Talk:AdjustAlignment

bug?

Having reviewed the bug of party members influencing PC alignment but not PC influencing party member's alignment, I am not sure it is a bug. The TLK line used for when a party member's actions shift your alignment (line #61933) is: "<CUSTOM0>'s actions have shifted your alignment <CUSTOM1> point(s) toward <CUSTOM2>." Given that "your" is not a token, this line is worded as if there was an intention for party member's to shift the PC's alignment. There is no similar TLK line for addressing when a PC would adjust the party's alignment. On the other hand the commented notes for the scripted function state "-bAllPartyMembers: when TRUE the alignment shift of oSubject also has a diminished affect all members of oSubject's party (if oSubject is a Player). When FALSE the shift only affects oSubject." This rendering explicitly states that party member's would not influence the player's alignment, contradicting the need for TLK line #61933. It would seem that the intention of the TLK line writer was reflected by the scripter rather than the person who wrote the comments for the declaration. Thus the only "bug" that exists is in the misdocumentation by the writer of the comments. WhiZard (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, its not a bug but a feature. I guess it was only logical behavior for a official campaign back then. Problem arised in case that the party members weren't in the same area as this function is not checking that. So a scripted workaround is recommended anyway.

But what I dont agree is how the function description should be written. The current description is absolutely fine. The function takes only one parameter and thats "player that caused some action that result in alignment change" thus the description is accurate. --Shadooow (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are identifying, as I did not modify the description at the top that the lexicon article used for this. The problem at the BioWare 1.69 description writer's end is that when applied to a PC it will never affect any other creature in the party, but when applied to a party member it will affect (at 20%) the PC. I did combine paragraphs toward the end, to keep the 20% feature together, seems only logical as pre-1.69 there would be no reason to call this a bug anyway as neither the misleading BioWare description nor the toggle switch (which works perfectly fine) were there. If you wish to elaborate on the paragraph, for instance with your qualifier of "being in the same area" go ahead. I don't think that the paragraph merge lost information, but if it did, feel free to add it back in. WhiZard (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I put in a new write up for the function description which seems a little clearer, and I made sure the bugged description that the lexicon was displaying was the exact wording BioWare used.WhiZard (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Okay, now its really clearer. However I still doesn't understand the line of how it should be read "When TRUE the alignment shift of oSubject also has a diminished affect on the party leader oSubject's party (if oSubject is an associate). When FALSE the shift only affects oSubject." Thing is, your new function description suggest that party members alignment will be changed only if the subject is a player while this correction claims otherwise. Also, I dont understand the "affect on party leader oSubject's party" - there is only one party and who is leader has no meaning for this?? --Shadooow (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• The description "When TRUE the alignment shift of oSubject also has a diminished affect all members of oSubject's party (if oSubject is a Player). When FALSE the shift only affects oSubject." is the 1.69 BioWare description. You can view when looking at the function in the Toolset. The mechanics for how the diminished affect works were already there from the beginning, but until the 1.69 (with the introduction of the toggle parameter) there was no documentation on it. The modification I wrote to describe the feature more accurately uses "party leader," as that is the in game label for your avatar even when you are possessing a familiar (the game treats a possessed familiar as a PC and the avatar possessing it as not a PC, so PC might not be the best label). No matter how many associates you have (or what type they are) the game goes up the master chain till it gets to your avatar, ignoring any NPC masters along the way. Thus if you adjusted the alignment of a summon's summon, it would not have a diminished effect on the summon, but rather on your avatar. WhiZard (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)