Jump to content

Omnion

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Omnion

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. I hope this turns out well, but obsidian dropped the ball they could have made a platform for pathfinder Crpgs, then eventually released the modules for every adventure path and made bank. I hope this games turns out well (and more classes are added, i rly want to be a magus), and that it again turns int a platform to allow for more APs. Imagine being able to buy say...kingmaker or rise of the runelords for like 60 bucks, maybe more, and every year or few years a new AP gets added as a campaign at somewhere between 20-60 dollars. all the classes from pf get added eventually. You know it would sell and be a primary money maker for years
  2. ok, first off YAAAAAAY CRPG IN PATHFINDER, secondly, WHY ISNT OBSIDIAN DOING IT, THEY GOT THE PARTNERSHIP, AND THIS IS WHAT ANYNE WHO ACTUALLY PLAYS PATHFINDER WANTED, NOT A SILLY MOBILE GAME FOR CASUALS.
  3. then there was no reason to do a paizo partnership in the first place, all the pathfinder fan want a pf crpg, if they don't get one, mind as well cancel the partnership
  4. So its been almost 2 years, and yet not a single cRPG has even been announced. Are there even still plans to make any, or is oblivion sticking to just card games.
  5. Only in the sense that, like every other limerick or joke ever written, it is "clearly, unambiguously" capable of offending someone in the world. Not in the sense that it's unusually offensive, or that offending someone in particular was the author's motive for writing it. For example, the lame "tomato crosses the street and becomes ketchup" joke? Clearly and unambiguously offensive to someone who is grieving for a loved one lost in a traffic accident. And the extent to which authors should be expected to not hurt certain feelings, should be tied to how reasonable those feelings are. Consider "offense" that is taken as a result of having internalized conspiracy theories or having developed chip-on-shoulder syndrome from excessive participation in echo chambers like parts of twitter and tumblr. You're right, pretty much anything will offend somebody, somewhere. And nobody has the right not to be offended. But just because you have the right to offend someone doesn't mean that you have to exercise it. The important difference here, though, is that this joke is at the expense of some of the most maligned and marginalised people in our society, and it makes them feel more maligned and marginalised. So yes, it gets special treatment compared to jokes at the expense of those who aren't maligned and marginalised, or content that is more broadly offensive. Someone who stands up and loudly yells "I HATE [insert pejorative here]!!!" is easily dismissed. Everyone can instantly see that they're a bigot, and can be safely ignored. Jokes like the one contained in the limerick are more problematic precisely because it isn't immediately obvious why they're offensive, and the contribute to an overall acceptance of similar jokes and sentiments when they go unremarked. Which is why multiple commenters have noted that "a majority of people on this thread don't think it was offensive". Think about that. If you're a trans gamer, you see this thread, and see that the majority doesn't see any problem with the joke, and you feel unwelcome. This is not a case where people are taking offense because they've been living in echo chambers or internalised conspiracy theories (although any any group there will be extremists and conspiracy theorists, but they're always a very small minority), it's simply people who understand that the world is overflowing with this sort of sentiment, and reducing it by one less lame limerick helps to push that boulder up the hill one more inch. No, it suggests that accidentally sleeping with someone contrary to one's sexual preference is awkward. Which is neither bigoted nor "anti inclusive", it's pretty common sense. Straight cis people should respect LGBT people's identity and sexual preferences, but that does not mean that they should be expected to deny their own sexual preference. Refusing to hire a gay person or voting against gay marriage is intolerant and bigoted; feeling grossed out by the thought of f***ing another man yourself, isn't. Except that the limerick does not contain the nuance you are projecting onto it. Yes, what you say is true. But this limerick singles out a particular and marginalised sexual orientation, and marginalises it. Whether or not this was the author's intention is beside the point. It's how it is read. It's the sentiment that comes across. It's whether it seems like Obsidian endorses it. That's what matters. Even if you interpret the "woman who turned out to be a man" in the limerick as a trans person, despite the fact that this interpretation is not the most obvious in context and that the author has denied it - why does constructing a fictional situation automatically have to mean promoting the idea that all people of some category are always like this? ... Don't intentionally propagate stereotypes that you know others are afraid of as part of their belief system (even if you think it's nuts), but also don't go around the world (or Internet) with a chip on your shoulder throwing a tantrum and accusing people of malice whenever you find something that superficially matches a taboo of your echo chamber. Again, the argument is not that the author intended to make some blanket statement about the evils of trans people, it's that they make a casual comment that reinforces an already pervasive idea. The author probably didn't think about it that way, the majority of people who read it didn't think about it that way - but the reason they didn't think about it that way is because this idea is already pervasive. The whole point of calling out the limerick as offensive is to try to make people think and question the things they take for granted and have never really thought about or questioned. It's not malice that is the problem in this particular case, it's unthinking assumptions about what's okay and what isn't. Is it okay to make offhand jokes at the expense of the maligned and marginalised? Please reread my comment on how the limerick is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions
  6. I will go out on a limb here and claim that YOU are the one who needs an epiphany or two. You sweep into this thread, probably before even bothering to read through in defense of the poor folks that get OFFENDED and triggered by jokes. That some great proof you have there. A joke being bad or you not liking a joke does not making it offensive. You pretending that it is a fact, again, does not make it so. In fact, if you actually read through this thread you would have seen the majority of posters are baffled at how much of a sensitive special snowflake you have to be to be offended by it. Clearly we also need to examine jokes about chickens crossing the streets, those are chock-full of animal abuse! But seriously, stop being silly. I know that Social Justice Warriors love to read A LOT into harmless things but you are just being silly now. What kind of stereotype is promoted if the very person offended by that tweets to kill all men repeatedly? Would you agree with me to call this person a bigot? Or will you just shrug it off claiming that the anecdotal evidence we have for the offended person in question to be a nut-job can be ignored? Which on the other hand would make you a hypocrite. Wow, how is that for an epiphany, bro? So people making any kind of politically incorrect joke turns them into sexist bigot rapists? Maybe there are not "deeper implications". Maybe for people a joke is just a joke, not a sociopolitical statement. But of course that is impossible because for the SocJust-Cult everything has to be political so they can safely feel believe that everything and everyone is out to get them. Sure wish I had some sort of Grey Eminence like the Patriarchy to blame for all the poor decisions I made in my life! Its not me being dumb its THE MAN holding me back guys, I swear! Actually no. Because that's not how any sane person would behave. Now I know my completely radical ideas may blow your mind, but bear with me: Just because you like the books of this or that writer, doesn't mean that you have to 100% agree with their political views. Just because you like this or that actor, doesn't mean you have to vote for the same party, wear the same clothes as him or listen to the same music he likes. Heck, I probably have a completely different views on politics than most of the Obsidian Devs. Doesn't make me enjoy their writing and the games any less. And why I am salty that they gave in to outrage culture if won't stop me from buying their games in the future, or liking all those Obsidian/Black Isle/Interplay games I already played. How god damn self-righteous do you have to be to condemn this or that as "tainted" because they have a different political opinion than you? There is a very interesting book that was written by an American author Todd Strasser called "The Wave". I recommend it as a reading material to you, who are so quick to judge people on their personal beliefs while fighting for Social Justice. You actually might experience an epiphany or two while reading it. As a general rule of thumb: If you think that being offended is some sort of argument to remove or change content in games, books or movies you should first take good look at yourself and ponder if it doesn't reveal more about your issues with yourself. QFT
  7. Honestly, if you find that limerick to "taint" the game, is that no different, than the people who said the removal of it to some twitter outrage mob? Also, that is by far one of the least offensive things in the game. You have bodies being hung from trees, mothers being killed because they had hollowborn kids, undead kids being killed (thats what wichts are), among several other things, and yet its a light hearted limerick about some idiot who offed himself after a sexual encounter went awry. I will say yet again, that there is not enough information in the limerick to draw any valid conclusions other than the following: Firedorn was a dude who thought was ana amazing ladies man, and had sex with someone who turned out to be a man. It doesn't state whether the other person was trans, using mind control, using illusions, using shapeshifting, being deceptive, etc. It doesn't say whether Firedorn was drunk, high, drugged, etc. It doesn't say whether the sex was consensual or rape.
  8. I think the Limerick should have been left in, as there was nothing wrong with it, I do think it was dumb for Obsidian to cave, but that it was a dumb thing for SJWs to give a crap about in the first place. Admittedly, I make a difference between SJWs (WHich i percieve to make issues where there are none and in general be huge nuisances, and normal every day average decent people, who have some of the same ideals, but pick their battles more wisely and tend to not be as vitriolic.
  9. If that trans woman took advantage of a straight man who was too drunk to consent, then yes. She was a rapist. Just as I wrote earlier. How do you know what exactly happened just from 4 verses? Was the straight man too intoxicated to give consent or not? Was the trans woman the active party? Did she stop when he said no or not? Did he said no or not? Please answer those questions exactly. Until then, we shall leave the matter of who is the bigot here unresolved, shall we? You are convoluting the issue by introducing drugs. No one said anything about drugs. Please stop deflecting and examine what is happening. What you mean is. Please stop mentioning alternate theories, and only discuss the one I want to be talked about, in the way I want to be talked about. The Limerick if 4 lines long. You have 0 way of determining whether the person Firedorn slept was a transperson, someone using an illusion spell, someone using mind control/domination someone magically shapechanged, someone doing this with the intent of specifically ****ing with firedorns head, whether either side was intoxicated or under the influence and thus unable to give consent, whether rape was involved, etc etc etc. There is simply not enough information contained within. Firedorn discovering his paramour was a man, could have been through him waking up from his drunken stupor, or the person could have told him, or a magic spell could have expired. There is simply not enough in 4 lines to come to any conclusion. There is 1 Person who knows what the actual backstory is. That is Firedorn. He has said it had nothing to do with trans people and I believe him. If you believe his Take That at the SJWs calling for a change proves he is a transhating bigot, you still don't get it. If i wrote something that nothing to do with an entire group, and a bunch of people got all pissed over nothing, I might be a little salty too. This whole thing happened because some people saw, came up with their own backstory, and went rabid.
  10. Honestly, the other MUCH darker, content in the base game, makes the removal of original limerick stick out more, and makes it much more idiotic to have done. Why remove a harmless limerick when stuff that some other proffesionally offended person could take much worse offense to, remains in game. We all know this is only the beginning. It wont be long before certain elements are enheartened by their "victory" and try to push it further.
  11. Yeah, it's too bad Obsidian has that Paizo contract. They had a sure buy from me before all this popped up. You know it would have been cool if it was Firedorn's idea to change things, but now Obsidian caved to a rabid sjw, who blatantly says killallmen on her social media, and censored a funny, not transphobic in any way limerick. Doesn't even matter that Firedorn got to write something new. Obsidian will see no more of my dollars.
  12. I did all this and the lost soul gave me a password, but it was the wrong one. How do i get the right pass
  13. The prime guide seems blatantly wrong, or there is a bug. No matter what your stats are, what your dispositions are, or what your rep is it seems impossible to not have to kill the guards and ghost for the quest, even tho the guide says its possible to save the guards
  14. Has anyone managed to get the option for no bloodshed to work? I have 21 total Resolve, Champion reputation with the Crucible Knights, and rank 4 clever disposition, but cannot get the conversation option from the prima guide to appear?
×
×
  • Create New...