the Find Contact window,only through introduction by the previous contact in the chain, Lorenz Ansaldo.

 

This would appear to be an issue that the original Devs didn't consider.  Certainly your desire to only play Roguish story arcs was not in the Devs' minds when they created these original CoV contacts, as side-switching & the intermediate alignments like Rogue were not yet part of the game.  Adding a way to sidestep these contact chain requirements would be good design.  I do note that their is a way to do that already - through Ouroboros.  You can do any of these original arcs through Ouroboros once you are high enough level to do so, with no introductions required.

[Twisted Toon]

On 9/5/2020 at 4:40 PM, Luminara said:

Note that I'm not implying that he'd sprout a fluffy bunny tail and start pooping rainbows if he were freed of the Well's influence.  He's definitely become the bad guy, but not as a choice, rather a reaction to what he views as enslavement.

I don't know about that.

He had a choice in how he reacted to what he views as enslavement.

[tanglin]

11 hours ago, Mister Mass said:

This is actually a good point about the way that redside chains contacts.  Despite the advice above to run newpaper missions in order to convince a broker to give you a bank mission, & then after the bank mission a new contact, certain contacts are not gained that way redside.  Instead they are gained by an introduction from the previous contact in the chain.

 

The problem here is that Lorenz Ansaldo & Operative Vargas are in the same level band, 20-24.  If Lorenz was in a lower level band (say 15-19) he might give you the introduction to Vargas when you hit level 19 or 20, even without doing any missions.  (I don't know that this is true, since I always do all of the missions from all of the contacts redside anyway, but this seems to be how the origin contacts work blueside.)  But with the 2 contacts in the same level band, I don't see how you can get the introduction to Vargas without doing missions for Lorenz.  As far as I know, you can't get Vargas as a contact through the brokers or the Find Contact window,only through introduction by the previous contact in the chain, Lorenz Ansaldo.

 

This would appear to be an issue that the original Devs didn't consider.  Certainly your desire to only play Roguish story arcs was not in the Devs' minds when they created these original CoV contacts, as side-switching & the intermediate alignments like Rogue were not yet part of the game.  Adding a way to sidestep these contact chain requirements would be good design.  I do note that their is a way to do that already - through Ouroboros.  You can do any of these original arcs through Ouroboros once you are high enough level to do so, with no introductions required.

Playing only roguish missions is turning out to be more difficult to achieve than I had expected, because of the system of contacts needing to be introduced. Playing the mission arcs I have missed through Ouroboros is an option, but I'm hoping to level up my character by never having to do anything truly villainous while also doing the roguish mission arcs at the level they were intended.

 

So far, I've been mixing in alignment missions to help with the feeling of being a rogue.

[Luminara]

13 hours ago, Twisted Toon said:

I don't know about that.

He had a choice in how he reacted to what he views as enslavement.

 

Did he?  Do any of us truly have a choice when emotion is involved?  We can choose whether or not to be magnanimous, or forgiving, or petty, we can decide to act in a specific manner in spite of our emotional state, but the underlying emotion is still there.  It doesn't cease to exist because we will it... if that were the case, there would be no grief when a loved one dies, no bad marriages or messy divorces, no resentment in the work place, no familial bonds or sense of tribal unity.

 

The world would be a much different kind of place if we could turn emotions on or off like turning a light on or off.  I can't.  I don't believe anyone can.  We can, certainly, choose how we respond to things which affect us emotionally, but we can't choose the emotions we feel.  Whatever behavior we might display externally, however logically we might choose to approach or react to any given situation, emotion is still there, and it's never truly something we can control.

 

Recluse couldn't decide not to hate the Well for taking away his control of his life.  He couldn't choose not to be angry, or resentful.  Yes, he could have opted to use his "gift" for the betterment of all of humanity, but if he didn't view it as a gift, but as a curse, the Well still would've caused him to change in the same way because it's driven by what's in the heart, not in the head or the words spoken.  Even if he'd become the greatest humanitarian and philanthropist in history, the Well still would've responded to what he felt, not what he did.

 

Please note, though, that I'm speaking from the perspective of a mentally ill person.  I fought, viciously, for over 40 years to control my fear of people, and never succeeded.  I've pushed past my fear, I've sidestepped and ignored it, but I've never once been able to make it stop existing, for a single second.  My emotional state is no more under my control than the wind or tides.  I've learned to accept that and live with it, but that still doesn't give me control of my emotions, and all of the mature behaviors and responses in the world don't change my underlying emotional state.  I can smile when I meet someone, but that doesn't mean I'm not screaming in terror inside.  And my understanding of Recluse comes from that, my own inability to control the emotions that I feel.  I am... flawed, as a human being, as a person, and that affects how I see the world and other people.

 

So I could be wrong.  If the rest of you do have the capacity to alter your emotional state on a whim, my take on Recluse is clearly way off.  I don't believe that's the case, though.  There's far too much empirical evidence that emotion isn't something anyone can control, in any way.  We're all at the mercy of our hearts.  We can behave like adults in spite of what we feel, but we still feel it.  Recluse felt resentment, hatred, rage at being bound to the Well.  Choosing to put on tights and a cape and stop muggings wouldn't have changed his progression into a hideous monstrosity, because the Well was in his heart, where the darkness was, and responded to that.

[Twisted Toon]

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Did he?  Do any of us truly have a choice when emotion is involved?  We can choose whether or not to be magnanimous, or forgiving, or petty, we can decide to act in a specific manner in spite of our emotional state, but the underlying emotion is still there.  It doesn't cease to exist because we will it... if that were the case, there would be no grief when a loved one dies, no bad marriages or messy divorces, no resentment in the work place, no familial bonds or sense of tribal unity.

 

The world would be a much different kind of place if we could turn emotions on or off like turning a light on or off.  I can't.  I don't believe anyone can.  We can, certainly, choose how we respond to things which affect us emotionally, but we can't choose the emotions we feel.  Whatever behavior we might display externally, however logically we might choose to approach or react to any given situation, emotion is still there, and it's never truly something we can control.

 

Recluse couldn't decide not to hate the Well for taking away his control of his life.  He couldn't choose not to be angry, or resentful.  Yes, he could have opted to use his "gift" for the betterment of all of humanity, but if he didn't view it as a gift, but as a curse, the Well still would've caused him to change in the same way because it's driven by what's in the heart, not in the head or the words spoken.  Even if he'd become the greatest humanitarian and philanthropist in history, the Well still would've responded to what he felt, not what he did.

 

Please note, though, that I'm speaking from the perspective of a mentally ill person.  I fought, viciously, for over 40 years to control my fear of people, and never succeeded.  I've pushed past my fear, I've sidestepped and ignored it, but I've never once been able to make it stop existing, for a single second.  My emotional state is no more under my control than the wind or tides.  I've learned to accept that and live with it, but that still doesn't give me control of my emotions, and all of the mature behaviors and responses in the world don't change my underlying emotional state.  I can smile when I meet someone, but that doesn't mean I'm not screaming in terror inside.  And my understanding of Recluse comes from that, my own inability to control the emotions that I feel.  I am... flawed, as a human being, as a person, and that affects how I see the world and other people.

 

So I could be wrong.  If the rest of you do have the capacity to alter your emotional state on a whim, my take on Recluse is clearly way off.  I don't believe that's the case, though.  There's far too much empirical evidence that emotion isn't something anyone can control, in any way.  We're all at the mercy of our hearts.  We can behave like adults in spite of what we feel, but we still feel it.  Recluse felt resentment, hatred, rage at being bound to the Well.  Choosing to put on tights and a cape and stop muggings wouldn't have changed his progression into a hideous monstrosity, because the Well was in his heart, where the darkness was, and responded to that.

Now, I think we're getting a little into philosophical territory.

 

I don't think that your emotional state determines who you are deep down, that would be your personality.

Being angry won't make you a sadist.

Being happy won't make you an altruistic saint.

Having a fear of people won't turn you into the Scarecrow.

Your personality traits determine how you will react in situations, not your emotional state.

The emotional state will, most times, be what urges an action to be taken. But, it doesn't determine the action that will be taken.

I'm also of the opinion that personality traits can change over time. It would require work to do so though.

 

I think that Stefan (Recluse) had a flawed personality, not a flawed emotional state, that resulted in him becoming the Recluse that we know now.

 

Now, whether one would be able to fight against that personality flaw and be the good guy, despite the pressure of the Well, I don't know.

If it was possible, it would require an enormous amount of self control and will power.

 

You can take all of the above with a handful of salt, because I'm not a Psychologist.

[catsi563]

Tte Radio is also fairly low key villainy and a lot of fun

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Twisted Toon said:

Now, I think we're getting a little into philosophical territory.

 

I don't think that your emotional state determines who you are deep down, that would be your personality.

 

Personality isn't based exclusively on our actions, it also stems from our thoughts and our emotions.  Thought, behavior and emotion all collectively define our personality.  Emotion is the basest aspect, the part we don't actively control, and the part which drives our thought processes and behavioral responses.  We can exhibit awareness of our emotions and choose to act contrary to them, such as deciding to take a deep breath and try to calm down when we're angered, but we can't actually control the emotions we feel.  So emotion constitutes the most fundamental part of personality, the rawest and most honest part, with thought and behavior, whether actively chosen (awareness of our emotional state and conscious choice to react in a specific way) or subconsciously determined (we act without thought), collectively working with emotion to create the personality as a whole.

 

Without emotion, we have no personality.  No feelings to be aware of, to contemplate, to determine our actions one way or another.  It's the foundation on which personality is built.

 

1 hour ago, Twisted Toon said:

Being angry won't make you a sadist.

Being happy won't make you an altruistic saint.

Having a fear of people won't turn you into the Scarecrow.

Your personality traits determine how you will react in situations, not your emotional state.

The emotional state will, most times, be what urges an action to be taken. But, it doesn't determine the action that will be taken.

I'm also of the opinion that personality traits can change over time. It would require work to do so though.

 

All of that is true.  In the same vein, though, being generous doesn't make you an altruistic person if you're resentful and bitchy about giving.  Being forgiving doesn't mean you don't feel anger, hate or jealousy, it means you try not to let it determine your response to the situation.  Being gentle doesn't mean you don't have a short temper, it means you try not to express it.  We still feel these things, even if we act in a manner opposite to what they make us want to do.

 

2 hours ago, Twisted Toon said:

I think that Stefan (Recluse) had a flawed personality, not a flawed emotional state, that resulted in him becoming the Recluse that we know now.

 

Now, whether one would be able to fight against that personality flaw and be the good guy, despite the pressure of the Well, I don't know.

If it was possible, it would require an enormous amount of self control and will power.

 

Maybe prescription medication could've made him Lord Bunnybutt.  It seems to work for people who can afford it, from what I've seen.

 

2 hours ago, Twisted Toon said:

You can take all of the above with a handful of salt, because I'm not a Psychologist.

 

Neither am I.  😉

[Grouchybeast]

8 hours ago, Luminara said:

So I could be wrong.  If the rest of you do have the capacity to alter your emotional state on a whim, my take on Recluse is clearly way off.  I don't believe that's the case, though.  There's far too much empirical evidence that emotion isn't something anyone can control, in any way. 

That hasn't been my experience at all.  Even with very big emotions, like grief at the loss of a parent, I might not be able to make the core emotion go away, but by choosing what I think about and focus on I can profoundly change how I experience it.

[FoulVileTerror]

There's also a wealth of research suggesting that physical actions and activities can alter our emotional states.  Such as forcing someone to smile with a popsicle stick causing them to have an oddly more favourable demeanour.

I don't know if it's -valid- research, mind you . . . but it seems to keep cropping up, so there may be something to the suggestion that you could potentially alter your mood without even resorting to chemicals.

[EmmySky]

7 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Personality isn't based exclusively on our actions, it also stems from our thoughts and our emotions.  Thought, behavior and emotion all collectively define our personality.  Emotion is the basest aspect, the part we don't actively control, and the part which drives our thought processes and behavioral responses.  We can exhibit awareness of our emotions and choose to act contrary to them, such as deciding to take a deep breath and try to calm down when we're angered, but we can't actually control the emotions we feel.  So emotion constitutes the most fundamental part of personality, the rawest and most honest part, with thought and behavior, whether actively chosen (awareness of our emotional state and conscious choice to react in a specific way) or subconsciously determined (we act without thought), collectively working with emotion to create the personality as a whole.

 

Without emotion, we have no personality.  No feelings to be aware of, to contemplate, to determine our actions one way or another.  It's the foundation on which personality is built.

 

Enter the sociopath (and psychopath).

 

Some people are capable of actively controlling their emotions.  Some people are lacking the emotion itself and learn to mimic it for that veneer of civility.  Those people still have personality.  I would venture to say that Recluse may fall into one of these catagories.  BUT...I am not an expert on the villain-side or end-game lore.  I also am not a licensed psychotherapist.  I have most of a BA in psych if that will help get me some french fries delivered to my house?

[Luminara]

4 hours ago, FoulVileTerror said:

There's also a wealth of research suggesting that physical actions and activities can alter our emotional states.  Such as forcing someone to smile with a popsicle stick causing them to have an oddly more favourable demeanour.

I don't know if it's -valid- research, mind you . . . but it seems to keep cropping up, so there may be something to the suggestion that you could potentially alter your mood without even resorting to chemicals.

 

Cognitive behavioral therapy and limbic system therapy.  They are valid treatments, but they're also not effective for everyone.  Case in point, me.

[Luminara]

52 minutes ago, EmmySky said:

Some people are capable of actively controlling their emotions.

 

We all have the capability to suppress or settle certain emotions, but actually shutting them off isn't something anyone can do.  What we experience as emotion is transmitted from the brain through chemical compounds like serotonin and oxytocin.  No-one can turn the body's production of these compounds on or off at will, that's only possible through physical trauma, biological defects, medicinal moderation, etc.  But, as you note...

 

59 minutes ago, EmmySky said:

Some people are lacking the emotion itself and learn to mimic it for that veneer of civility.

 

Indeed.  Brain damage, underproduction of emotion compounds and other things can cause people to lose the ability to feel some emotions, or to be born without the ability to feel them.  Like being blind, emotionally.  Other emotions still exist and function normally for these people, like blind people still hear, taste, feel physical sensations, etc.  Many people on the autism spectrum lack a capacity to feel certain emotions, but feel other emotions more strongly.  It's extremely rare for a person to feel nothing, at all, ever, and it's almost always a result of severe brain damage, and in those cases, they typically know how to respond "appropriately" because they recognize key cues, like laughter or frowns.  To date, I've never read of an extremely young child developing without any emotional capability and learning to respond to social situations the same way an older child or adult could.

 

1 hour ago, EmmySky said:

Those people still have personality.

 

Yes, they do, but that's because they still have emotions, or can remember what their lost emotions were like and can respond accordingly when the situation calls for it.  A person with no emotions, no empathy, no love, no rage, no disappointment, no contentment, isn't displaying emotion, they're displaying biological function coupled with intelligence.  Emotion is a cornerstone of preference, to highlight one possible example.  You can't decide you prefer something if nothing moves you in any way.  A cat, a sausage, a cactus, all would be valid as pets for a person with no ability to feel preference for one thing.  That's not personality, it's absence of personality, if we're abiding by the definition of what a personality is.  Our feelings create a basis for our personalities to develop.  Without them, we're organic machines with self-awareness and no appreciation of what it means to be alive.

 

There are medications which can simulate this, in fact.  As long as they're in a person's system, that person displays little emotional awareness or response, and their personality fades away.  They don't show interest in conversation.  They don't pursue hobbies.  They don't watch television or listen to music.  Staring at a wall is as good a way for time to pass as any when you're affected by these medications, because you feel nothing.  Scaling back the dosage, or changing medications, has a profound effect, restoring the missing personality through restoring the capability to feel emotions.

 

1 hour ago, EmmySky said:

I also am not a licensed psychotherapist.  I have most of a BA in psych if that will help get me some french fries delivered to my house?

 

With extra pineapple.  😉

[tanglin]

On 9/18/2020 at 12:05 AM, catsi563 said:

Tte Radio is also fairly low key villainy and a lot of fun

Yeah, I vaguely remember something about it, like it'll go, "Radiiiiooooo!" before you get any leads to the next mission. I zoomed past it on my current rogue because I was using 50% xp bonus.