Nixl

Yup.

No wonder these threads get locked. For the better. If you are here just to mock or attack other posters, then this is not a good thread for it.

So just to check, you'd be cool with backer messages that included racial slurs as well? I think that skews his point. It is not whether he is "cool" with it or not, but rather whether any message needs censorship over a simple mod. Not really; if you're arguing that absolutely nothing be removed from the game by Obsidian for offensive content, that's a pretty broad category. That said, it occurs to me that he/she might well be talking about the original subject of... one of the threads here, the backer NPCs, which is a different matter entirely. My issue is that Mungra did not endorse any message, and so it is not about him being "cool" with it. He merely disagrees with the remedy, which I do not see a problem with.

So just to check, you'd be cool with backer messages that included racial slurs as well? I think that skews his point. It is not whether he is "cool" with it or not, but rather whether any message needs censorship over a simple mod. Edit: To clarify, I do not this is about endorsing a message or an idea. Instead, it is about what remedy is appropriate for this type of situation, and some posters are not comfortable with censorship as a remedy.

Creslin321, I can see your point, but censoring seems like an extreme remedy. People can answer "bad" opinions/speech with speech of their own. People who see "bad" speech have options beyond censorship. More about removing a joke that targets an oppressed group and was painful to some of them to encounter. Alright, but does that warrant all out censorship of an idea or message as the first remedy? That being said, Pillars of Eternity also is a game that not only features lynchings, but also has characters glorify it. Is that not more troubling than a backer message that one has to go out of his or her way to find?

Incidentally, since we're talking about respect and tolerance, this rather illustrates a key point - I'm not required to respect anyone else's opinions. I'm not even required to respect them; respect is earned, both for people and what they say, through merit. So while I still utterly do not respect PermTrouble's opinions on this topic and think they are wrong, I came to respect him/her because of the classy handling of the debate. Likewise, I tolerate people's right to hold dumb opinions when I don't call for their imprisonment for expressing them. Tolerance doesn't mean you get to be free of all consequences for expressing an opinion. I am not trying to be nitpicky or disingenuous, but who decides what is dumb, and who decides what deserves consequences? When I call people's opinions dumb, that's my subjective opinion. Actually it's not the nicest way to express it; let's just go with wrong or sometimes uninformed instead. I'm not really big on consequences being deserved, but I think demanding that you get to say whatever you want without anyone telling you it's not acceptable is ridiculous. A fair answer, but I think this situations goes beyond just stating that something does not sit well with another. It is about removing messages and ideas because it does not fit with a viewpoint. If the joke is horrible, then it is fair to call it horrible, but to erase/censor it feels like an extreme remedy. edit: Grammar

Incidentally, since we're talking about respect and tolerance, this rather illustrates a key point - I'm not required to respect anyone else's opinions. I'm not even required to respect them; respect is earned, both for people and what they say, through merit. So while I still utterly do not respect PermTrouble's opinions on this topic and think they are wrong, I came to respect him/her because of the classy handling of the debate. Likewise, I tolerate people's right to hold dumb opinions when I don't call for their imprisonment for expressing them. Tolerance doesn't mean you get to be free of all consequences for expressing an opinion. I am not trying to be nitpicky or disingenuous, but who decides what is dumb, and who decides what deserves consequences?

I am not sure that I understand the distinction between commercial and artistic vision, since both are in view of the player. In fact, one needs to go out of his or her way to find the message. Mostly I'm just saying that acting like we're mangling some precious work of art by taking out a backer message and comparing it to the Charlie Hebdo situation is really pushing it. I would argue the debate does not depend on whether the work is precious or not, but rather the act of removing/censoring a message. The act of censorship is not good in any instance.

I am not sure that I understand the distinction between commercial and artistic vision, since both are in view of the player. In fact, one needs to go out of his or her way to find the message.

I am getting a little confused how this same thread keeps getting locked and then reappearing again. I am still against censoring of the limerick. It still feels hypocritical to deny a joke, but to give violence,lynching, etc a free pass.

I'm going to have to call you out on that one - So by your logic nothing is allowed, anywhere? Because I'll bet you that we can find plenty of examples of harmless jokes aimed at any culture, sexual preference and even race in the world. Now and then. Personally I'm not a big fan of kicking people who are already down, particularly when it's a group that has a near 50% lifetime suicide rate. Ten times the US average. Stuff like this, the "it's just a joke, stop being so easily offended, man up," it matters because it contributes to that. It's not harmless because it is a part of the larger societal treatment that is ultimately a major factor in driving people to kill themselves. And with that, I'm bowing out of this discussion because I'm getting too upset myself, now. I hope my posts did not contribute to your exit from this thread. That being said, one could argue that the US has a violence problem (in general), and has experienced instances of genocide, racism, and lynching. In PoE, the character Durance states that lynching Eothan followers was a good thing (if I remember correctly). Does Durance need to be removed, when he condones such things? I realize that, in your argument, he is an in-universe character, and therefore different. My issue is how can a joke be worse for society than a pro-lynching character? This just seems like a double standard towards violence.

There's a difference between the in-universe stuff that fits with the general themes and that I trust Obsidian to handle sensitively, because they've done so thus far in my experience and because that is part of their job, and some out of universe backer message like this. I agree that any change should go with the backer in question being offered their money back, and I'm sure if Obsidian decides to do so, they'll make such an offer. I am not sure I agree with the distinction of in-universe being okay, but out of universe messages not being okay. The focus seems to be that the joke is seen in the game. That being said, if the premise is that bad things should be removed, then why does burning good/bad people to death get a pass? It just seems like a double standard with regards to violence and murder.

I do think this particular message should be changed, because it is quite offensive to suggest that sleeping with someone who turns out to be a trans woman is so horrific that you would kill yourself afterwards. If the joke here was that the dude slept with someone who turned out to be black come the next day and killed himself out of shame over doing so, I think the offensiveness would be much more clear. Regarding PoE's mature storylines, I think the difference is that torture, rape, etc., are being treated as serious subjects and not made light of; there's no suggestion that the behaviour is agreed with by Obsidian/condoned, you know? Which letting this message be in a game they published could certainly be taken as. If the premise is that things that offend people should be removed, then I think it creates a problem to remove a joke hidden in backer memorial, but to leave a story that depicts rape, torture, murder, etc. It seems like a double standard to demand a joke be censored, but murder and torture are given a free pass. If Obsidian censors it, the backer should be refunded his money. edit: Priests spells burn people alive and some attacks have enemies explode into pieces. How is that less offending to human life than a joke?

Since the other thread was closed by Tigraines, then I will quickly repeat: I do not think that the memorial should be changed. I dislike making such removals, because it seems like a knee-jerk reaction and smells of censorship. If we remove something on the basis that it is offensive/mean, then PoE's story is going to take major cuts. The story hints at rape, torture, etc. Do these also need to be removed? If Obsidian does change it, I think the back should be refunded. No sense in charging for something that was taken away.

I hope they do not remove it. It's not that the text is great, but I dislike removal/censorship like this. If Obsidian removes it, I hope they refund any money given by the backer for that reward tier.

Compared to its earlier versions, the game is much improved, which is to be expected. I think the combat is solid, but not perfect. It is hard to articulate, but I think the gameplay can promote extreme character builds over more moderate/un-specialized builds. For instance, I think the game can force players to go straight damage or defense and without much need to go in between (purely my opinion here). Moreover, I do not think buffs or dispels compare well with focusing on damage (could change once I get further into the game). Also, I am not a fan of disengagement, because I am not convinced that it has the intended effect of reducing abuse of game mechanics and enemy AI. I feel that disengagement does not stop people who know how to abuse the game mechanics, because disengagement attacks can be abused (see the various Sensuki videos). For casual players, I do not think the disengagement makes a huge difference. My favorite part of the game is the character building.

A switch to per encounter is another way to give these spells a boost. Ultimately, the spells are both (a) weaker versions of already existing spells and (b) per rest. Both restrictions together make the deity spells seem a little underwhelming. I realize that the deity spells exist mainly to add flavor, but the spells seem too restricted. For now, I do like the idea of a reputation bonus for these spells similar to Holy Radiance. I admit that my favorite aspects of the Priests is the deity spells and reputation system (even if the spells have zero consequence), and so I would love for Obsidian to build upon this sytem.

The accuracy bonus is a great bonus, and I have no complaints about that. In contrast, the actual spell portion feels a little underwhelming. I remember barely registering Hope Eternal's heal, although I did not test it against a fear effect. Moreover, these spells are per rest if I remember correctly. Therefore, I think these deity spells could use a boost. That being said, I also do not know the math behind how reputation benefits Holy Radiance. That is something that I need to look up. It would be interesting to know whether the Holy Radiance reputation mechanic could feasibly be given to these deity spells. I know that this is probably a small issue, especially when the developers are focusing on last minute details for release.

Yeah that would be pretty cool actually. It would definitely fit within the devotion/reputation mechanics Priests already have with Holy Radiance. With regards to balance, most of the spells already start out as weaker versions of other spells, and so I do not think it would create a balance issue.

I think only Holy Radiance has reputation mechanic and not the deity specific spells. Each deity has a special ability, such as Hope Eternal (Eothas), Prey on the Weak (Skaen), Inspired Flame (Magran), etc. Each deity spell gives a weapon accuracy bonus and a special effect. For example, Hope Eternal gives an accuracy bonus to Flails, and a spell that heals and reduces fear duration. I agree with the OP that a small buff to these spells would be nice. Alternatively, it may be nice if those deity spells also increased in power akin to Holy Radiance.

I liked what I saw from the recent stream. It was a good call to showcase the companions. Also, it's interesting how the popularity of the companion's varies. Personally, I like Eder and Aloth the most so far, but I dislike Pallengina, Kana Rua, and Hiravias. Specifically, I dislike either the dialogue and/or the voice acting of those characters. Unless I missed it, I wished that they showcased the Grieving Mother.

Whoops, I guess my forum search for prior posts was not thorough enough. Thanks Sensuki. This post probably can be closed then.

Good evening, In the Dryford Ruins, I experienced a bug where a beetle would submerge and stay submerged. The beetle could still attack my party and move, but I was not able to fight back. One way I fixed the issue was to leave the ruins and renter.

I hope that Obsidian brings back the assets for modders. I was looking forward to extensive combat rebalance mods to change up the game on a new playthrough (not to say that the current balance is bad).

I have three observations. First, I definitely agree that the wooden panels and the white text could be cleared up. Second, I liked most of the portraits, and I definitely enjoyed the companion dialogue options with regards to the reputation system (clever, cruel, etc). I know that a lot of discussion focuses on combat and UI, but I think I am most excited for the reputation system (and story). Third, I really hope that the non-combat pet bug gets fixed. The bug makes the pets ( baby dragon, pig, etc) immortal tanks that distract one or two mobs. That being said, the stream rekindled some of my hype for the game again with the story companions. Also, I am not sure whether I missed it, but did the enemy priest buff his allies at all?