temporalTemptation

There was another discussion upon this topic a while back, in another section of the forums. This is what I had to say about it then: Looking back at it, I see little I disagree with, although I hasten to add that this is but one of many possible interpretations of the monk class. Some prefer to be more traditional with their monks, but I see the monk as a concept that has evolved in the fantasy RPG genre (like bards or paladins), one that has gone beyond its out-of-place pseudo-Shaolin origins.

You know, it's funny, for as much as you want people to read what you have to say (why else write in purple?), it's pretty clear you read no more than three words of what I actually said. Either that or you're a humorless dolt. I fail to see how what I did was much different from what you did. You made a post parodying certain sorts of posts made on this forum, and I made a post parodying the sorts of replies that such posts often receive. I am at a loss for how that indicates that I didn't read what you had to say or that I am a "humorless dolt". Also, don't diss the purple (I always saw it as more of a pink, but whatever!) it's a delectable colour to type in.

Ohmigawd! Honestly, requesting that the developers don't forget that certain people exist... that's pretty much the same as demanding that they do everything that you want. You're badgering them into caving into your ridiculous demands! That's not what this forum is about! There's literally no other place on this forum where people are making demands of their developers, or even making casual suggestions. Honestly, where do you get off being so demanding? Why can't you let the developers make their own game without influence from anyone else ever? Huh!? And to think... you want left-handed people to APPEAR in the game?! That's basically asking for it to be a soapbox for left-handed issues. I mean, the gall you have to demand that this game appeals to your pet issue. Have you no self-respect, man? I mean, yes, it's quite a common oversight to forget that not all people appeal to a hypothetical ideal, but that gives you no right to bring up a certain issue on a public forum of which you're a member. And you appeal to your fancy realism and statistics and facts and concerns for making the game better. But when has that ever made a game better? Speaking as a white, heterosexual, conventionally attractive, middle-class, right-handed male, I can say that my enjoyment of a game has never been hindered by lack of diversity and all my friends (also white, heterosexual, conventionally attractive, middle-class, right-handed males, in case you wondered) say the same. So, really, why would we need to include something that doesn't appeal to my interests? I mean, if anything, including a left-handed person would make the game actively worse. I mean, it's not only the fact that you're putting such astounding pressure on the developers by saying something in a public forum, but it's also the fact that including more in a game makes it worse. Especially superfluous little bits and bobs! I mean, all those additional little things do nothing other than add to the feeling of a real, living, breathing world and, when you get down to it, who wants that? So, in conclusion, you're a selfish fool and clearly have your head up your own bum. You should feel ashamed for even thinking that left-handed people should appear in this game.

I think most quests should have multiple ways of solving them but certain quests will just be harder, if not impossible, to solve based on how you've acted or how you've built your character. However, it shouldn't come across as arbitrary, there should be a clear causal link between the way your characters are and the quest that they can't solve. That said, there should be enough ways of solving something so that it doesn't feel like you're forever sealing off solving certain quests every time you take an action. Also, on a personal note, I really like the idea of completely imposssible quests. For example, as a joke, a barkeeper asks every adventurer that comes his way asking after quests, to fetch him a left-handed beer mug for one of his customers. Of course, there's no such thing as a left-handed beer mug, and he's essentially trolling you, expecting you to run across the city, searching for this non-existent item, looking like a plonker as you ask after it. I don't know why, but something about NPCs tricking you, not out of greed or maliciousness, but out of pure whimsy strikes me as appealing.

I want the maximum possible realism without taking away from the fun of actually playing it. That way, those that don't care about realism aren't adversely affected by its inclusion, and those that do care about it can then enjoy it, knowing that the areas that lack realism are acceptable breaks from reality. I'd also like to point out that talking about "realism", like it's one great big, homogenous thing seems a little silly. Realism is so broad it can be to do with anything from societies, to nature, to magic, to technology, to history, to character interaction, to geography, to pretty much just about anything you can think of.

I'd like it, on two conditions. 1) It was based upon my interaction with them. It's not pre-scripted and it's not "oh, your alignment just dropped into Chaotic Evil, I will suddenly try and kill you now". It might be reasonable that the paladin would try to strike me down if I got too wicked, but other things should be factored into account, such as how amiable I appear to them, how charismatic I am, the friendship (or rivalry) I've built up with them, whether I've listened to their concerns or just shot them down whenever they've raised objections. 2) I'm given a chance to undo the damage. If they lure me into an ambush, I want to be able to fight (or flee, or even talk) my way out of it, not just sit idly by as the cutscene plays. If they run off with my +5 Sword of Slashing and Stabbing and Shooting Divine Fire out yer Bum still in their hand, I want an opportunity to hunt them down and to teach them what happens to people who try to make off with my stuff.

I would really like to know where some of you are getting your facts from because, from the looks of things, you're pulling all of them from out of your bum. From what I've gathered, lore-wise, healing (both magical and mundane) is going to be about as crude as it is in real life, maybe a little easier because of magic, but not as deeply researched. In other words, don't go expecting to stumble across someone doing open-heart surgery. In the context that the developers were talking about, healing means everything from curing diseases to closing wounds to ridding one's bodies of poisons and toxins. This makes sense, as it would rob any and all possible drama from someone getting an illness or being poisoned, if all anyone ever had to do was trek down a Level X Spellslinger and get them to work their curey magic on them, in order make them feel immediately better. This ain't to say magic will be useless, it can likely ward off the symptoms, but don't expect there to be a catch-all spell which removes one of all possible ailments. Now, to those of you worrying about the mechanical implications of this (likely ignoring the fact that healing doesn't just have to do with recovering HP; and the fact that Stamina and Hit Points are separate things in this game) do you really think that, if the game designers were going to such lengths for realism in healing up wounds magically, that they'd then slap on a rest system that let you get all your hit points back with ease? Are you really suggesting that, in this setting, magic can't do what eight hours of hitting the hay can miraculously do? The "healing" items and abilities, both magic and mundane, are likely going to have a feel of immediate, direct relief, the kind that is a short-term solution. Sure, that level 1 healing spell might perk you up a bit when you're in the heat of battle, but it's not gonna heal up the constant trauma done to your body by repeatedly getting whacked over the head by a troll's club. Of course, how all this is implemented has yet to be seen, but I don't see anything particularly alarming. I can see more ways that it can be done well than it can be done badly. Admittedly, the ways that they can be done badly are ****ing retarded, but that's why I'm confident that they won't be done that way.

I love (and by love, I mean hate with a passion) how this has turned from "what cliches do you want to see mocked or averted" to a discussion on the relative merits of cliches. It's also amusing (read: annoying) how this discussion is being had without anyone bothering to define what a cliche is. Are we using cliche in a very broad sense? Are we referring to any trope at all? Or do we mean just a trite and over-used trope? I've got no dea; I've read through most of the posts here, and the exact definition of cliche seems to fluctuating wildly between "tropes that I don't like" and "anything ever mentioned or done before in a work of fiction ever". It's just infuriating how quickly the discussion has got out of hand by people immediately going to extremes. People see some other people mocking cliches and, recalling how awfully they've seen such things done in the past, start loudly and boldly dismiss it as pretentious. Some other people, fans of parodies and pastiches, see this and give scathing responses, not stopping to consider where the person they're replying to is coming from. This continues on and on until people have forgotten what was originally being discussed and are shoving words in each other's mouths, no longer listening, just beating away furiously on their keyboards. Now, this might sound harsh, but would it kill people to be a little more civil in their discussion? Yeah, I don't like people dismissing all tropes as boring, unoriginal and unwanted but, hey, guess what; no one here has done that. Also, I'd like to point out, one can dislike cliches for reasons other than the fact that they're cliched. I hate it in crpgs when monsters of dozens of different types (ghouls, kobolds, basilisks, goblns, golems) all decide to ignore each other and gang up on me. I don't dislike it because it's overdone, I dislike it because it breaks my immersion and makes me wonder why none of them bother fighting each other. However, just because I dislike that, want to see it averted (and perhaps mocked in one, small, semi-hidden piece of dialog) it doesn't mean I stick my nose up at every crpg that has ever employed such a trope. I can see why people would feel the need to call out the whole mindless cliche-bashing thing (personally, I would have used the word "trope" instead of "cliche" when forming the original question to avoid the negative connotations), but some tropes are actively bad and there's little harm in a small, good-natured nod to the absurdity of certain tropes. Also, on a final note, I do genuinely love having my expectations played with. If I run into a necromancer's mansion, expecting him to be evil and creepy, but find that he just uses the undead to do chores around the house, I'll be both amused and delighted.

I dislike the underlying implication that just because a setting is magical or fantastic, one can do whatever they want with it. Now, if one is saying that the fictional world has different laws and that, therefore, one can't expect it to be just like Earth, I can get behind that. In fact, I actively encourage that way of thinking. If I'm honest, I prefer fictional worlds with seven moons, nine seasons, eighty different kinds of fictional geological features and weather patterns. However, it still has to make sense. Even within the fictional world, it has to follow some kind of logic, you can't just "a wizard did it" your way out of any accusation of inconsistancy. So if you have snowy plains, a desert and tropical swamplands all in one square mile, I expect there to be a very good explanation. I also expect people to acknowledge that it's odd, and... in settings that don't have "magic is capable of fixing everything" excuse, there to be some kind of consequences for having these contradicting places so close together. Maybe a bit of geological seepage from one location to another, or creatures migratting from one zone to another, and messing with the habitats. Of course, this is a more extreme example but, even if it's something relatively minor, there should still be a consistent logic about the causes and consequences of this muddled geography. That said, after a certain amount of careful construction, it becomes more a matter of what's fun. A perfectly sensible and very well thought out jungle filled with appropriate flora and fauna is not as much fun to go through as a fire swamp populated by rodents of unusual size.

I have no problem with this. By which I mean, if the game had a companion who was younger, or newer to adventuring than I, I'd see no problem with the possibility that I could groom them, be their mentor, shape them with my advice. It would be fun to teach them about hope, justice, determination and all that crap; or to corrupt them and make them succumb to their rage. Or I could just go all Kreia on them and **** with their heads. That said, as with romance, this should be optional. Also, their personality shouldn't be compromised as a result, they should still be their own person; but I have the option of altering the path that they choose to take.

I can think of no in-story justification for why humans would be generic, whilst all others would essentially "like humans, but with this difference". In fact, I think that summarises why I dislike humans being portrayed as sort of a jack of all trades in fantasy RPGs, it encourages other races to be portrayed as gimmicky. Oh, they might be deep and complex, but they still feel cheaper because everything about them is compared to humans. All other races and cultures become "like human but X", which makes one wonder how these races see themselves, each other or humans. It appeals to our arrogance, the idea that we're so diverse and adaptable, that we see the whole picture, unlike these people with their weird and stereotypical way of doing things. And even if you insist that there's a difference between the idea that humans are generic and causing other races to devolve into a "planet of hats" scenario, it's still saying that humans are average, normal, whilst all these other creatures are fantastic. Yes, from our point of view on the other side of the fourth wall, we can see that, but how does it make sense in that setting? Let me put it this way, how do other races see themselves in these settings where every race has their own special thing except humans? How does the dwarf see himself compared to the elf and the human. Basic psychology (admitedly, human psychology; but let's pretend that it applies to all humanoids) tells us that the dwarf would see himself and his people as average, diverse; whilst these elves are all namby-pamby tree-huggers and these humans are... well... what? See, that's the thing, it's so easy to think of your own group (be it clique, subculture, culture, race, whatever) as diverse and filled with individuals, and to think of outsiders as conforming to a certain type. That's what, I think, fantasy writers do when they make humans the cornerstone of their setting. They're saying that, yes, my group (humanity) is diverse and complicated, but these other beings (which are only limited by my imagination) each have their own special property. It's doing one's own creation a disservice, being too complacent to actually come up with complex other races, just making them "humans plus whatever". And if you're still not convinced that humans are average leads to other races falling to the wayside; try to think of it like this. If humans are generic, then all other races could be compared to them, no? They are average across all areas, more or less, they are the bridge between all races. So every other race is one step removed from them. Elves are humans only lighter, nimbler and more magical. Dwarves are humans only tougher, stronger and more... I don't know... obsessed with gold? Anyway, the point is that each of them, being one step away from humans, makes them more human, makes them less alien, less their own thing from the perspective of humans. Now let's say humans had their own quirk. Let's say our "hat" is that we live shorter lives, reproduce quicker and are generally less in control of our emotions. This means that each other race not only lacks those traits (to varying extents) but also has their own set of traits. They're all two steps removed from us and just as they are with each other. Suddenly, each race can see themselves as normal and diverse and can mentally add a "hat" to each other. Of course, as we're all humans playing this, we'll be more likely to favour the human way of seeing things. However, if we were to try and look at the other races, they'd genuinely feel different; we'd be able to see them as something other than altered humans. Mechanically speaking, it would depend on what other races saw as humanity's quirk but, yeah, humans should have something that makes them stand out. It would be too easy to make them the generic everyman; I can see the temptation one would have to do it, but it would weaken the setting as a whole. Sorry for the length of this post, but I've just got opinions on this subject and am trying my hardest to express them as clearly as possible. Hopefully I didn't do too bad a job.

I was actually thinking about this earlier, though more in the sense of "monsters being used to explore the duality of body and soul" kind of way. Specifically, I was thinking of beings with bodies but no souls and beings with souls but no bodies. For the former, the undead were an obvious choice, animals being a less obvious choice (depends if they decide that only humanoids have souls or not). Another idea I had was the idea of a meat puppet, a homunculus, an artificial human. Created by magic to be a brand new humanoid creature, the mages who forged them couldn't find a way to give them a soul. So they were left with creatures with minds and bodies, but no core, no transcendental part of them. How they behaved as a result would be very interesting. Also, the idea of people who had their souls taken from them (if that was even possible) could fall into this category. For the latter, the obvious answer was incorporeal undead, such as ghosts and wraiths. But other spirits such as angels, demons, djinn and fey stand out. Souls that had been pulled out of the cycle and stuck in the material world; these creatures wrapped magical bodies around themselves, creating shells in which to hold their essence. To destroy the shell would be to remove that which anchored the soul and would, therefore, force it to be reincorporated into the cycle of souls. As well as that, the idea of astral projection, deliberately separating your consciousness and soul from your body, seems interesting. Basically, it's less about justifying monsters, and more about exploring certain tenets of the world via monsters.

I agree with this idea for the most part. It encourages roleplaying. I hate the temptation to do whatever people say because I know I'll be rewarded somehow. I want to be forced to feel like I'm doing it out of the goodness of my own heart rather than for experience, loot or a bit of additional gameplay. I want the moral decisions to be difficult, I want to see and feel that being good will be difficult, that people will try to take advantage of me and swindle me if I'm too nice, that there are actual rewards to strutting around, intimidating people into doing what I want. I want to feel like I can get similar things out of being both nice and a jerk, but being nice will often (not always, but often) be the harder option. Of course, if one does stick to what they believe is moral, there should be long-term advantages. Perhaps the good deeds they'll do will spread across the local area, that goodness will beget goodness in small and wonderful ways. Perhaps, by the endgame, I'll be seen as a moral pillar by those around me, will be loved and respected for my good deeds, and people will regard me highly. There'd, of course, still be the cynics and the swindlers; but it'd be better than everyone seeing me as an arrogant and amoral bully. There'd be pros and cons to both sides, but the pros to being evil would be more immediate, more clear, more tempting. It would force the player to ask themselves that their character would do. Are they willing to give up a small portion of their soul (and therefore their magical prowess) for the life of a stranger? If there's an alternate solution (such as conning someone else into doing it) that reaps the same reward, it stops being so much of a question about weighing up the pros and cons in terms of the game aspect, and instead is an issue of weighing up the pros and cons in terms of roleplaying. Anything that forces a player to ask "what would my character do?" instead of "what gets me the most pluses?" is highly welcome, and making it so that being a goody-two-shoes isn't the default way of doing things is a good start.

To answer what I see a monk as in terms of fluff and lore, one must first understand how I see the monk mechanically. It's an interesting class (and not just because it's inexplicably Eastern in an otherwise European setting) but because it seems to be a jack of all trades. Monks, as we all know, are masters of kung fu no matter what their origins. As well as being strong and tough, they're also nimble and able, have dexterity to match their strength, have an array of skills that stem from a similar source as their fighting abilities (hence why kung fu masters always get you to do chores before training you). Lastly, there's the chi/divine powers, a power that seems similar to that the religiously devout, except channelled inwards, to make them better at what they do. They are like bards (or, in the context of Project Eternity, chanters) in a lot of ways, in the sense that they have no particular strength, but are just capable in many different areas. The difference is that the bard traditionally uses their skills to aid others in combat (such as singing or using their minor magics to help allies), but the monk is his own man. He can carry his own weight very well, but at the extent of not being able to carry anyone else's. He can take his fair share of damage, but he can't take damage for other characters, can't be a tank. He can detect traps and avoid them, but he can't disable them, can't make the progress of his allies easier. He can cast magic, but only on himself, only to make him stronger or more nimble or more resilient, or to remove poisons and diseases from his body. He is perfect for soloing, so good in fact, that even when he's in a group, it still feels like he's soloing it up. So what does this tell me of the lore behind the monks? I see them people who have trained, perhaps in isolation, perhaps under a master. They have trained their bodies, their souls, have turned all their attention inwards. They go on quests of self-discovery, of self-perfection. All their attention is in the internal, in the personal. The word "monk" does not have religious conotations, but spiritual ones. It means that the person, whoever and wherever they are, have devoted no small part of their time to perfecting themselves (though what "perfection" means varies from monk to monk). They don't need to know martial arts, they might not even need to know all that much about fighting, what they do know about is unity, about moving their body and soul as one. That's how I see it, anyway. Spritual warrior first. Kung fu badasses second.

I agree with a sentiment that seems to be commonplace here; that is, romance is fine but let me explore other forms of relationship too. Let me have a bromance with my fellow fighter, let me be the moral link that keeps the mage in place (or the moral poison that corrupts the paladin), let me be the straight man to the rogue's wisecracking shenanigans, let me be a rival in all things with the resident monk, and let me form a strong (yet platonic) bond with a memeber of the opposite sex, without the game assuming I'm trying to bang them.

I like flora and fauna to make some degree of sense. I think "monsters" should be warped version of animals that we know, either subtly or blatantly. I mean, these creatures presumably have to make sense for their habitat (no polar bears in the middle of a desert, for example) and, as the environment will likely be based on real world environments, so will the creatures that live in them. This doesn't mean that every creature has to be a wolf or something similar (I was actually thinking of something a little more exotic, like a velociraptor), it's just that they should feel like they're animals. As for the humanoid enemies (which are sometimes classed as monsters) there should be two types. The first are the semi-sapient, like the gibberlings or maybe kobolds or maybe just really mischevious monkeys. These fill a nice early niche, being more complicated and organised than animals, but not quite on par with regular humanoids. As for humanoid enemies, I'd hope that it'd avoid the trap of making a fully sapient race a generic monster race. Let the semi-sapient fill that role and let all humanoid enemies be humanoid first and enemy second.

Read what you wrote again. You are clearly under the notion that "fanservice" have precedence over tone and style."If people ask for ladies in swimsuits, they should be allowed to get them." No they should not, the writers vision should be the basis of characters and their behaviour/physique, not the "fans" preferences. If a character is fat for example it should be because it fits his character and not any other reason. I see the problem now. I apologise for the ambiguity. That entire paragraph, was more of a thinking-out-loud. It was my way of acknowledging that there are many views on possible ways of dealing with the issue I was talking about. I think I agree with you on these things, but maybe not for quite the same reasons. You seem to imply that the vision of the writer should come above all else (please correct me if I'm wrong there). However the reason why I more-or-less agree with what you said (at least the bit about a character should be fat because it fits his character and no other reason) is that I like a developed and self-consistent setting. I don't like tropes thrown in just for the sake of having them. So whether a fat character, or a skinny one wearing barely anything, I'd like it to make some degree of rational sense within the story.

Unthinkable, not unthinking. I mean, yes it's unthinking because an abstract concept cannot think. And yes, actually, it is rather unthinkable. If a woman in Renaissance Europe wore an early 1900s bathing suit in public (the woolen, extremely modest in comparison to today's swimwear kind,) she would be ill-regarded and her reputation would be ruined if she wasn't already known to be a prostitute. Even then it would be unacceptable, intolerable and result in severe reactions from the community. If you want unrealistic, immature titillation, play Dragon Age 2 with its fully integrated breast-bouncing physics. Smeg! How did I make such a silly typo? Hmm... Really need to figure out how to go back and edit these things. But, yeah, I agree with you for the most part. I mean, different periods have different sensibilities and one would expect how people dress to reflect the culture that they came from. Of course, this is a fictional setting, so it's hard to say (until we know more about the setting) what is and isn't thinkable.

What are you talking about? Pink text is delicious! Also, your comment about female-targetted products is an interesting one. It reminds me of an old feminist problem. Basically, there's the assumption that if something isn't explicitely defined female, then it's male. I don't mean in terms of inanimate objects but of- well, let's talk about games. If they aren't a game for girls, then consciously or not, they're assumed to be a game for boys. You might dismiss this as feminist nonsense, but it's not that people are consciously thinking about aiming their product towards dudes; it's just that when they think of their target audience, they think of someone like them, and as most people in the creative process are male, the female perspective falls to the wayside. This is, of course, a great simplification of the problem, but I'm sure you can see how this relates to the gaming industry as a whole and what I meant by looking at the bigger picture. Meh! I'm not sure it's impossible to change. I mean, heck, Project Eternity is funded! Just think, only a few years ago, someone worn down by cynicism of the gaming industry would've said that it would be impossible for such a game to get made. But the industry is ever-changing, as you said, and if so then why not try to make sure that it changes for the better. Also, y'know, if you don't approve of my futile eforts, feel free to ignore my posts. After all, that's what you suggest I do with things that annoy me. And, yeah, the idea that one should avoid things that annoy them makes a certain degree of sense. Of course, that can sometimes leave one with very little that they can enjoy. And it's, as I mentioned in my original post, not the individual examples that annoy me, but the larger picture and overall trends. On top of that, because media (in all forms) shapes our perception of the world, just ignoring it would be a lot like burying my head in the sand. But, again, if how I choose to allocate my personal time and effort annoys or offends you, do your best to ignore my writings; bright and pink, though they may be. Yeah, I get your last point, but come on! Doesn't it break your suspension of disbelief just a little bit to see a noblewoman from ye olde times being all slim and sexy? I mean, back in those times, having some fat on your bones was seen as attractive, as it showed that you were prosperous. I understand that it's not completely outside the realms of possibility that they might have the same beauty standards as us; but as you said yourself "PE is not set in XXI century world, its low magic renessaince world," which... umm... yeah, sort of supports my argument about focussing on having it make sense within the world, rather than worrying what the audience thinks of it, whether in terms of political correctness or fanservice.

This insane belief that you aren't allowed to offend anyone ever (and beyond that, that a product has to appeal to everyone) is frankly beyond me and I don't even know where it comes from. For instance your pink text offends my eyes, yet you are still allowed to do whatever the hell you want, there is no "right to not be offended" written down anywhere. It would appear that people putting words in my mouth is very common these days. Please tell me where I said that you aren't allowed to offend anyone? No, seriously, I do not recall saying that. In fact, believe it or not, I believe sometimes people can kick up a bit of a fuss about nothing. However, I also believe that some people do actually have a point when they call something offensive, and that there is something wrong with it. The only way to discern which is which, to my knowledge, is by having a discussion on it and trying to figure out where the offence comes from and whether it's legitimate and justified. Dismissing any accusation of offensiveness right out of hand stops this discussion and is, therefore, what I was complaining about. Of course, if you think that all forms of offence are meaningless, that's a different issue; one I'd be willing to explore with you, if you'd let me. However, if that's what you truly believe, I request that you be clear about it.

To be perfectly frank with you I find the way you seem to perceive games absolutely abhorrent, and how someone could have such a strong sense of self entitlement is beyond me. The characters physical properties and personalities should first and foremost make sense tonally and stylistically, resonating with the setting and story. They should not be made to fill some quota of fat/slutty/ethnic characters that the game have to achieve to be PC. If there are characters that are first and foremost written as people with relevance to the game but happen to be fat for example then that would be great, but coercing developers to include more minorities in a game just for the sake of it just isn't sound. I'm reading what I wrote, trying to come up with a way of understanding how you came to the conclusions you did about me and my beliefs. No, genuinely, I thought I'd written something abhorrent, that had genuinely offended you. However, as I looked back at what I wrote and at what you'd written, I realised that you were kinda reading things that weren't there. There's reading between the lines and there's making stuff up, after all. I don't see how you got the idea that I'm self-entitled or the idea that I'm coercing developers. Because I'm stating my thoughts on this matter? That's what this forum is designed for, to discuss what we would and would not like to see in this game (among other things). Also, where do you get the idea that I'm saying we should fill some quota of certain types of women? I'm merely stating that in a realistic setting, these types of people are likely to exist and that it's not unreasonable for some people to expect to see such people in the game. I'll concede entirely that it would be unreasonable to demand this. But to simply point out that, hey, sometimes games kinda look sexist and I really hope this one isn't... Please, tell me, where's the harm in that?

I am slightly concerned over this too. Racism (when dealing with either real or fictional races) in fiction tends to be of the saturday morning kids' cartoon type. It's all about very blatant hatred and oppression. Seldom do we get down to the very fine details, of the secret prejudices that people have for each other, how people are often ignorant of their own bigotry, the way a society can favour one race, how hatred can present itself in an otherwise civil world. It's almost as though there's a switch in the minds of writers that says the setting is either "very racist" or "not racist in the slightest". So how different fantasy races interact when sharing the same living space is very interesting to me. How well different natural abilities or lifespans or cultural heritage of these races affect how they see each other? How do views and attitudes from long-forgotten times present themselves in terms of racial interaction? How have their cultures merged together? In what ways have they not merged? How does romance, sex or friendship present itself across these racial lines? It'd be so very easy for writers to ignore this, or to give the generic "these people like these people but not these other people" as a response, but I hope that Project Eternity will give realistic and believable answers to these questions.

One problem I've had with a lot of games is the eceonomy. Yes, I know that that's a silly thing to say, but hear me out. You go into a shop that sells gear, they're selling your usual swords, axes and so forth for a few gold each. Then you look at their magical weapons, each sold for hundreds, perhaps thousands of gold. Evertime I buy or sell something like that, I'm afraid that I'm destroying the local economy. I mean, from what I've seen, that +1 longsword I've been using to hit goblins with could easily be used to raise enough money to feed a village for a year. The solution to this would be to either make magical artefacts very rare and very notable or very common and kinda just there. I'd go for the latter, as it would help make me feel that magic is incorporated into the world. People walk around with rings and amulets that give a very slight protection against poison or disease. Some people wear cloaks that are magically toughened and made more durable. Some people might even be lucky enough to get their hands on some boots that make them run just that little bit faster. There are risks with this, people could forever be switching their gear, given too much choice; but the potential gain is also high. It gives you more customisation with what you have. Instead of trying to get the most pluses to your weapons and armour, you might have to think in terms of what is tactically appropriate. One might need to decide whether they want to be light and stealthy or strong and immovable. Also, there'd be a much slower increase in the strength and value of one's gear. Again, there'd be large pitfalls in terms of people stopping every five minutes to work out if +7.6% cold resistance is much better than +7.4% fire resistance; but I'd be able to sleep easy knowing that I wasn't wrecking the local economy all the time.

I would like to start by pointing out that no matter what you're arguing, no matter what the debate, when you put the word "offend" or "offensive" in quotation marks and you aren't quoting it or talking about the word itself, you look like a douche. I can accept that you have a different opinion to me or the person you're talking to, but dismissing the idea that they're legitimately offended with such and obvious and passive-aggressive method is just disrespectful. It also undermines any point you're trying to make by painting yourself as someone who is unsympathetic. If you're actively discussing what it means to be offended then that's fine. If you're doing it just to dne snidey towards those that claim to be offended, then you're a prick. That tangent aside, females do have it bad in games. For a start, most games seem to be made and marketed towards males, which creates a male-centric bias. This isn't to say all games are bad or sexist, it's just something that needs to be acknowledged. And it's not something that is a problem with an individual game, more the gaming industry as a whole. For example, for every female protagonist in a game you could name, I could name half a dozen male ones. This isn't to say that every game with a male protagonist is sexist, or that those with a female protagonist aren't, it's just something you notice when you look at the bigger picture. So how does this link to females and their fanserviciness. Well, you could look at a girl running around in her underwear in a game and say that it's not sexist, as within that story it's justified. And, whilst there's a strong sexual element to it, it'd be tough to say that that was all there was to the female character, or that the sexual elements ruin the game. However, you could look at the amount of time females are used for fanservice in games and compare it to the amount of times men are; if you did so, you'd find that females would win by an overwhelming amount. Again, this doesn't mean that fanservice involving females is automatically unjustifiable whilst fanservice involving men is the height of feminism; it's just something you spot when you look at the bigger picture. And so what would the solution be? I mean, once you've identified a trend, one that you think is unfair on women, the solution is kind of difficult. Does one have an enforced affirmative action in terms of men and women with fanservice? Does one try to steer clear of fanservice altogether? Does one dismiss these issues and simply focus on accomodating supply and demand? If people ask for ladies in swimsuits, they should be allowed to get them. If hardly anyone asks for men running around in their underwear, then it seems pointless putting them in. There is seldom a clear answer, but in the case of Project Eternity, I think it's not hard to find a compromise. It's not unthinking that some men and women would favour vanity over practicality and would run around with their assets on display. It's also quite probably that men and women of many different body types would show up in this fictional world; perhaps adventurers would be fitter than most, but not always. It's also possible that, should some women choose to adventure in lingerie, that the inherent absurdity of it will be milked for all it's worth.

I'm put in mind of Planescape: Torment, and the demon that was sealed inside a box. Long story short, if you took a certain quest and did the right things (or perhaps the wrong things), a very powerful enemy would appear at a later point in the game. You could easily walk past it and, considering that it was so absurdly powerful, most people chose to. So if there was a "super mega boss fight", I'd prefer it to be something like that. A little out of the way, not exactly hidden, but optional and not completely campaign-shattering. Also placing it there just to be there makes it seem kind of hollow. However, all that said, I don't see why there would need to be one. Something powerful to test one's combat prowess against would be nice, but it needn't be a giant, rampaging monster of epicness.