Auxilius

Except emotions react to what kind of logic a man have. For example, if you're from a culture where women are inferior, their inferiority is logical and the emotional treatment evolves accordingly. No emotion involved, only logic dictated by culture, history, religions and other standards. Why do you think civilizations clash? Because their very core is different. Not to derail the thread (since it's mine) but immigration works best when the culture of the immigrant is similar to the culture of the country he wants to move in. You can do this in reverse. A common fetish in fantasy setting is matriarchy. Societies developed by women, for women, where men don't have positions of power. Pretty sure their ethics are different, so are their morals, and so are their ways of emoting. Otherwise, men would act differently. Sadly, I can't source this. Matriarchies are always done badly, like that DC Comics about a civil war or something. Urgh, it's basically mad women vs men everytime. I think the better matriarchy I've seen was in Sliders, and it was played for laughs. I guess there are subjects that can't be dealt with without looking stupid. Of course, a morality can just be impossible to understand for the human mind.

So many questions, GEH. And they all work. At the end, logic is the better weapon to define a new way of thinking.

Hello people, let's take several minutes to talk about morality. Everyone agree any morality system like it's been done in KOTOR can't handle well the shades of grey everyone is expecting from an Obsidian game. That's cool. I don't like black and white morality either. But why must other worlds follow our morality? Why must they think good and evil must have the same definition? Let's take a simple example. Witches for example. Burning witches just because is hella bad. Sure, if they slaughtered a village for some kind of potion, it's justified. But going randomly after witches when they're just regular magicians? Bad. As hell. That's what you would think in such a situation. But say, you now have to save an innocent witch now. There is no doubt, she did nothing wrong. Therefore, you defend her, maybe kill a villager or two. Or talk them down. It doesn't really matter. At the end, she's saved. Then, why must the world think you actually do a good thing? What if helping them is seen as bad? WE don't think it's bad, for various reasons and values that are deepy anchored in our minds. But these villagers are living on another world. They don't have to believe what we believe. And maybe logic can help. Afterwards, if you go in other villages, you'll be known as the evil adventurer who helps witches instead of giving them the treatment they deserve, no matter how horrendous such a point of view is. It would do a great deal to set a different tone to P:E universe. The worldbuilding would improve drastically. I'll just add a shorter example concerning ciphers. It's like necromancy. Manipulating souls against their will is bad. But what if souls weren't considered as private property, like we think a body is? Religion, history or whatsoever could have taught the people of P:E souls belong to everyone. Concerning metagaming, I realize how hard it would be implement such a system. No matter what we say about morality, people do good because they want to feel good. Being banned from a village because you acted like a good person, at least according to what your parents/the world taught you, would be frustrating. But art, no matter if we're talking about literature, movies or video games, always offered us in such situations a carbon copy of our morality, only with more elves to shake a fist at. It would be cool to go beyond, to offer a new way of thinking.

I liked NWN2's flashyness. It made a good job showing how powerful your party became. In P:E's case, I think it wouldn't work though. It does only if it's very high fantasy. I also liked the way Torment handled spells. But I agree cutscenes should have been showed only once.

It didn't catch me until now. "Institutionalized racism"? What the hell? We don't teach our kids how to hate gypsies. Actually, our left-leaning teachers are trying their best to make children happy with multiculturalism. It's something experience brings naturally. And frankly, how is this unreasonable to ask them to behave correctly? Excusing them for their bad behavior because they are different and "suffer since centuries" is just a big incentive for them to keep acting like that. Not like they suffer nowadays besides. Finally, what structures are "keeping the gypsy man down", so to speak? And what responsability do they have anyway? If you're talking about governments, they were elected to represent the people. It's hard to dismantle them, especially when there is absolutely no constitution that mention them.

I think it's important to point out that the gypsy problem isn't a racial, but a sociological one. Agreed. I was starting to explain myself but this one word did it for me. But while people are uncomfortable with the gypsy way of living, the only way we have to categorize their reactions is to call racist or not. It proves in a good way the problem. You can disagree about how people live but if you do so, you're sure to get yourself an etiquette that don't represent what you truly think and what is the real problem. It's something you see in "progressive" thinking nowadays, where everyone conservative or even doubtful when it comes to other communities is suddenly a fascist. ... I think I tackled this the wrong way, now that I have the possibility to debate. The political correctness actually prevents problems to be debated correctly. Because people are so afraid to speak up their minds and fears, they have to resort to extremism to find someone willing to listen to them. And extremist people are quick to use them for their own ends. How many times I've seen fed up people called fascists when they were just afraid? It's very interesting. Sadly, that's a subject I can't really talk about in English, since it would require a better vocabulary and elocution.

I can only agree with your statement on the European Union, made by technocratic people who never saw a gypsy in their lives and believe there is one true method to make them regular citizens of the State, not taking into account their history, their way of living, their mentality, their culture and how others react to them. Several years ago, a confidential mail about a repatriation programme was published, with French officials, including the Ministry of Interior, talking about the gypsy problem. Then, a Luxemburg woman named Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship said it was a disgrace, something nazis would actually tell and do, and France should do official excuses to the gypsy community. Well, nobody was quick to defend her and the French people actually backed up the Ministry. You should have seen the forums at this time. If you're interested, check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Roma_repatriation The bundling is just to resume. I do realize you can't explain a problem in such a simplistic way. Still, there are reasons behind this label. No matter how you chalk this up, at the end, when you hear people around, their feelings can be resumed in one or two words.

It works only in French for me . One interesting topic Obsidian could study one day is political correctness by the way. Where you go pretty far to be sure you won't annoy any minority or community, even if it's pretty much obvious there is a problem with them. I'll need to be politically incorrect to explain myself here. Let's take gypsies for example. Here in Europe, nobody like them for various reasons. Whenever they go, they tend to steal everything they can, dirty the places where they settle, beg whenever they are naive people with money. Nobody want them near their homes and everyone are going to protest loudly to be sure the mayor/governor don't allow them around. A lot of correct people think these men and women who don't like gypsies are racist or [insert any reference to WWII here]. "They should actually try to understand them". "The poverty they live in explains a lot". "If they feel rejected, they won't try to integrate themselves", even if it's actually their part of the job. Etc. To fight against the problem, to, well, integrate them, lots of efforts were made by a lot of european countries: building homes, providing them goods and free education, that sort of things. That's the correct way to go, right? But it turned out it didn't work. Copper and other valuable metals were stolen inside those houses that weren't maintained by their new inhabitants who left them to rot until they became unsanitary. Then they came back to a life of thievery in a heartbeat. It's only one example but it's pretty much self-explanatory. And now, you see more and more politicians, who are quick to stand against racism, actually acting actively against gypsies, destroying their caravans and chasing them instead of providing them welfare and services. And that's what the people want, no matter their skin color. Gypsies are seen as criminogenic. No matter how progressive you are, you can't prove the facts wrong. Even NGOs are becoming more and more silent on the matter. Gypsies are just that bad. Sometimes, racism is understandable and that's what I want to see in a Obs game. Where something that is supposed to be fundamentally wrong is actually justified. I realize I'm not going to make a lot of friends with that message but that's something I wanted to say, and I won't let political correctness stop me. Freedom of speech, hey.

Yeah, we are in finger-pointing realm now. I'm out.

@Faerunner That's because we have all being brainwashed by D&D/Forgotten Realms and the global human hegemony it depicts. Something endorsed by other video games where racism was commonplace, like Arcanum or The Witcher. At the end, it's always the same games. It's also about how fantasy was codified. Humans are average, the middle ground. They adapt to all weathers when dwarfs are in their mountains and elves in their woods. It goes back to Tolkien and it never evolved from there. We also have short lives and breed fast, only matched by gobelins or orcs, and you can see the problem with those ones. I don't know what P:E is aiming for but the core must be changed if Obs does not want to be seen as generic as the same. Maybe tweak the races a little. Since dwarves are stronger, if they happened to breed faster and colonize some lands over mountains, they could be the dominant specie. Just saying. But yeah, the title of "honorary human" would make me grind my teeth more than anything, if only because it proves the villagers are still racist twats, who just can't understand elves can do good too.

The people spitting on a heavily armed adventurer just because he's an elf would be an incredibly dumb move. There are other ways to show prejudice without annoying the player. People could just go away when you approach. Doors could close. Prices could go up. Dialogue options could get sut down. Men and women could be attracted because you're forbidden fruit. Etc. That's why I was talking about blatant bigotry. Getting insulted and spat at is well, tired, old and unfunny. Even witcher games didn't do that, despite the overly racist setting. As far as I recall, only Loredo was like that in Witcher 2 and he was such a disgusting ****, it was par for the course. And even he was smart enough to realize it was a bad idea to piss off a brute like Geralt right in front of his face. Being dark for the sake of being dark has already been called bad. It's all about being implemented with subtlety. I'm cool with quests depending on your race by the way. Thugs could try to mug a party leaded by an elf, only to reveal a quest about another elf getting lynched elsewhere that the PC could have to rescue, something like that. It adds depth and prove everyone is not the same. And considering their record, I'm sure Obs will handle the shades of grey mighty well.

I voted no, mainly because such issues tend to vampirize another interesting subjects. Besides, they are already getting studied to death in other works. It's also been done before in Arcanum, Dragon Age and The Witcher and it didn't bring anything new on the table. Especially in Witcher games where it's an unavoidable part of the setting. If P:E want to be something new and original, they should deal with more advanced issues, like communitarianism, globalization and soft-power, where a dominating country is supplanting other cultures for its own. Instead of blatant bigotry, it should go further, not telling you the world think women are the weakest gender, but why has it come to this. Maybe there is a good reason behind this. Maybe it was all born from a desire to protect said women from wars, diseases or whatever. Come to think of it, P:E won't have a dark setting so it probably won't happen. I'm thankful for that. Finally, if I'm playing an elf, I'd life to move around without getting insulted over my pointy ears. It's boring and unfunny.

Well, thing is, I started this thread because I felt the relationship the player could have with Annah was actually more compelling. Video game characters are not real people. When you made them fall in love with you, there is nothing more afterwards. You explored the final intimacy. But leave this possibility out and suddenly, people want to know more, to have more. That's what makes them interesting. It's probably just me but I think romantic love makes the character shallow. I'm with Avellone on this one. I can only write tragic/unrequited love stories because of this. When it's tragic, the story can continue. When it's romantic, the story ends.

EDIT: Oh, and I think more games should take after the Persona series and let you advance your interactions with a certain character to the maximum level without forcing you to romance them. Alpha Protocol is the game Obs should remember. No matter how you treated your characters and the bonds you formed with them, there was no setback. It doesn't mean acting like a douchebag with the Dwarf because you're an Elf shouldn't be inconsequential. Just that roleplaying can be done according to your wishes and you don't have to suck up everyone to be sure the party works. As it is, a party is a lot like a company. And a good leader isn't necessarily liked. It would actually be fun to balance efficiency and intimacy. After all, armies will never let lovers work together, because their love could go in the way of their duty. Soemthing that is constantly forgotten. A Professional approach that is recognized as such along with the usual Suave and Aggressive ones you always see in RPGs (Plus Snarky in DA2 but it basically was a douchebag button) could add some depth and possibilities. Because, as it is, professional = bland.

GO BACK TO BIOWARE YOU HOOLIGAN! seriously though....another romance thread?! Well, nope, you're wrong. I tried to be clear on the matter so it wouldn't be interpreted like that (that's why I mentioned people had enough of those discussions) but I guess I failed. *Sigh*. It is hard to explain myself in another language. Anyway, romances were just my prologue to the whole matter, because I needed a good example people knew well and could understand easily since it was featured in several games. Rostere, after you, defined it better I suppose: keeping parts vague and open to speculation, in order to, well, make the characters organic. That's why I mainly talked about Kreia afterwards. Unless you're implying Kreia is love material of course. To expend, let me give another example. And we'll keep going with Kotor 2. For that, let's tackle the relationship between the Exile and Revan. It was never defined clearly, as in "Revan hated/loved you" and I felt that was great (Until Karpyshyn ruined it with his horrible book that preluded SWTOR). There was an unclear relationship between two important characters that wasn't easy to summarize. By talking to Bao-Dur, Atris, Malak, HK-47 and others, you could get an idea but it was still very open to interpretation. Still, it was very interesting to try to understand the situation. And when people crafted some theories about how both never got along or how Revan thought the Exile was the only liability in his plans, it gave a lot of depth to the lore and helped quite a lot the worldbuilding. You can resume this in several words: "Show, don't tell" or if you prefer "Leave it to imagination".

Hello people, maybe you don't remember but love threads were quite popular when the kickstarter campaign was, well, kicking. Despite the endless threads, it pretty much was fruitless though. Only one consensus was reached. Obsidian should deal with the matter how they see fit, depending of the demographics they want their game to appeal for or just depending of what the writers want. That was pretty much the best solution, considering how people heated up on the issue. Pro-romance vs anti-romance battles were quite nasty. Still, I was wondering, if Obs tried a different approach, maybe went for the best of the both worlds, how would it be like? To begin, I'll say I realized the characters who were the most popular always were the ones the players couldn't get. It is the forbidden fruit tale all over again. You desire what you can't have. When you see games like NWN2, people were actually more interested by Neeshka than Elanee, in part because the romance was (thankfully) scrapped and players had to make do with some teasing and their own imagination. There are other reasons, like Elanee being a stalker, but let's ignore that for now. Denying love make the player longing and expecting more. Because there is still mystery in the character, because they doesn't laid it all bare, these players actually want to see them more, so they can catch a glimpse of what they truly are. It brings me to my point. Characters, even when the relationship has been maxed, should always keep a "secret garden", as we tell in french, or if you prefer, the ultimate intimacy they will never reveal to anyone, so the players can speculate (LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE ), wonder and talk together about what they saw and interpreted. NPCs in previous Obsidian games always have been very honest in the past, except for one of them: Kreia. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I do believe she was popular, or at least, considered as very well-written. Years later, people still wondered about her real identity. I realize how hard it is to make such characters believable and organic but at the end of the day, it's them and only them we remember. And who knows? Maybe some love can be hinted too. P.S: Damn, the Obs forums are clanky. They ate my message. Thank the pantheon for Copy&Paste.

Hey, I'm proud of my 5 stars posts. Still, it's just armors, dudes and dudettes. The women will wear armors, end of story. At least, according to how I see it. I guess the real matter behind this are the boobies the armor hide. It's always about the boobies. It's the only valid explanation. Will we see pixellated boobies in P:E? I hope so.

I just can't believe 17 pages have been written on the matter.

Well, gonna list what would be unliked then: Kids or teenagers, unless there is an excellent reason for their presence. Arrogant characters whining endlessly unless you're their sniveling lackey like Qara. Male/female only here to sexually tease the player. Gnomes. Seriously, screw gnomes. A side note on the arrogant characters. They can be good but they have to be well-written, with a justified personality.

I'd love a retcon. What Bioware and Karpyshyn did with the Exile, reduced to be Revan's lackey, was unnerving to say the least. It was sad to see such a wise character becoming one hell of a fool. For all her lessons, it truly looked like Kreia couldn't teach "her" the meaning of trust. So much for the Dark Lord of Betrayal. Of course, since actually, Kreia was just a madwoman influenced by evil crystals...

How about a telepathic cat? Not sarcastic of course since sarcastic cats have been done countless times. I'd love a wise cat who can deal with the party's psychological issues better than the hero. He would be there to shut them up all together if you don't feel like dealing with them. While I trust Obsidian to do endearing and enjoyable characters, I can't help but think people took the dog in Dragon Age so they wouldn't be annoyed by Morrigan's moaning and Alistair's whining after all.

Sometimes, it's better to not make too much sense out of stories.

I expect a healthy range of diverse confrontation options, but a 100% noncombat run will probably be impossible, and I'm fine with that, because it was impossible in the likes of PS:T as well. There's also the mod possibility. Well, that settles it. The thread went a little out of control so i didn't post a lot but I now want to say dire consequences for quests mean there is no quest at all. Imagine how people would react if the jobs you took resulted in such ways, no matter if you're doing this the violent way or not. Unless you're warned, be it subtile or not. Let's consider this point under another angle. Say, killing the bandits also end in a bad way since their families go after you and you're forced to slaughter teens and mothers. So then, while tackle the quest if at the end, you can only screw up? What's the logical basis for this? I don't think your typical bandit or highwayman is just putting in a day's work to support a hungry family. And if that "hungry" family has both the strength and the remarkable tracking skills to hunt you down, how is there a moral dilemma? Most soldiers in most wars throughout history have been no more than teenagers. Before the industrial age, successful completion of puberty was considered the transition to adulthood (for males, for females all they needed was to menstruate once and then they were up for sale.) Why would there be any qualms about killing a teenager who wants to kill you? There are frequently hostile female NPC combatants already, what's the dilemma there? Like it or not, absent a functional penal system, killing the sociopathic killers is essentially the only morally just/societally beneficial decision when dealing with sociopathic killers. Why does Batman always take the Joker to a madhouse he's always escaped from? Because Batman is a sociopath, too. It was merely an example. I just wanted to prove you can also make the world a worst place by choosing the "sensible" option by killing the bandits. Let's just say you kill a spouse murderer who at the same time, was a philanthropist. It's the same thing. Sure, he killed someone, but he helped countless children to get by at the same time. It is a fine moral dilemma but if people don't know that beforehand, they just feel cheated. It's game design 101. Anyway, what I wanted to say is a quest won't be satisfying if you screw up when you have no mean to know you were going to. Think about it. What is a video game? At the end, it's something to have fun with. Depending of what you like, you'll focus on gameplay, story or graphics but at the end of the day, you want to have a good time, alone or with friends. That's why I felt putting dire consequences out of the wazoo for pacifist solutions just because, was a horribly horribly bad idea, unless it's the point of the game, hence why I talked about Spec Ops: the Line. Besides, it's weird to explain how bad my example is while trying to be realistic about causes and consequences (which is kind of a moot point because people can't sadly predict anything) then telling me Batman is a sociopath. If I were to give my opinion that way, then Batman is a comic book hero who is there to prove to kids justice must not be soft but not bloodthirsty either. Except people don't care about that. Otherwise, Batman wouldn't be the icon he is. They just want to have a good time. And Batman, cool, classy and collected as he is, is there to give that to them. If DC killed the Joker for good, I'm pretty sure it would be a terrible business move. Hell, people like the Joker. There is no entertainment without buyers, and buyers define the entertainment they want. It doesn't mean you have to go for the Call of Duty crowd. But Obs can't jeopardy their followers by making their game unfunny just for the sake of realism. It's more than black and white. Finally, the penal system of Project: Eternity is actually an interesting idea to study. How can you rule a country, take taxes and make business when your country is overrun by bandits? Since the PC will get a stronghold at one point, I think this is the kind of subject Obsidian should tackle. But that's another story for another thread.

The correct way to fight in Arcanum is to throw chakrams at people. You're dealing with them from a safe distance and you don't need any ammo or mana points to do so. Once you get 21 dex (Max dex in fact) and use (if you wish so) the first spell of the Fire Arcane to go until 25 and/or get some dex enhancing items like the Charged Rings (second level of Electricity Tech Tree), the PC is virtually unstoppable. And I agree the waypoint system is something that should be copied.