Elerond

I don't know -- the break-in demo had very strong QFG vibes for me. It has some similarities as does combat demo, but mainly they feel like they are part of another sub-genre of adventure games. If I didn't know that they are done by Coles and that they are marketed using Quest for Glory series I would not link them with those games.

Well I only supported it on KS because Hurlshot said so No the real reason was the nostalgic factor, Quest for Glory was my first " RPG " I ever played But I am tired of paying extra for badly planned KS just because people are known in the industry It is possible to do a proper budget and stick to it if you are diligent and committed so these KS companies must start scoping the project costs better In my opinion they played bit too much with Quest for Glory card with this game as it does not resemble one, even if they finish it. And I will not give them more funding because I don't feel that game they are making is one that I really want to play. Even though I like Coles personally and respect what they have done in past I don't think that their current efforts are something that I want back. I hope that they didn't destroyed their financial future with this game with all that loan taking and risking their house. Also their plan to use freelance contractors to do most of the game seem for me to be very risky and as we see it was risky thing to do and didn't yield good results. Only reason why they have now product that has possible to get ready someday is because of some of their backers and fans were actually experienced developers themselves, who wanted to see game finished so badly that they persuade Coles to hire them to do it. But anyway best of luck for them in their efforts.

As has been said repeatedly. You don't have to use it either. It's up to you to choose a different option. From my perspective, it makes sense for certain characters and I did use it. Does it make any more sense for the player character to provoke the fight or say that it was actually fun to get rid of the villagers? These are options too, and fitting options for certain characters. That's not an elementary school play, but a roll playing game where you can evolve the character of your player and get the traits to show for your efforts. The point is the opition doesn't need to be there. How many times do you want up to a complete stranger and start swearing? It don't "need" to be there but that don't mean that it isn't good option to be there. As most conversation options that you can select through the game are there just for the flavor, meaning that most conversation options in the game aren't "needed", but removing them would remove lot of players ability to play character that they want to play. And I know lots of people that start to talk to strangers and friends using swear words, because it is habit that they have developed in their social circles.

Profanity fits fine. It is consistent with style that they use in other conversations around the game. I don't see how it don't fit in game's setting.

This seems silly to me. Gun prohibition or not the government will have guns. The only way to be able to put up any meaningful resistance at all is if your population is armed. Often? Can you name me 1 genocide that didn't involve a government? Whose are those that use those weapons that governments have? Whose are those that fund governments weapons? Whose are those that ignore it when government uses their weapons? Governments don't have power without people, either people from country itself or another country that lends/uses it power let people supporting the government to do what it wants to do. At least still now as we don't have robot armies. And it was not government that made Hutu people kill their neighbors. It was not government that voted to get Jews isolated in ghettos and confiscate their property. It was not government that decided to kill people that didn't give their lands to settlers, etc. And for example to you question Haiti's genocide of French Creoles was done by revolting slaves, but of course you can argue that leaders of the slaves had become government and that government was behind that genocide. Another example could be Caste War of Yucatán where Maya people fought against European decent people that had economical and political power and both sides committed genocidal actions, but again you can argue that leaders of Maya people were actually government. And so in the point, government is leaders of people, they can't do anything without people. So people owning guns can give people that live country ability fight against other people that live in the country and want to for some reason to kill them, but when we speak about genocidal actions then power difference between fighting factions is so big that it probably would not matter if those people that are systematically slaughtered have guns, as they are overpowered with too big factor. People owning guns make it easier to people to revolt, start civil war and create new government if they think that current one don't represent them as they should. And in civil war situation it is quite typical that military and it arsenal split in some distribution between every side of the civil war, because military consist on people of the country, which usually means that they are as divided about issues of the country as any other people in the country.

Most of if not all the genocides are done by majority of country's population that decided to kill one or more of country's minority populations or by occupation force of another country. Like for example how people of USA did several genocidal actions against native Americans, whose lands they conquered. Second example could be Nazi-Germany, where majority of population decided to first isolate and then kill lots of its minority populations, Jews as main target. Third example could be Armenian Genocide, where Ottoman Empire systematically killed its Armenian minority. Forth example could be Rwandan Genocide where Hutu majority population decided to kill minority Tutsi and Hutu population. So genocides aren't pure governmental actions but actions which governments often participate because of will of the people. And weapons and fighting back don't necessary prevent such, as it is usually larger and more powerful population that kills smaller populations/weaker populations, which is reason why they usually have support from their government for their actions. People owning weapons can help them to stop conquering force from another country, but most like they would just help in genocides that are committed by country's majority people against its minority people.

I pictured them to live Ice/snow castles, here a few pictures of what I was thinking about

Here advanced course to spoken Finnish... * Links were meant to only for Meshugger who in my knowledge knows Finnish and lives in Finland, which is why he referenced largest Finnish Newspaper , when he said that he didn't find any news about the conflict. ** Also i made English summary of those news in my post before those links *** Sorry the of topic Finland needs to abolish finnish and change it back to the swedish like the one Snellman talked. Just like God intended. Finnish can be a curiosity like Gaelic. @ Meshugger Do you and Elerond both live in Helsinki? I currently live in Tampere, which is third biggest city in Finland that locates bit under 200km north from Helsinki. I don't have any knowledge where Meshugger lives, but from his suggestion I would guess that he lives somewhere where those some demon language (Swedish) speaking bättre folk (Swedish speaking Finns) live. Asun suomessa jossakin...ja veden lähellä tietysti. Jos on lammen, joen tai meren lähellä en viitti sanoa. Guys remember most of us can't speak Finnish.....English please What did you say Meshugger ? He said: "I live somewhere in Finland... and of course near water. If that is near pound, river or sea I don't care to tell" (that specification that he lives near water dosen't narrow the area anyway as there isn't residential area in Finland that isn't near to water)

I'm going to be honest and say I don't know, I watch 4 major international news channels and only CNN mentioned it briefly...which is weird because normally this type of story is on Al-Jazeera at least...it may be now so I will check http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32695909 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32686628 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32680904 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32679984 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/macedonia-violence-nikola-gruevski-government http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/macedonia-police-alleged-armed-group-balkans-kumanovo http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/10/macedonia-police-idUSL5N0Y00LP20150510 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/11/us-macedonia-crisis-storm-idUSKBN0NW19120150511 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4436829.ece http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/world/europe/macedonia-22-killed-as-police-and-militants-clash.html http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_MACEDONIA_SHOOTINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1235381 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/09/macedonia-3-police-officers-dead-20-injured-in-clashes-with-armed-group-in-city/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/nato-eu-call-calm-macedonia-150510182019133.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/macedonia-clashes-leave-eight-police-officers-14-gunmen-dead-1431267177 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-nato-u-n-call-for-calm-in-macedonia-1431365446 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/5-police-killed-clash-armed-group-macedonia-n356616

There's like 20 murders(of blacks) per 100000 blacks, so it's not exactly an epidemic there either. Most anti-weapons people are making a big deal over nothing. In my opinion that is quite high, as it means that in 10 years 2 per 1000 is died as victim of murder and in 20 years 4 per 1000, in 40 years 8 per 1000 and in 80 years 16 per 1000. Meaning that 1.6% of black people are murdered before they reach age of 80. Which in my opinion is quite lot and is something that something that society should probably at least try to deal.

Here advanced course to spoken Finnish... * Links were meant to only for Meshugger who in my knowledge knows Finnish and lives in Finland, which is why he referenced largest Finnish Newspaper , when he said that he didn't find any news about the conflict. ** Also i made English summary of those news in my post before those links *** Sorry the of topic Finland needs to abolish finnish and change it back to the swedish like the one Snellman talked. Just like God intended. Finnish can be a curiosity like Gaelic. @ Meshugger Do you and Elerond both live in Helsinki? I currently live in Tampere, which is third biggest city in Finland that locates bit under 200km north from Helsinki. I don't have any knowledge where Meshugger lives, but from his suggestion I would guess that he lives somewhere where those some demon language (Swedish) speaking bättre folk (Swedish speaking Finns) live.

Here advanced course to spoken Finnish... * Links were meant to only for Meshugger who in my knowledge knows Finnish and lives in Finland, which is why he referenced largest Finnish Newspaper , when he said that he didn't find any news about the conflict. ** Also i made English summary of those news in my post before those links *** Sorry the of topic

I hope no, keep PoE as PoE and if you want D&D game then make D&D game that set in one of the D&D multiverses

Idea behind godlikes was to be similar to planetouched from D&D, and they decided to use humans, dwarves and elves as their base races because it would make setting more familiar and more easy to approached for people. Dyrwood area is made feel like your typical European based fantasy setting for same reason. And they purposefully tried to make Dyrwood feel similar to Forgotten Realms' Sword Coast area, because in their opinion that was the main thematic feeling that people would except from the game. Something to be cliché it would need to be constantly repeated thing in the genre, which their presentation of cycle of souls and how souls generally work and even how reincarnation of souls works in setting isn't anyway commonly used thematic tool. Of course souls as concept is thousands years old, as is the idea of reincarnation and even the fact that souls can be called back or be trapped, etc. things that they decided to do with them, but overall their approach towards the subject was somewhat new and fresh with some new ideas. They try their best to make Dyrwood area to feel very familiar those that like your medieval European fantasy settings. But I would point out that there is one aspect missing that is typical to high (or epic like you say) fantasy setting, which is good versus evil concept, which Obsidian has tried to tier away in this setting, by making everything to be more nuanced and trying to make all the factions have things that are generally seen as positive and things that are generally seen as negative and over all they have tried to avoid universal moral judgements in their lore. I agree with you that their reactivity towards certain things could be much better and their implementation of godlikes have much to improve. But hopefully they mature these things in expansions and in possible sequels/new games in the world of Eora.

Totally fitting in my book. No offense, but your alternative for Aloth is what I would find ridiculous. Yselmir didn't put it politely, so why should my character? And what's more, you don't have to say it. You just have to give it a rest with one of the other options. How is it fitting? And how is the alternative ridiculous? Because in that option your character points out that Aloth clearly insulted that man and not try anyway beat around the bush with that fact like your alternative does. There is such alternative option in that conversation as you can instead to choose to say "You did make a rather lewd suggestion regarding one of the aggressors and his own sister." , which makes your alternative needles and even poorer option than one that is offered. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't have to be there in the first place. It is there to create contrast between Aloth's and Iselmyr's personalities and it also makes sure that player understand why those people become so angry towards Aloth that they were willing to attack him on full daylight. And to why player has choice to say profanities, that is just to give player option to make their character to work better on their vision about the character, not giving such option would much lessen role-play aspect of the game. I would point out that player characters come from all sort of backgrounds like pirates, high way robbers, swords to hire, slaves, craftsman, nobles, royalty, teachers, etc.. So there needs to be large selection of flavor options in conversations that player can choose to make it so that their character feels right. So not offering profanity options would drop lots of nuance and spirit from the game and make it worse than it is. So there is need for such in first place, even if Aloth didn't have such contrasting dual personality.

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once. I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family". Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime. Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least. Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article. Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality. I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together. Because, of course, at this point in time I'm going solely off the article and not off of Smith and Brighouse's stated position of Liberal Egalitarianism. Wait, no, that's just exactly backwards. Liberal Egalitarianism is a rather specific ideology which is inherently self contradictory that attempts to combine the fundamentally incompatible tenets of Liberty and Egalitarianism. The article in question is merely one in a long list of failed attempts at doing so. I didn't know that this was book about Liberal Egalitarianism. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10385.html

50 were identified as far as I'm hearing and there were trained at that. They were smuggled from Kosovo and put in to hiding in the city until the conflict started. This was no armature hour operation and the scary thing is that there was one suicide bomber. Finnish news say that there are 30 people that got charged for terrorism from which 18 was Kosovo's Albanians, because of last weekends violence. They also mention that 22 people got killed in clashes that lasted over day, and it is mentioned that 8 of the dead were police officers. Where? hs.fi didn't have anything... Links go to pages that are written in Finnish. http://yle.fi/uutiset/makedonia_vangitsi_30_viikonlopun_tulitaistelun_jaljilta/7987268 http://www.ts.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/769176/Makedoniassa+30lle+syytteet+terrorismista+enemmisto+kosovolaisia http://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/makedoniassa-30-sai-syytteen-terrorismista/5078670 HS.fi don't have article about charges, but they have couple about violence http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/a1431226600002 http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/a1431139450753 http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/a1431223019024

50 were identified as far as I'm hearing and there were trained at that. They were smuggled from Kosovo and put in to hiding in the city until the conflict started. This was no armature hour operation and the scary thing is that there was one suicide bomber. Finnish news say that there are 30 people that got charged for terrorism from which 18 was Kosovo's Albanians, because of last weekends violence. They also mention that 22 people got killed in clashes that lasted over day, and it is mentioned that 8 of the dead were police officers. Clashes said happened in Kumanovo, which is stated to have Albanian majority population. And it is also mentioned that Macedonia's opposition suspects that violence was orchestrated by Macedonian government that wants people to forgot accusations that are lay against them. Accusations were that government had wiretapped 20.000 people, that includes judges, journalists, polices, foreign diplomats and religious leaders. It is mentioned that government deny accusations and blames foreign spy for wiretapping the people. It is mentioned that Kosovo's government condemns actions of their citizens. It is mentioned that prime minister of Macedonia says that group has battle experience from Middle East. And that group planed attacks against governmental offices. It is mentioned that there was no civilian casualties or injured civilians. It is mentioned that group was armed with assault rifles, grenades, RPGs. And it is mentioned that fights destroyed at least 10 houses completely and several other houses got damaged.

Totally fitting in my book. No offense, but your alternative for Aloth is what I would find ridiculous. Yselmir didn't put it politely, so why should my character? And what's more, you don't have to say it. You just have to give it a rest with one of the other options. How is it fitting? And how is the alternative ridiculous? Because in that option your character points out that Aloth clearly insulted that man and not try anyway beat around the bush with that fact like your alternative does. There is such alternative option in that conversation as you can instead to choose to say "You did make a rather lewd suggestion regarding one of the aggressors and his own sister." , which makes your alternative needles and even poorer option than one that is offered.

A state has as much power as people of the state gives to it, if the state don't get outside help. Meaning that the state need support of majority of power that the state's people hold to do anything. So in scenario where a state somehow has power to take people children away, it means that in that scenario majority of power that people of the state hold is behind that decision or that decision is made with support of outside power. In first option it don't mater if people have right to carry guns, because they majority of power that gives to people is behind the state's decision to take children away, which mean that majority of those people that own those guns want to take children away from their parents, of course if majority of power that people supporting the state decision is not high enough this scenario probably leads in civil war. In second scenario we speak in situation where another and probably larger and a more powerful state supports minority power in the state and forces majority of power in the state accept their view, this scenario will even more likely lead to civil war, in this scenario people's right to own guns probably means that outside power needs to be much higher than if people of the state didn't have right to own guns.

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once. I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family". Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime. Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least. Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article. Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality. I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.

I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong in godlikes as race, but currently their lore is inconsistent with them, meaning that their lore book, character creation description and how people react towards them is not consistent. And lack of dialog choices and how people not react towards them cause me to lose my suspension of disbelief. Overall these leave feeling rushed job which cause godlikes feel like they aren't really part of game world, if you don't take account Pallegina who feels like she is really part of the world.

If you need to rebuild your capital city, then you probably really need to end austerity, although I don't think it is necessary what other people mean when they say that austerity should end.

I would go with easter egg feature where you ascend to godhood when you kill your millionth enemy in the series

Godlikes get bit half finished treatment in the game and the lore.