UncleBourbon

In the Christian mythos we have the example of Satan, who would likely be perceived of as a Bane-like epitome of evil deity in a pantheon. Yet some people somehow find the idea of Satan-worship appealing. I can only imagine the reason is personal power and aggrandizement at the expense of others. Even if the goal of a Satan-like deity is the destruction of civilization, some people will still worship him (or her) because they gain some short-term benefit from doing so. This idea doesn't seem at all implausible to me because there are always some people who are willing to do anything, no matter how utterly vile and despicable. It does depend on perception, but largely, Satan is characterised as the fallen angel who wanted/wants to usurp god and create anew order of things. Often times this is depicted as a world of debauchery and limitless self-indulgence. Part of the common satanic philosphy is knowledge being power, and forbidden, demonic power being a way to get ahead. Depending on the doctrine (as there are actually various groups calling themselves satanic orders) this may be at the expense of an immortal soul for the sake of worldly gains. This is indeed along the lines on an evil deity with followers carrying out evil; however it may be arguable as to whether or not it is for evil reasons. Many argue that satan is trying to revolutionize heaven and earth so that humanity and other forms of life can excersize complete, uninhibited freedom, not just that which god allows.

Ah, I hadn't seen such a distinction made. Still, I think it is something they should balance well - as neat as a merchant recruiting/etc function would be, I think we all want it to be a relatively minor aspect of the game. I recall some fun times with NWN: Kingmaker premium module, but even that was rather story driven, and I think it lost out because some of the story suffered from the over-focus on management. I also don't know that the operations of the stronghold should be so bound to character class (as I imagine just about any such stronghold would have some sort of logistics officer), but maybe a set number of alternatives and/or space limitations. I do like the idea that the player character, if he/she wants a decent cut of the profits, has to contribute regularly - whether it be gold, items, or perhaps protecting the caravans to other locations.

I get that, but we have already had it revealed to us that there will be player housing and a stronghold - though they may be one in the same. I'd at least like some ability to vary the stronghold a bit.

Whoops, double post, my bad

I think a neat twist on the normal companion recruitment would be if you this companion earlier if you do some optional rogue-like subquest and have to justify yourself due to his abilities.

Forton looks like he'd have some good stories, and a lot of "Back in my day" interjections, which would be fun. Aloth would appeal to me on a sort of fun-to-travel with character, and because I'm likely to play a cipher in my first play through.

Throwing cats?! What kind of animal are you!? Clearly, you summon the cats, point and say "Attack!" and roll a d100 in hopes that they (unlikely) do as suggested. Note: I think this would make an adorable encounter with a silly villian in-game.

One reason to worship a God is to have them do good things for you. Another reason is to keep them from doing bad things to you. I would agree Gods who are worshiped primarily because of the latter are fairly classed as 'malevolent.' I would not agree any worship surrounding such a deity necessarily turns that faith into an 'evil religion', not even if it involves stuff like human sacrifice. This is because the ultimate aim is still to avert bad things, not cause them. You don't worship the God of Storms and Earthquakes with the hope he'll give you lots more storms and earthquakes; you worship him with the hope you'll get clear sailing and he won't smash down your house. More likely, you don't even properly worship him; you just give him an offering and keep your distance. Maybe there are a handful of individuals who would worship Mr. Famine God with the hope he'll make everyone starve to death, but such people would be a lunatic minority and would certainly have no real luck establishing a major church or gaining lots of followers. People want fewer famines, in general, not more of them. One thing that's funny about AD&D is that priests depend on the Wisdom attribute for their power. I would think this would mean that, the more powerful the Priest of Evil, the more likely they would be to sit down one day and think to themselves, 'Now, wait just a second: I'm worshiping an entity who actively encourages screwing over others to advance one's own power, and I'm expecting this entity to be grateful for my service and reward me for it when the chips are down. Wouldn't I have better luck being rewarded in the service of some god who disapproves of screwing over people the moment they cease to be useful? What am I doing with my life?' Yeah, it sometimes breaks immersion. I've always just thought of them as sith-like; they're following/studying that god with the ultimate goal of usurping them and taking even more power for themselves (this was actually possible in some settings). That said, I think the only way they'd really have a decent recruitment rate would be through brainwashing (magical or not) and/or torture. Even marching through a town with a bunch of blackguards, forcing people at sword's point to give lip service would be desirable for such a god, most likey (at the risk of offending other gods). As to the other discussion happening here, it brings up on of the classic moral quandries: Is a bad thing, done for a good reason, morally good or bad? And how about if you try as best you can to do something bad, but because of your own ineptitude, or the intervention of others, does that alter the guilt you face? I think this is the sort of non-alignment, moral ambiguity we can expect to face.

True, but I would hope for more of a chance every time you arrive at your keep (or every so-many hours/days) there is a chance there is a new stock, or perhaps you could tell the merchants you're looking for a particular item, and have them keep an eye out (with a bit of a mark up). I imagine it will depend strongly on how much of the loot in the game is pre-determined and how much is pseudo-random. I base my thoughts on a very good kingmaker (pen and paper) campaign I played once, where we built a couple of shops in our town, and then upgraded one so basically every month it had a new low-level magic item (or equivalent, by price bracket) arrive, provided the old one was purchased.) It made for some fun times, and some strong hoping. Almost all of the loot in the campaign was dice-roll based, however. Nothing like killing a troll chieften, and finding his prized chest contained a set, well made flail, and a folding boat.

I agree fully on that point, sparklecat. My bit of a rant was a response largely to earlier portions of the thread, where someone asked why it seems "mature" in video games generally defaults to sex and violence. I think violence itself doesn't need to be excessive, either - and I tend to like situations where it can be avoided through dialog or careful consideration of in-game events (tenpenny suites was always a sort of good/bad thing for me, in fallout 3). But when violence and non-sexual cruelty is displayed to what amounts to inhuman extent of cannibalism and such, and sexual topics are so blackballed it just seems like the real-world bias played a bit too big a part to me. Unless there are some setting-related reasons for it, that is.

They did include it. Cook-Cook? True, I had forgotten about him. I imagine the people of the fallout universe would be far more hardened to such things anyway - though I suppose the NCR citizen grew up in a more protected place. I wouldn't want an over emphasis on such topics; they are terrible things. I suppose Fallout 3 serves my point better - several implications where any actual evidence is absent. In BG2, this was handled in a good way; Imoen didn't want to talk about it, so you're never certain, but also wouldn't probe. In Fallout 3 it is like they started to create a grim, dark, jaded reality to life, then took a step back and said "whoops, that would be a step too far." Sexuality and nudity were included on some level, but not nearly to the extent violence and simple brutality were. That said, the more exact comparison of violence versus sexuality/nudity would be in the ability to gib an NPC's head, but then have them wearing sleepwear regardless of what you do (save implementing mods). Or the Nova scene in Fallout 3, where all you do is lay with her - not even a blackout scene. I think nudity and sexuality are certainly different from violence, blood and gore, and admit I think some people shouldn't be exposed to it as much as others. The issue is how much do you allow the setting and immersion to suffer because of this, and how much to cave under the pressure of people who might think mixed dancing is sexually provocative, or that including any real-world weapon in a game will inspire a shooting. Additionally, critics and raters do seem, at least locally, to be far heavier handed when it comes to nudity or sexism than violence. Take for example the Twisted Metal kotaku article. I'm not saying I hope Project Eternity will have rape, especially not player initiated/involed rape, or even cannibalism - I was some tasteful consistancy in death scenes and such, and consistancy in the level of cruelty revealed ot the player. I trust Obsidian to be tasteful and level headed; I trust game critics and ESRB/PEGI raters and the like to be biased in what they think people of varying ages should be exposed to, and that this is not necessarily reflective of a game's story or majority of content in any way.

I'd like to see some portion of this in the stronghold (setting up a trading post sort of thing for wandering adventurers? Or maybe just a place where passing traders can come, rest and peddle before setting out again.)

Gromir, I think that is the point Miyagi was making; in the real world, there is little evidence of truly evil worshipping religions. If they do things - even human sacrifice - to the end of appeasing some dark force and preventing further suffering, it isn't really an evil religion in that it isn't a religion seeking to cause suffering/pain/destruction as much as it is seeking a greater good. There are seemingly few examples of groups of people, believing in a god of starvation for example, going around burning crops around the world, saying "Praise famine! Embrace hunger! Starve and be remade!"

historically, you are incorrect. is more than a few malevolent gods in real world mythology that followers attempt to placate. sedna is a good example if you is wanting am example. ... am hesitant to mention as it no doubt will cause problems. is a good argument that the judeo-christian God were a creation of jewish scholars as kinda a metaphor for chaos of the universe. ever read some old testament stuff and wonder why G seemed like such a wanker? anywho... lots of malevolent gods in rl mythology who gots "worshipers." HA! Good Fun! The difference between an 'evil religion' and a religion in which the god or gods in question come across as ***holes is important. Almost all 'real world' religions of any significance fall into the latter category. You don't worship the God because he's malevolent and go around doing horrible things for him so as to make the world that much worse; you fear him and try to appease him so he won't turn his malevolence on you. Most RPG 'evil' religions depict followers who have basically embraced being a malevolent ***hole as a way and philosophy of life, actively working to make the world a worse place to live. Or better yet, several "Evil" religions presented in fantasy/grimdark settings are basically some greater, deity-like power that possesses or actively corrupts their followers. This means it isn't so much some illogical individuals burning their crops to worship the god of starvation, but more along the lines of a few individuals being indoctrinated/persuaded by a cult, going through a few ceremonies, and eventually winding up with little to no will or self control, or at least little to no independent will.

I like the idea, but also think the list of categories is getting a bit long - I'd rather have fewer character traits and bigger impact, but I don't think there is some direct ratio. I was always partial to having my characters worship Ao, with the expectation of minor impact. I think maybe having a reasonable number of choices, each with a few different triggers might work. That, or a sort of bulk categorisation - I'm thinking along the lines of a split pantheon, maybe with two or three "major" deities, and a few "lesser" deities (still worshipped and such, but subserviant to) that are associated with them. This was, the reactions could be based upon the larger divisions. A bit of a compromise that may or may not work, depending on the setting. That said, I certainly hope there are circumstances where you can honor Erothas, and perhaps suffer for it in areas, as that is forbidden in parts - I just want it implemented better/differently than the nordic deity in Skyrim.

I think some people were also arguing the boobplate issue for historical sake; afaik it is a controversy that stretched back to the earliest of D&D character drawings.

If it is a bit easier to understand, blunts effectively have spell resistance that increases at they gain experience - to a limit. This applies to direct spells as well as detection spells. Pariahs are like the soul devourer from Mask of the Betrayer - they eat magic. There are social implications which might make things more interesting still, but I think having one companion who seems protected from magic in some way might be helpful. To balance it out, they could scale to level, and give him a Xan personality type.

I would settle for portraits on eight side of the dialog box - despite taking a crazy amount of space, what else are you looking at while chatting? Maybe have a couple of alternates for NPCs based upon certain scenes/moods. That way the character appearence and such isn't too different (though an upgrade would be nice) but the impression might be.

Not necessarily? I think all the 8 should be not necessarily. Of course OE will allow solo play in PE. He means that they aren't necessarily available as companions. As in some of them may be regular ol' NPCs that can't join your party. =P I would also like to see at least one of them be a recurring antagonist.

I don't know much about Warhammer. But,a companion with no soul? Cool!!! Well, I had a lengthy response, and then my browser crashed. Blunts are rare individuals that, varying by age, genetics and practice can extert either a personal sort of anti-psychic field, or an extended on, either with varying effectiveness. Mechanically, it is a bit like the spell mantle spells, only as a supernatural ability, with some anti-divination or nondetection added in. The caveat is the vast majority of humans (95+%) in the setting have some psychic sense, the majority on some subconcious level. This means encountering someone who creates a sort of null zone in that sense causes anything from a sense of danger, an uncomfortable feeling, olfactory hallucinations and maybe more. Pariahs are the super-rare who can devour psychic energy, and are understandably legendary. More common are pariah-imitation gear, which is of course very rare, but absorbs a certain portion of psychic energy and might even redirect it. A companion like that would be neat, I think. Or one who has lost their "core" or soul, or maybe never had one.

Bik movies and such are possible, as far as I know. I think implementing them for major character/plot events might add a layer many of the older IE games lacked, probably for technical reasons.

Rule by patches? Well, I would hate to think of rulers the quality of bethesda patches. That said; I think this topic has rounded, cartwheeled, headstanded and flagellated itself quite thoroughly. Most comments seem to simply be things said somewhere in the past 26 pages and left unseen. The discussion is good and all, and it may indeed provide something for the devs to read to learn about some of their auidience. That said, I think we can agree, every group and belief system has extremists; this might be an interesting thing to be represented in game. Likewise, the level of dress and sexual content in and of itself doesn't seem as great an issue as the implementation, in a tasteful manner, with relative equality to both genders of player character, and from the appropriate parties. Likewise, having some male NPCs attractive, and some not, and then ALL female NPCs being more attractive seems artificial to some degree. Maybe a myssal of female beauty was cast? Anyway, the point being that these trends in other cRPGs are things we hope - and as many have stated, trust Obsidian will not be in Project Eternity. Highly sexualized female appearence will likely be a reduced occurance anyway - the top down, isometric nature makes it hard. In dialogue, though, it may differ. But what I think is a good example of how to handle this (admittedly, I am a man, so I don't know how women might view it) is the Drakensang games. There is a scantily clad, amazon class/race, but also a variety of female builds and classes that clearly do not parade around their assets to get ahead, and are just as much the stabby sword wielder or brutish meat tank as their male counter parts. A downside of drakensang, I thought, was the lack of adaptation of the NPCs and such to the character, but otherwise have a wide selection of appearence, few assumptions/forced roles on a player character would be a good thing. In a 3d RPG, I think the first time you go to equip some armor or something, they should simply have a screen pop up, and some different looks of armor you can equip. A lot of coding, true. In an isometric game, I think the major stress is going to be on dialoge and interactions.

If anyone knows their Warhammer 40k, and knows what I mean about a "blunt" or pariah, that is essentially what I want; a sort of anti-magic companion (think decent level of spell resistance) only this sort of off-puts even the lay person simply because on a subconcious level most people sense some magical energy (depending on the pervasive level of magic). Using the soul dynamic, it would be a companion with no soul, only maybe not so dramatic, or a soul devourer (though not as brutal).

I will say this: I recall one complicated issue for a fighter in a party I was in once who was driven by his bastard heritage to find his father - his clue being an heirloom sword, the only thing his father left his mother. Mechanically, it was a masterwork longsword. At about level five, we had several +1 weapons presented, and later even better - but that guy kept using the heirloom sword, despite it all, for the roleplay value. Eventually the DM stepped in and was all "it turns out the blade had some latent magical enchantment," which was minor, but he was already heading to weapon specialist and all. It worked out nicely, and I think roleplay is a good reason to use one piece of logistically inferior equipment.

Absolutely on my sheet too. And it doesn't only apply to female players, trust me, as a guy who likes playing female characters (partly because I'm so horribly bored by male stereotypes too) this is exactly what I love about games like Fallout 3/ NV and other good examples. You're doing the same stuff as the guys without being a guy with breasts - the game takes your gender into account without forcing directly a female stereotype on you and putting you into ridiculous harlot outfits. I guess the large popularity of The Sims or the Disney cliché of women might make some men believe that once the female population also starts acknowledging their favorite games they might want to turn them into the same little princess stuff, which of course is absolutely ridiculous. I think most girls just want to have the feeling that "this game was made for us too". Yep. Fallout 3 and New Vegas - with Tales of Two Worlds - is pretty fun. I tend to use a simple mod that enables the child at heart perk for NV, and go with both black widow and cherchez les femme to maximize dialogue option. Yeah, sometimes they're kind of stupid, but it is balanced in those two to some degree because male characters get the confirmed bachelor/ladies' man perks, which while themed a bit differently, are the same in that you're using your characters sex appeal to try and do something you might not otherwise be able to do.