Longknife

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all. See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this: I've seen GamerGate reference this a dozen times over and I've called out the fallacy here a dozen times over, only to be downvoted on that subreddit because heaven forbid I speak out against the dominant narrative (yes yes, believe it or not, GamerGate can be subject to hugboxes too, and not everyone who criticizes your methods is your "enemy" or a "shill"). It's simple: he doesn't like the guy that complained. That's what the underlined is referring to. Nothing about that statement says "Obsidian forced me to change it at gunpoint." People are reading too much into that one snippet, taking it out of context and trying to suit their narrative. He's saying that he himself finds the complaint ridiculous, but given a choice between standing up against that person he disagrees with and consequently and inadvertedly making Obsidian "back" him, or removing the limerick entirely to save Obsidian some skin for his limerick and his opinion, he chose the rational choice of wanting to let Obsidian be absolved of involvement. Just because he chose to remove it doesn't mean he has to agree with the opinion of the person who raised the complaints to begin with, or even sympathize with them. I mean this is the guy who's replacement limerick was giving the finger to the people who led him to remove it, something Obsidian gave the green light to include. Check his post history, it's crystal clear this was his intent. You can even PM Firedorn yourself and ask him. It's not as if he's hiding; I myself PMed him on this matter because I got sick of seeing 20 different people interpret his posts 20 different ways to suit their own conspiracies and devices. I would actually ask YOU to explain how on earth that post proves it wasn't his decision, especially when other posts by Firedorn directly suggest the opposite. You are failing to apply Occam's Razor and failing to accept Firedorn's account as truth, instead clinging to some theory that he's lying to us and slipped up in that one underlined snippet (again taken out of context) which you have absolutely no proof for. People are just mad and want justification to direct their anger at Obsidian, and they're frustrated they lack such justification so they're making it up at this point, happy to cling to any half-hearted attempts to justify it. As stated, PM the guy yourself if you're so curious. Give him a week or so (that's about how long a response took for me) and don't be surprised when his response doesn't fit your narrative.

Bruce if you wonder why half the forum community gets this weird passive-aggressive vibe from you and why my post about how you're "like that guy who's all pleasant and polite and invites you over to his perfect house with his perfect family to have a perfect dinner, and then when you accidently use the salad fork on your main entree, he pulls a gun on you for ruining his perfect life" got upvoted, this is it. I claim discussion in these threads gets childish because it does. Empty statements that point the finger and smugly regard the opposing side as idiots, without highlighting any points at all. Flip back through the pages and the threads and you'll clearly see this. No worries, my claim that conversations with a person are a complete waste of time will remain exclusive to you, as that's not a claim I throw about lightly.

What DO you get for a sacrifice?

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously? Exactly what I've been talking about...

Someone did a strawpoll on this ages ago and the "leave it in" response was the majority. Anyone remember where I might've seen this? I'd love to reference it now since it's being discussed. Google to the rescue: http://strawpoll.me/3996109/r http://www.wepolls.com/p/6253678876950528/Will-you-still-play-Pillars-of-Eternity-if-Obsidian-caves-to-the-demands-against-the-limerick The first is the one I was remembering. The second is some random one I found on some reddit poll subreddit I figured I'd link to reinforce that the limerick supporters were the majority.

Someone did a strawpoll on this ages ago and the "leave it in" response was the majority. Anyone remember where I might've seen this? I'd love to reference it now since it's being discussed.

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so. It's quite simple: Some people get offended by jokes, others do not. There is nothing objectively right or wrong about jokes, and the anti-censorship stance where people claim "live and let live" stems from the idea that you can learn more from more content rather than less. Even if never censoring stuff means sometimes you'll hear the most racist, hateful thing ever, there's still something to be learned in the simple thought of "wow a human being actually wrote that." I have a couple transgender acquaintances. I know one who was actually pissed off about the removal, I know another that couldn't give two damns about the entire issue and didn't see the point from both sides. Again, there is no universal answer here, it's all opinion. Either you get the joke or you don't. So where do we draw the line? The issue people have is that if you always cave to the offended party, then stuff can quickly get weird and the type of content encountered quickly begins to dwindle in scope. It also becomes a question of what kinds of people would be "prosecuted" for their jokes? And in what context? The issue is mainly that in the court of law, the claimant is the one with the burden of proof. Makes sense, no? If you claim someone called you a racial slur, you must prove it. If you claim you got shot, you must prove it. Here however, there's nothing to "prove." It's subjective. You cannot really prove it, and at best you can only highlight that "this joke would offend the majority of people at first glance" and say that should be the grounds for removal. But that's just it: polls were run. The majority of people aren't offended by it and there are still people asking how it was transphobic to begin with, and yet it was removed. For Obsidian it's simple. They want any POTENTIAL conflict gone, hence the removal. The problem with this though is that sufficient proof was never given, so that basically opens up for anyone to complain about anything and potentially get their way. Even now, there are people who would claim Firedorn is a jerk and an ass for writing that, while they themselves do not even fully understand the potential offensiveness of the limerick. Is that just?

Speak for yourself. I didn't post in any of the previous threads, therefore my **** clearly don't stink. Hehe well what I meant was more that there's idiots on both sides of the argument, both those who wanted the limerick to stay and those who wanted it gone. A smug sense of superiority seems quite common amongst those who want it gone (which is never good, cause this kind of superiority complex kills any empathy for the other side) whereas a lot of sensational reactions and emotionally charged lambasts of Obsidian and others is quite common from those who wanted it to stay in game (which is obviously bad, so those people who can't calm the hell down should probably, yknow, let others actually try and discuss things).

I totally agree. In this thread alone, those who are empathetic to feminist causes, or who are critical of the limerick, are referred to as "feminazis," "idiots," "lunatics," "crazy f***s", and "loons" and also have "mental health issues" and "general loserdom." You're right on the dot with the childish mudslinging. And you highlight the other problem: each side thinks their **** don't stink. The guilt here is from both sides. You can go back to any of those threads and clearly see it. But because both sides are so focused on their hate for one another and their belief the other side is the devil, they don't even think twice about resorting to the childish insults and the like.

I think the game is good but not as good as the people who praise it say it is. It feels like a solid 8 and reminiscent of Dark Souls II in that I got my money's worth, but some aspects have me disappointed. But when I try to voice concerns and criticisms, there's no response. People are too high on their enjoyment of the game for now, so I mostly just keep my concerns to myself.

Icks-am-i-tl

Have you guys considered the threads get locked because they devolve into childish mudslinging rather than productive discussion? Cuz dats what happens.

Have the people who would censor this game for containing the F-bomb never been on a middle school or high school bus?

I was born with one leg alongside allergies to morphine and latex to accompany me on the surgeries I would need. I have every right to hate that prick. Fun Fact: I've "died" before, as in my heart stopped long enough when they discovered the morphine allergy for them to start announcing me dead, only for it to start back up at the same moment.

I will admit I find it a tad odd and surprising to see that Obsidian chose to censor the limerick, seeing as how this is the company that produced Caesar's Legion and Durance. Both of them preach about how conflict or "fires" can make you stronger while burning away the weak and unworthy. With stories like that, you think they'd have a mentality of how the world is harsh and you need to be willing to face that some people can and will offend you, but you need to be able to carry on. But again I'm a realist and I'm sure this was a decision made (decision to even ask Firedorn) moreso in the interest of marketing. Companies are notorious for being a place for ideologies to die. wat Here we go again guise. The last two pages wasn't enough obviously.

I will say I wonder if Sawyer has some..."hang up" with religion (dunno what else to call it or what word is appropriate there as hang up feels weird too) seeing as he made Honest Hearts and religion heavily tied into that and the main plot of Pillars also touches on religion. (obviously not saying more on that matter cuz spoilers) That's one implication that seems clear as day, if we're to assume the main plot of Pillars is much in thanks to him. But again, there we can only speculate.

I'm wondering the same cause wtf all I wanted to do was make a simple statement and nothing more and I feel like people are trying to assign me to a side or something based on that alone.

My point is I never said it does as a rule. I said it makes sense, and I said there's a friggin' interview with Avellone where he directly states agreeing with Ulysses on multiple fronts. Even that is besides the point, because again, I never said it does, hence why I said "I feel strawman'ed." Well I'm sorry that you feel like that. You said directly that you are surprised that they reacted in such a way because you would expect, based on their stories and characters that they have written, that they would think and behave differently. All I was trying to do was enter into a debate and argument based on that statement. What debate dude? xD I said "it was a little surprising to me cause" and I got like 4 people jumping on me for it, making hyperbolized responses like "DO U THINK CHRISTIAN BALE KILLS PEOPLE?" This is a stupid meaningless internet "debate" where people want to prove their right for absolutely no reason at all, made especially annoying by the fact it's repeatedly been stepped over that I state "Avellone has gone on record saying he agrees with Ulysses' philosophies on several things" as the claim "you're assuming he agrees with all characters he writes" when it's like wtf no, I'm a broken record here that's really sick of being strawman'ed for the sake of a meaningless "debate" that accomplishes nothing at all.

My point is I never said it does as a rule. I said it makes sense, and I said there's a friggin' interview with Avellone where he directly states agreeing with Ulysses on multiple fronts. Even that is besides the point, because again, I never said it does, hence why I said "I feel strawman'ed." You find this insulting and demeaning to the author when other people's interpretations are given validity? This is a cornerstone of what art is about. I agree the author's intention is valuable and should be asked for, but the author's intent does not invalidate any other meanings or interpretations one might carry from a story.

Like I said before, I have no doubt the marketing department (or employees with a sense for marketing, PR and the like) were the ones to jump on this and say "oh hell yeah we need to try and change it," and I don't really expect that Avellone for example would be someone who's consulted on such an issue. In a realist sense, this is just how companies work and I'd expect every other game developer to react similarly. My only surprise was learning the date that the limerick was called to the attention of Sawyer, and how quickly that manifested into the change. It was like no reflection given, it was a cut-and-dry "change that ASAP," which I find slightly surprising. Others are free to say it's not surprising at all or that I'm an idiot for being surprised, but yeah when I reflect on it it's just kinda funny to me. EDIT: Actually it seems I had the date confused with another. Looks like there was a decent gap between when Obsidian got their attention called to it and when the change was made.

I don't quite see how citing completely different people with completely different writing styles furthers this discussion. They're mere examples that show it can happen, which I never said it couldn't. I never even said "Obsidian agrees with the philosophy of Caesar's Legion because they wrote it." I expressed surprise at how quickly they went against a philosophy they've actively opted to explore at least thrice in a row now, and one that Avellone has openly expressed admiration and approval for. (Ulysses) I never even said "they've opted to do this, so that's how they think." I said "they've opted to explore this, so I kinda expected a bit more reflection on the topic before making a decision." I gotta say I just feel like I'm being strawman'ed really hard right now and like my claims got exaggerated to lengths they were never even close to. :U

If I've understood this correctly, you seem to have this confused. Death of the author is advocacy to disassociate the author from the creation, which I'm doing the opposite of.

I will admit I find it a tad odd and surprising to see that Obsidian chose to censor the limerick, seeing as how this is the company that produced Caesar's Legion and Durance. Both of them preach about how conflict or "fires" can make you stronger while burning away the weak and unworthy. With stories like that, you think they'd have a mentality of how the world is harsh and you need to be willing to face that some people can and will offend you, but you need to be able to carry on. But again I'm a realist and I'm sure this was a decision made (decision to even ask Firedorn) moreso in the interest of marketing. Companies are notorious for being a place for ideologies to die. Do you find it a tad bit odd that Christian Bale is not actually Batman or a serial killer? I find that analogy a little weak. He played a part that was handed to him. Obsidian wrote and constructed those things themselves. You're better at writing about concepts you're passionate about, so it's odd to see writings about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" on one hand and then a desire to protect someone's feelers in the next. As I said though, the realist answer is of course that marketing would never allow such potential drama like that limerick existing post-complaint. Writing is a creative process and the passion to create fuels the process. That passion will always trump the material. Obsidian has also written and constructed many stories that are full of manipulation, darkness and murder. Do you expect them to live their lives like Sith Lords because they created the most realistic Sith Lords? The difference being that the characters that are murderers and manipulators are not painted in a neutral light, but a purely negative one. No one who plays New Vegas like Dermont and Saint James, because those characters are afforded no sympathy, because they're murderers and manipulators. Caesar on the other hand...? Many people hate him, sure, but the game also feeds you plenty of reason to like and respect him. As it does Ulysses, as it does Durance. Again that does not mean they agree with these characters 100%, but merely that they can show sympathy for their ideals. Which, their ideals kinda tie into "don't change it," so I was a little surprised to see how quickly they made efforts to possibly change it. From what we've seen it seemed like little consideration went into possibly keeping it and they moved to see what they could do the moment it came up. That's what surprised me, just how quickly it seems to have gone down.

You guys are completely missing the point. Being able to write about a concept in a neutral way shows capacity to sympathize with that concept and understand it. Obsidian has written about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" multiple times and must at least have some degree of understanding and/or sympathy with it. Therefore, even if it's not their concrete stance on things, I find it odd to see how quickly that change came about, given the circumstances.

I will admit I find it a tad odd and surprising to see that Obsidian chose to censor the limerick, seeing as how this is the company that produced Caesar's Legion and Durance. Both of them preach about how conflict or "fires" can make you stronger while burning away the weak and unworthy. With stories like that, you think they'd have a mentality of how the world is harsh and you need to be willing to face that some people can and will offend you, but you need to be able to carry on. But again I'm a realist and I'm sure this was a decision made (decision to even ask Firedorn) moreso in the interest of marketing. Companies are notorious for being a place for ideologies to die. Do you find it a tad bit odd that Christian Bale is not actually Batman or a serial killer? I find that analogy a little weak. He played a part that was handed to him. Obsidian wrote and constructed those things themselves. You're better at writing about concepts you're passionate about, so it's odd to see writings about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" on one hand and then a desire to protect someone's feelers in the next. As I said though, the realist answer is of course that marketing would never allow such potential drama like that limerick existing post-complaint. No. Just because Chris Avellone wrote a character like Durance does not mean Chris Avellone is anything like Durance at all. It's called creativity and imagination; your characters don't necessarily reflect anything that you are. I mean, come on; do you really think every author whose ever written a serial killer go off on a villain rant is secretly a psychopath inside? Never said it did, but it means he dwells on things involving Durance a fair deal. It means you dwell on the concepts that drive them. For example I bet I could write a character that represents some of the "evils" of capitalism without making it a blatant always-bad antagonist, because I've often dwelled on the things capitalism gets right and wrong. That's a form of internal struggle for me, because the arguments for capitalism are often logically sound, but I myself have a lifetime of experience of what it's like to be screwed over by such a system, and what happens when people with money can throw that cash about to get their way, regardless of if their way is correct or not. Avellone, if I'm not mistaken, has gone on record multiple times saying he writes about things he hates, things that make him sad or things that are flawed. Stands out cause most people would be the opposite. If I go off my personal take on it, then I would imagine Avellone at least has some degree of agreement with things Durance says. He certainly went on record to say he agreed with Ulysses in New Vegas, and there's parallels between those two characters.