TrashMan

And why would ripping out a heart require more power than ripping out an arm? See what the problem is when the magic is allowed to do too much without any limitations?

Which begs the question why ever use that spell to begin with, when the "rip heart out" is far more efficient, direct and deadly.

Testaclops A giant humanoid, more than twice the height of an average human. These brutes posses great strength and their skin in almost invulnerable which would make them a living nightmare were it not for their two weaknesses. They are slow and sluggish which means most adventurers should be able to outrun them. But their biggest weakness is their one oversized (it reaches the knees) ball sack - which posseses none of the invulnerabiltiy of the rest of the body....and is conveniently positioned at roughly face height (for an average human), like a really big punching bag. As a consequence, most encounters between a testaclops and a human result in the testaclops clutching his testicle while the human runs away.

You make the classic mistake of making something that sounds "cool" but completely forget the unfortunate implications that it creates. Those beign that with magic you command body parts to tear themselves free...or animate them (and other objects) as you see fit. Which then begs the question - why not simply command the heart to tear itself from the chest? Or head to tear itself from the shoulders? Why not animate all the body parts from a recent battlefield into a giant flesh golem? Or assorted tins, pans and pot into a walking metal monster?

Where Bioware dropped the ball is with totaly insane mages and templars. Instead of showing the danger of mages inherent in their possesion of magic and in normal life, they make crazed idiots. Then they throw dozens of abominations (which are capable of wiping out armies according to lore) at you that you kill with ease. And they make templars mostly incompetent, abusive or insane d***. The portraly is incosistent and shizophrenic and there are some plot holes in place.

The other thing you seem to forget regarding fantasy is that fantasy in 99% of all cases doesn't have the social, technological and cultural system and prequisites in place to facilitate modern morals and sensibilities. Since nothing exist in vacuum, neither do these thing. For a simple example: Templars and Mages in Dragon Age setting. Mages don't exist in our world - and if individuals with vast, tempting and very abusable powers (that can also become possesed by demons) existed, it is very likely the modern government of today would react the same way as TheDas did - lock them up. Of course, the question of oversight an abuse immediately pops up, but modern norms, standards and techniques don't exist. There is no CSI, no cammeras or DNA, no extensive communication or oversight network. The the problem of policing becomes huge - especially when you consider large kingdoms with hunderds of small villages in remote areas. Communication, travel and transport are slow. There's no effective way to police mages if they were free - so they are segregated. The lack of communication also means that field officers have a lot of executive power - if a group is sent to catch a mage, they can kill him if he resist or is deemed to dangerous by the commander. Yet this can also be abused, in that a innocent mage could be killed in cold blood. It's a fascinating settting for me, because the current setup brings in so many problems, and yet every possible alternate solution seems either unworkable or worse.

Axioms, a set of premises and possibly basic beliefs, are used in models, models used in science which seeks knowledge through observation while eliminating other possibilities to the best of ability, one way is to limit the amount as axioms as much as possible. Faith, irrational attribution of supernatural agency to natural phenomena, is not a set of beliefs but a way of seeing the world that generates irrational beliefs, sometimes on a daily basis, a religious person may be mostly ignorant of the canon of "their" religion. Saying that they both have the same sort of "core" is wrong because it gives a false impression of science and religion, science at its core is not axioms, it's a method. Organised religion might have "core beliefs" in the same way other societies have a charter or constitution, but that doesn't cover all religions, some of which do not, and it certainly doesn't describe science as it is a method. And the underlined is still a set of beliefs. You go on and on how science does X things with those beliefs, while religion does Y...which is irrelevant to the point I made. They are beliefs...and by your own words. PERIOD. So, no..it is not wrong. You only thing it's wrong becaue you look down on religion and think any comparison/similarity at all somehow pollutes science. And as someone who loves science I say it's BS. Why do so many people act like science and religion are some deadly enemies? I can blame anyone and anything I want, just as you can. If you blame religion for the Crusade and Hitler, I can blame atheism for Stalin and all states that tried to destroy religion. Why? Because the core premise is what ultimatively led to it There is a god -> my god is the only one -> the one who don't worship him are idiots -> lets kill them There is no god -> religion is evil/stupid -> religious people are stupid -> world would be better without religion -> destroy religion, burn down chuirches See? Justifications and thought processes can vary, but they stem from the same core premise. Could one come to the same conclusion another way, from a different belief/premise? Yes, probably. It is completely possible, and in fact more common than you'd think. So let's just leave it at this. The direction of this discussion is already heading in the wrong direction and continuing will serve no purpose. Further attemtps to dissects each others post and examples and try to convice eachother of our worldvies is doomed to fail anyway.

You're right that this isn't directly related to the topic, so I'll attempt to clarify one last time (in as concise a manner as possible). Everything in lore, when isolated, is arbitrary. But lore is both the sum of all invented truths in your world and the cohesion of their intermingling. And there's nothing incoheseive about most things like that. With good planing and thought, pretty much anything can go and be a great part of the lore. With bad planing and little thought, even simple things cna end up feelign fake. If your example, a game in the end has to decides what parts of lore it wasnt to model in the first place. You don't have to explain everything or show everything. Nor does everything in-game has to reflect to lore on a 1:1 scale....or at all. After all the World/Setting and the Game are in a sense two separate entities. The game takes place in a setting, but the game isn't the setting. So for example - in the setting (let's say a novel written in the setting), a single sword stab to the gut kills a guy. In the game, your PC can take several and still stand. No explanation or justification is technicly needed, nor will most people require it or care. So in that examples, orcs having a different biology is perfectly valid - and you don't even have to explain the exact differences. After all, it's a fantasy setting with all kinds of creatures, so biologicly different orcs make more sense than 99% of the monster manual.

Love is a four letter word. Equivocation, it's extremely misleading. Faith in the context of religion is the irrational superstitious beliefs of people, they're using the word faith in another sense but applying it wrongly to religion. Axioms are the minimal amount of premises we use to model reality as best we can using observation. There is no absolute truth, but to say that there are not vast differences between science and religion is an obvious lie, you can't just say "everything is at it's core faith" because there's much more to science than axioms. Even some "religious" people and defenders of religion acknowledge this, they only accept the symbolism, ritual, and some of the moral teachings (AKA philosophy). There are differences between science and religion - and no one is saying there aren't any. But belief, a set of unprovables, lies at the core of everything. Well, technicly, it is possible. Just because I say I am X, does that make it so? Religion can be used as a good excuse, without the person in question necessarily having any faith at all. Perversion of religion? More like perversion of a specific one. If religion encompases all beliefs, then it's too broad of a net. Since everyones is included, thhen none can be really "perverted" in a sense. But preciselys because it's such a wide net it's also a bit pointless. If someone does something iin the name of logical thought, would you blame logic? Or the person in question? After all, from his POV, his logic might be flawless.

Meh, I like them. Don't see any more pretensiousness than I see in general everywhere. About the "they don't know what they are talking about" thing - what makes you say that? Unless you are a game designer yourself, with a few games under your belt, then I don't see how you can add anything of value. And they are right b.t.w. - everything is at it's core faith.

That's only because we are still largely ruled by animalistic feelings we do not comprehend.....the problem in large is that our "feelings" are chemicals produced by the brain and given the proper motivation your body will react. And thoughts are also a bio-chemical process....so your point? Thse "aninmalistic feelings" are part of humanity and part of the world. Any worldview without them is limited - i'ts basicly not looking at the full picture. You may call it a whole different kind of ignorance.

Earth? Fire? Water? Air? Pffft... what kind of idio considers THOSE an element? We all know the world is made of rage, p0rn and foul language. And some other, minor stuf like love. Those new elements have to be included. Immagine summoning a swarm of flying d****! Your enemy would **** their pants in fear.

Hen'Co'ck'tapuss'Tai A creature of disgust and madnes, spawned from the pits of hell. To it's victims it appears as a mass of writing, thick, slimey tentacles bursting forth from the ground, but the core of it's worm-like body is hidden beneath the earth. It will attack anything, but prefers to attack isolated females, especially young girls going home from schools. When grappled by the monster, the target must make a saving throw at -10 or suffer from panic and fear. Characters with the "Sexual deviant" trait can make that throw at -5. The monster kills it's target slowly, "playing" with it untill it is bored, upon which point it will either consume it if it's hungry, or release it and seek new prey. If the victim has high endurance/constitution it may survive the ordeal. Most of the survivors remain scarred for life, afraid to leave their homes. Some however have ventured into the woods after the beast - presumably for revenge. Their rage must be great indeed if they try even after multiple failed attempts.

Can. If the actual reason for the cap is pure mechanical balance, then you're simply making up a "reason" for the cap in the context of the lore. "It's really tough to do that type of enchantment." Why is that? What makes that enchantment different from other enchantments? That's the kind of explanation the lore demands, for it to be served as well. That's all I'm trying to point out.It looks like you agree that, ideally, both the lore AND the mechanics are served by the design of the game. So, I'm in favor of seeking alternatives to decisions that are perfect for mechanics and balance, but are purely arbitrary within the lore (i.e. "That particular enchantment just so happens to be tougher than all the others, for no real reason that I can explain.") Except it's not. There is no difference between "weapon can only be enchanted up to +5" and "weapons can only be enchanted up to +5, except in case A". When it comes to games, lore and mechanics are interwined and often lore is the product of desired gameplay. You want a specific gameplay/atmosphere, or a specific mechanic, and you create the lore around it. For RPG's lore and gameplay aren't created in vacuum. Everytihing in lore is made up because it sounds nice, or you think it's cool, or makes sense, or whatever. So no. I have to disagree with you. Everything is arbitrary. You make up lore reasons to justify lore changes all the time..mechanics or no. "Hmm it would be cool if my orcs were different. Hey, what if they had different biology!" - orcs are different and some spells don't work on them. Same result. Same thing. How do you know the differnet orcs idea didn't predate the Sword of vivification, and it merely plays in well? Or maybe the writer actually likes the idea and would have put it in, mechanics need or not? Of course, at this point we're arguing nitpicks that really have little to do with the actual point of the thread.

"New" elements? MEh, there's a reason these are classic. It's relaly hard to justify "polymorph" as an element..

Everything is belief in the end. We all take some things at face value, without actual proof. As for morally repugnant - the action remains as such regarless of logic. It doesn't make it "go away" and it shouldn't. Logic is not the pinnacle of everything.

Moraly reprehensible actions can be the "right" ones logicly. Deos that make them evil? Not necessarily. Not if the person regrets it. But they are still morally repugnant. As for what is good or evil... why would a decree from a power figure be any less valid than your own? Especially if we assume that that power figure is WAy, WAAAAAY more knowledgabe about everything than you. And you just replace belief X with belief Y. The same friggin thing. You still have some core belief, core moral compass that you cling too. Even something simple as "I know I know nothing" and "Murdering babies in their sleep is bad" are basicly core, unshakable fundaments. Again with your anti-religion speech. I have faced reality - thank you very much - and it's telling me you are full of BS. Wars caused by belief? Only if you refer to belief in the boradest possible sense (not only religious). Belief in your self. In your course of action. In your leader. Greed, avarice, jelaousy, fear - human emotions are the spark of conflict. Even positive emotions can be turned into fuel for war - like the desire to protect your loved ones. Religion is not the cause of all wars. It is one of MANY excuses used to wage one. And everyone - EVERYONE - has beliefs. So unless you plan to turn the entire humantiy into autonomus, emotionless, brainless drones, I don't see how you plan to change that.

Can you be a pacifist? If by pacifist you mean "never kill anyone EVER, or ever condone kiling" then no. After all, it is a medievalish world and you are an adventurer. If by pacifist you mean "a character that prefers to avoid combat and fights only as a last resort", then yes. Killing zombies sure as hell doesn't count.

Oh, I like that idea. Identify makes it way too easy. This way it takes time and there is risk (cursed weapons). Altough there should probably be a way to tell if the weapon is cursed or not, but necesarily know what the curse is. Frankly I find it that most RPG's overdo it with loot and scaling/leveling in general. When you think about the great fantasy heros (like Conan, Aragon, etc..) .. tell me, how many weapons do they switch during their adventures? On average, 2. But RPG's love their scaling and the more weapon tiers and the bigger the differences, the bigger the problem. The games start focusing on loot and becoming loot-centric, instead of adventure-centric. Is the gameplay rearlly so shallow and unsatisfying that you need loot as incentive to play? I see it more as a design flaw. "But you need to show the player progression!" - Oh, do you now? And everything ELSE in the game isn't progression? I postulate that RPG doesn't need item scaling AT ALL. You could play the whole game with just one sword and loose nothing of the core magic. But I don't see it happening. Showering player with loot and ever superior items has become standard fare. I would be the happiest with the BG1 weapon/magic scale.

Hooray? All glory to the superior western culture and consumerism?

Nope. I'm saying I want to have a world that operates more on principles on common sense, so things that shouldn't logicly punish you too much don't. And tings that should, do. I'm completely against the notion that hte PC is super-capable in every job. If adventurers can do the work of master blacksmiths, why are they in the adventuring buisness? No, high-quality work should be left to specialists. The idea that the improvement isn't your own because you comissioned somone else to do it is kinda silly. It's liek saying the house isnt' your own because the workers built it, and not you. After all, who will be the one gathering ingredients and forking the money? Speakign of which, weapon improvements can take may forms, so it's not impossible for the player to have some impact there. Then that mechanic was not mean for them, but more RP oriented players. You'll never have a mechanics that will please everyone anyway, since different poeple put different value in different things. The whole point of a familirization mechanic isn't to balance late-game weapons with early ones. It's there more for realism and as a small thank you to players who RP.

And more goodness: *Pičić*- good looking young woman *Pizda* - (žargonski) Female reporoductive organ *Pizda* - (od čovjeka) - reffering to a indecisive, rotten, cowardly man *Pizda* - good looking, but sl**ty woman *Pizdača* - cunning girl *Opizditi* - to hit something/someone, ram into something with full force *Popizditi* - to go mad from anger, foam at mouth, go into sport fevor, rack up a positive score *Zapizditi* - stab something, add something suddenly *Pizditi* - to be angry, jealous, nervous *Ispizditi* - to go mental from waiting or someones actions *Napizditi* - to go overboard (anger) *Dopizditi* - become untolerably boring or irritating *Pizdun* - a good for nothing whiner *Pizda stara* - positive refference to an old person with lots of experience who's been trough a lot *Pizdurina* - same as above *Pizdolizac* - used sometimes for tiny dogs *Pizda materina* (Koja pizda materina?) - context: what the F*** is happening *Pizda materina*(Koju pizdu materina?) - context: what the F*** you need? *Pizda materina*(Ajde u pizdu materinu) - go back where you came from - quite literary in this case *Pizda strinina*(A u pizdu strininu) - this shouldnt' have happen to me *Pizda strinina*(Ajde u pizdu strininu) - don't f***/mess with me / don't pull my nose *Pička strinina/materina*i sl ) - angrier version of "Pizda" *Pička materina*(Ajde u pičku materinu) - go back where you came from - quite literary in this case *Razbiti pizdu* - to hurt onself, fall, etc.. *Razbiti pičku* - to kick the living s*** out of someone *Dobiti po pički*- recive a beating from somone *Pizdin dim* - something totally worthless or useless *Pičkin dim * - same as above *Pizdica* - name of a specific type of clam *Spižđen* - being in a bad mood *Pripizdina* - a place in the middle of nowhere *Pizdarija* - S***, something stupid or bad happened *Pizdarija* - easily fixable problem *Pizdarija* - not easily fixable problem *Strmopizditi* - to go down crashng and burning *Pičkica* - refering to a person. Same as "Pička" only a feminine, diminutive version *Pička ti materina*- .swear. no specific meaning *Pička ti se ogadila*- another swear. Better not translate it *Oću pičku materinu*- longer way to say no (usually when afraid to do something.. something like "Like hell I will!") *Spičkati se* - to fall down and mangle onself *Spičkati se* - to get overprepared for a night out - refering to females and lot of time and makeup *Spičkati nešto*- loose something in a very stupid way . like money on a bet *Je ti upičku materinu*- longer way to say "no, it's not" *A u pičku materinu*- meaning similar to "F****, what have I done?!" *Ona pička materina*- a specific thing you cannot remember the name of *Dobar u pičku materinu*- simply too good *Pičkotehničar* - ginecologyst

this is a completely gramaticly valid story about a night out and drinking. Do you notice anything strange? Post party Prošlog petka primim poziv prijatelja, priprema party, Povedi partnericu poručuje. Prihvaćam poziv, prirodno. Petak, pet popodne,party. Predjelo, panceta, pršut, paški, pašticada, pa pečeno. Prepuno poslastica, primamljivo, priznajem pravi pir. Prije papanja popijem par pelinkovaca. Poštovana partnerica pije pepsi. Poslije pršuta puknem po pivu. Preferiram "Pan" pet puta. Poslije pečenog pijem plavac. Primjećujem promjene ponašanja prouzrokovane pićem. Pretjeruješ, previše piješ! Prigovara partnerica. Poslije ponoći polazak. Pođite pješke, prošetajte, predlažu prijatelji. Ponosno,poput pauna, prilazim peglici. Pokret! podviknem. Putem problemi, peh, prometna policija. Policajac pozdravi pa pristojno pita prometnu.Primjećuje pripitost. Predlaže puhanje. Pušem, pušem, pa popušim!Podosta promila preko propisanog. Prekršaj plaćam papreno. Parkiram peglicu pokraj puta pa polako pješke. Posrćem pijano, par puta povratim. Ponižen, posramljen, praznog portafoja, primam premilu partnericu pod pazuh. Pred posteljom promucam, ponovno postimo! Pretpostavljam privremeno! ****************** TRANSLATION ****************** Post Party. Last Friday I recive a call from a friend, he's preparing a party - bring your partner he tells/messages. I accept the call, naturally. Friday, five in the afternoon, party. Appetizer, panceta, prschutto, paški, pašticada and roast. Overfilled with treats, enticing I admitt, a real celebration. Before nibbling I drink a few pelinkovac (beer). Respected partner (significant other) drinks pepsi. After prschutto I hit the beer. I prefer "Pan" five times. You're overdoing it, you drink too much - my partner complains. After midnight, time to go. Go on foot, take a walk, my afriends advise me. Proud, like a faun, I approach my peglica (car type). Let's go! I yell. On the way problems, bummer, traffic police. The policeman greats and politely asks my drivers license. He notices my inbrid state. Suggests blowing. I blow, blow and get blown. Quite a few promills above allowed. I pay the transgression with a hefty (peppery) sum. I park the car by the road and slowly walk. I stumble drunkenly, throw up a few times. Embarresed, put down, with an empty wallet I grab my dear partner by the arm (lit. under armpit). In front of the bed, I mumble, we're fasting again. I assume temporarily. **** gotta love my language

You misssed my point. One has to have some sense of stability, some anchoring point, some sense of direction. You need to have up and down, left and right, right and wrong. We just need it to function in this world and stay sane. If I asked you if killing children is right or wrong, what would you say? You have a stance on thing. All of us have. On on some things you will have a very strong stance, a undeniable conviction. And yes. Do not start harping on religion. It's a recepie for doom and thread closure. And also for earning my hostility.

So...it's something similar to System Shock start, where you define the character as you go trough actual in-game choices rather than a dry options screen?