Talk:Virtues of Ultima/Archive 1

Randomness
so i was wondering if i am insaine or are there others who live by these virtues as i do, in everyday life. who originated them? was it pulled from an ancient belief or were they picked at random? what is its origin and who do i need to write to find out. avatar_loki@yahoo.com make subject virtues

Definitions
My definitions for the Virtues of Spirituality and Humility are as follows:

Spirituality = Truth + Love + Courage

Humility    = The absence of Truth, Love, and Courage is Pride. Pride is the surest measure of goals never attained. Pride goeth before, Shame cometh after. This Shame leads to awareness of Humility, the root from which all Virtues grow. Humility is to strip oneself of all conceits.

It follows that for Mandrake's Virtues, the definitions for Happiness and Indulgence are:

Happiness  = Wine + Women + Song

Indulgence = The absence of Wine, Women and Song is Denial. Denial is the surest measure of appetites never satisfied. Denial goeth before, Need cometh after. This Need leads to awareness of Indulgence, the root from which all Virtues grow. Indulgence is to strip oneself of all restraints.

Teukros 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hythloth = pride?
Isn't Hythloth the dungeon of Pride?

Hythloth is connected to all three altar rooms, which implies that it is the dungeon opposite to the virtue combining Truth, Love, and Courage. That would make it Spirituality. Also, the stone used in Hythloth's place in the altar rooms, the white stone, is the stone of Spirituality (as verifiable on the seventh level of the Abyss), and the color is the combination of the colors of Truth, Love, and Courage. So everything seems to point to Hythloth being the dungeon of Spirituality, which is why I made the change (which I notice I did before I created an account, sorry). Kitanin 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I found the source of the confusion—going through the list of nitpicks with Ultima IX (on the Ultima IX page), it turns out that they got the dungeons confused in the final game. Kitanin 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The three principles: Reference to Freemasonry?
Isn't the three principles in Ultima a reference to Freemasonry? I mean, the so called "three principles" are the same as the "three great principles" of Freemasonry: Brotherly love, relief and truth. What do you guys think? --Pinnecco 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's only so many ways to determine the fundamental pillars of the universe before they start to overlap. --Kizor 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Order/Chaos forces could go with something to split them up, or signify which is which (colour coding?) As it is all six are in the one table and it could be a little more readily evident which three belong to which side. Also, you could make a really nice diagram which depicted the combinations. Darien Shields 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, is it worth mentioning what the warped principles of the modern day Serpent Islers are? i.e. Beauty instead of Love in Fawn, False Honour instead of Courage in Monitor and... umm... whatever was important in Moonshade instead of Truth. Darien Shields 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethical Hedonism
Should this page perhaps contain a short blurb about Lord British's newer philosophy of "Ethical Hedonism?" I remember the philosophy being only very vaguely mentioned in both Ultima IX, and in a book within Ultima Online (I don't think it appeared in any of the other games.) The problem in my mind is that may not be enough material available on the philosophy itself to really warrant including it - it certainly was never developed anywhere nearly as much as the other philosophical systems in the games.

I was thinking of something along the lines of: "In Ultima IX and Ultima Online, Richard Garriott included short treatises on a philisophical system he termed "Ethical Hedonism" - the pursuit of personal happiness tempered by an awareness of the rights of others to pursue their own happiness as well. However, this system was never developed in any more detail beyond these short mentions in these two games."

Any input? Dexeron 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-virtues
I don't want to go and remove something that people have clearly put a lot of effort into, but I would like to suggest that the material on the anti-virtues be removed from this article. Though it is interesting, it is a fan-produced extrapolation, not anything that has to do with the canon material. As such, the entire text having to do with that subject does not belong in the article.

However, if completely removing that material seems too drastic, then I'd suggest the "description" text of that section should be severely reduced to make that section shorter--at least, it should be shorter than the material on the virtues with which they contrast....

Barring THAT solution, perhaps the text on anti-virtues would be better put into another article rather than placed under the subject of virtues (since it doesn't really have anything to do with the actual subject.) Geeman 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the original author of that material, when I was a UO player, but I was not the one who published it here on Wikipedia. However, when I found that it had found its way on here, I decided to edit it a little since the original definitions from back then seemed flawed and slightly dated, rather than removing it. I agree now though that being non-canon material, this does not belong in this article at all, so I have removed it. It remains in the page history if anyone wants to access it.
 * Dominio 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the anti-virtues rather obvious in Ultima IX? IIRC all the runes had been corrupted into their antitheses and had to be purified and restored. Further, the anti-virtues are strongly implied most everywhere, and the Shadowlords and dungeons do represent these. The stictly logical structure of the Principles and Virtues along with the Anti-Principles make the Anti-Virtues a logical necessity, not merely fan-based conjecture. Thus the anti-virtues, perhaps explained along these lines, would be highly relevant material. I'll have a go at it.
 * Miqademus 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Rewrote the previous discussion completely, added discussion on "inverted appearance" and removed the original research in-table descriptions of the anti-Virtues. Placed in the "Shadowlord Principles" section, which I, more suitably, renamed to "Anti_principles and Anti-Virtues". Miqademus 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research
This page reads very much like a fansite, and is largely based on original research or synthesized from what are known as "primary sources". I'm not sure I see any room for improvement here, but I am going to wait it out a few days before advancing this to the AFD page in case I'm mistaken. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, great. Thanks for that courtesy; I will begin attempts to pull myself together enough to muster a coherent counterargument within that time. Hopefully we can avoid the entire unplesantness of AfD. --Kiz o r  23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, five minutes' googling found Agency: A Character-Centric Approach to Single Player Digital Space Role Playing Games. This references a lecture that featured the virtues. No doubt those with intimate knowledge of the games or their research will be able to find other sources; I should have a few print ones somewhere, but won't have access to them for weeks at best. --Kiz o r  00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about an ethical system of a fictional world with a philosophical intent. The original sources themselves expound lucidly on the topic and are relevant sources. There is no original research concerning the interpretation of the Ultima virtues. Unless a significant consensus as opposed to personal opinion indicates otherwise I will remove the OR and other misplaced templates within a reasonable time. Miqademus (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on this subject, outside of the games, are far and few between; but there is the virtue video narrated by Richard Garriott that came out around Ultima 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deplicator (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recently re-discovered my "Ultima IX Ascension - Prima's Official Strategy Guide" (ISBN 0-7615-1585-2) and it includes a very long interview with Richard Garriott containing much corroborating information. I will begin adding citations ASAP. JubalHarshaw (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Improper use of AFD. Restoring. There are plenty of sources cited. If you want to debate the sources used, use this talk page but don't misuse the AFD SageAZ

Fair use rationale for Image:Virtuegump max.jpg
Image:Virtuegump max.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz
In the book "Ultima: The Avatar Adventures" (ISBN 1-5595-8130-1), there's an interview with Richard Garriot (pp. 369):

"And then I happened upon the fact that those eight or ten or twelve [emotional motivators] were all combinations of Truth, Love and Courage, which came to me not after watching the Wizard of Oz. However, it was reinforced less than a week after having reached the conclusion myself by watching the Wizard of Oz and deciding that he had come to the same conclusion, too." (Emphasis not mine)

DoktorSeven (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, for the merge
Ok, pulling off this merge is gonna be a hefty task, and needs to be done with the utmost care. First of all, the most important thing to do will be making sure that the stuff covered most by outside sources as significant outside of just the game is well summarized, and the rest is carefully trimmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of it is unsourced. Plus the gameguidey material. I took a stab at shortening one of the big sections earlier today. I'm going to chip away at the other sections. The more people we have on this I think the more reasonable the outcome will be. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that Quests features a table of the virtues and their relationships to principles, colors, character classes, dungeons, companions and other things. This gives us a third-party source for our table about the virtues. Nice. The table was a definite keeper anyway, but more sources is always good. So... how does one add cite tags to a table? --Kiz o r  08:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the Table is a keeper. Besides the fact that we need to summarize and merge this article... the detailed table is one of the main things that causes this article to cross from an encyclopedia to a game guide (which is something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT), which is why there was a consensus to merge the article in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Understanding the Ultima series without understanding its virtue system, isn't possible. I am surprised the AFD didn't end in keep this time.  Especially with the coverage found in books and magazines mentioned in that debate.  Too bad most magazines don't have all their old issues online for easy searching.  The virtue system got plenty of coverage when it revolutionize the industry back when Ultima 4 came out.  If anyone has any old magazines lying around they can look up reviews in, please do so.  Perhaps get this article restored once more proof of its notability is found.   D r e a m Focus  10:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the problem wasn't just notability. It was also reconciling it with WP:VG/GL/WP:NOT that advises against gamegame-style detailed lists about gameplay. Even the current level of detail, after the clean-up of the tables, may be a little game-guide-y and worth shortening further. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It may? How? I don't see it at all. Nothing in the article instructs the reader on how to play the game. --Kiz o r  15:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As it was mentioned in the AFD, you added that bit to WP:NOT. There is nothing wrong with this article existing here.  It is not a game guide.   D r e a m Focus  21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true if you actually read the AFD and the link to WP:VG/GL, let alone if you look at the reasons cited by the other delete/merge !votes. But I'm going to try to be gracious and work together, as requested by Yaksar. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone, please, we're not going to get anywhere if we keep re-arguing the AfD. We need to be cooperative to make this a good merge.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good merge? How much information do you think you can stick over there?  There is seldom such a thing as a good merge.  Had a different random group shown up at the AFD, it would've ended in Keep like the first one did.  Nothing gained by destroying this article, or 90-99% of its content.  If someone can find some old magazines talking about this, we can send this to deletion review, and save all of it.   D r e a m Focus  05:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is seldom such a thing as a good merge." That's the spirit! Jeez, maybe sometimes it can't hurt to be helpful, rather than have this "rush to stop the end of the world" mentality? This isn't being scrapped, it was just decided there's a better way to present the info than an article that is almost entirely simply in game descriptive content.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you actually believe what you write? You aren't presenting the information, you are eliminating most of it entirely.  Is there any part of this at all which is actually going to be copied over?   D r e a m Focus  06:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, if you're taking that attitude, and don't think that the merge can preserve information, your help isn't wanted here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to merge. For some it was their first choice, and for some it was their second choice. The issue wasn't sources. The issue was that WP:VG/GL says that lists of game concepts are inappropriate, and that virtually all other stand-alone lists of game concepts appear to be deleted (or have never been created). There's a broad consensus that this isn't a sourcing problem, this is about what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems I was a bit late to the afd party, to which I would have voted "keep, but tidy up and refimp". I had hoped this page would have been tidied up a bit, but wasn't this trimming an uneven hedge with a clusterbomb? I like encyclopaedias and one thing that the digital age promised was deep and wide coverage beyond that possible on dead trees. So it is interesting and a bit depressing that it seems a trend of late at wp is defining what wp "is not" rather than what it could be: there are few things wp is but a great many things wp isn't, and "wellspring of information" is one thing it apparently shouldn't be. These debates about what wp should be seems to always lead to overly rigid notions that boils down to form over function and subsequent prunefests with draconical rethorics that Blackthorn himself would be proud of. I guess that the editors contributing to this believes they are doing good, but for whom? Every time I see this happen I only see articles of less use and value for me, and I would believe I am part of the population of wp users. Prune enough and there will be left articles of marginal use only, which I doubt is what anyone would want. --Miqademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.254 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge completed
The merge has been completed as per the consensus at the AFD. Thanks to myself and Kizor for doing the dirty work. If there is any other info that helps explain the significance of the virtues in the game series, you just have to go into the article history and pull it out and help with the merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)