jezz555

I sort of agree with this. I think it's better if races are only loosely confined by their innate abilities, and are more individual than we usually see. A racial group might have a certain history and reputation as per racism, but it shouldn't be confining as it usually is.

I don't really care one way or the other, I more or less like all flavours of elf the same.

Have you checked the poll recently? I think a "we" was pretty warranted.

Make the game realistically gory. The idea of an rpg is based around immersion and as people have talked about in other threads realism and moral choices are a big part of that. Without visceral, real and gory violence, there is less emotional impact. You won't think twice before needlessly killing the starving beggar, because his body will just disappear right after he dies. Killing somebody should have real and emotional consequences and gore is a big part of that. To the guy who referred to it as "senseless violence" like Chilloutman said, what is senseless is clean murder. If you don't want to see blood, take the diplomatic route and don't kill people all the time and you wont have to worry about it.

What for? I don't care about whicht side has the most, if that's what you're saying. No I am saying that people should think before posting something stupid they want in game no matter how big waste of time it would for devs to implement such thing. And poll can clearly tell devs if such feature is demanded enough to start even think about it Methinks somebody doesn't understand the point of a general forum.

I made this topic so we could get a bigger picture. BTW I never actually took sides in this matter. Beastlike humanoids just don't bother me. When I was playing Morrowind as a kid I found them to be cool, I just don't understand how suddenly an innocent notion as beastlike humanoid races became utterly disgusting in ppl's eyes. When did Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and the Thundercats turn into beastiality? btw i'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me for the spelling errors When furries started masturbating to them? I thought that was pretty clear.

emergency rations?

Jesus Christ, this has nothing to do with twilight, will you guys stop bringing it up?

no, and no. But I suppose my stance on this matter was already perfectly clear.

That is abundantly clear.

I like this, I wouldn't mind a sort of Dante's Inferno kind of thing. Where the dungeon begins fairly easy and light hearted and then you slowly descend into hell.

"It's my opinion" is a red herring fallacy. It's also irrelevant; what matters is the content, and I find the content silly. As for "fetishized bestiality," this is also biased and untrue. What lies at the core of the furry community (bar it's totally insane fringes) is anthropomorphization, ie. giving human characteristics. The most notable of those is sapience, followed by human level intelligence. This precludes bestiality, which, by definition, is intercourse between human and non-human animals, lacking sapience and intelligence. By the way, do you find Spock disturbing? After all, he's the child of a human and non-human. Oh, Star Trek, why do you glorify bestiality! You shouldn't use words you don't understand. A red herring fallacy only applies to someone bringing up topics irrelevant to the argument in an attempt to prove a point. As furries (as you've just stated) are essentially all about anthropomorphic animals, and the argument in question is about anthropomorphic animals it's perfectly relevant, and furthermore as these are freaking opinions nobody is trying to prove a point, we're just stating personal preference. You can find the content as silly as you want, but nobodies trying to prove anything here. I would go on in my condemnation of this bizarre fetish but your words are beginning to make that unneccessary. I have to say I found your Nabokov-esque argument for why bestiality is okay, pretty amusing.

As Elerond has pointed out, the game won't have any equipment restrictions (we've been told that if we wish, we could equip our mage character with plate armour and a greatsword). I'd assume that the chosen class dictates the combat role, but not necessarily the means of fulfilling it. We could speculate that the warrior monk would have a stronger connection to his soul, effectively becoming a mage/fighter hybrid (but with a stronger focus on the latter). Perhaps he'd have a natural resistance to the magic, etc. Besides, Sōhei usually didn't use much armour, just simple robes. As I've mentioned, they seem to be a much more original choice (they're rarely potrayed in games). Not to mention that they were actually militant and participated in armed conflicts. In that respect they seem to make much more sense. And last, but not least, their look (as evidenced by the posted artwork) is rather unique. I mean Idk how monks will work if there are no equipment restrictions since its been pretty central to the class since inception, but fair enough you've proven your point. I suppose I'll wait and see in that case.

^ said the furry. Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

Thing is, you'd easily be able to complete the main quest, since I'm certain it will be designed in a linear fashion in order for its story to remain strong throughout. You'd have people bothering and bugging you and pointing you in the right direction everywhere, as it should be . I love the idea of additional, implicit quests. Lilarcor would be one example from Baldur's Gate 2, where, unless you find certain areas in game, you're going to have no idea that you can use some items found on your adventures to obtain what is possibly the coolest (but not best) weapon in game. Expanding on what I said above, actually finding that area did give you a journal entry, something like: "Today I found some strange pipes in the sewers with writing on them", so you're never really left to having to remember vague references found here and there. In BG, even with implicit quests, it's made abundantly clear when it's actually something worth pursuing. I love the idea of encouraging exploration with rewards, which is a function implicit quests of this type achieves. Better than the solution of placing a wildly glowing and sparkly chest at the end of every god damn cave. Lots of this, please. I mean, I don't mind helping the occasional damsel in distress (there better be one of those!), but if you manage to make it feel like the adventure is mine to choose now and again, and not someone else asking for help, or offering rewards. I do it purely for my own sake and benefit! I do like the idea now that you mention it, but I have a feeling I'm just going to use a strategy guide. I always miss stuff like that.

I see were you're coming from on this, but I'm kind of divided on it myself. On the one hand a cinematic tutorial would be...well cinematic. But on the other hand I don't want to have to see that every time I start a new game.

To be fair, this essentially applies to everything on this forum.

I would rather a Chinese influence more than a Japanese one, because we see a lot of Japanese influence in games already. But I suppose its mostly with samurai and ninja's rather than these guys. People have brought up "warrior-monk" concepts before but I'm just not sure how they would differ from fighters, if they are using weapons and armour.

I think we've all seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

I mean look, it's not like there aren't some good animal-headed-guy races, they're in a lot of cultures mythologies, and I've used them in D&D adventures over the years and all in all I don't hate them. But nowadays they are so common in games and fantasy that it just seems lazy. Like whenever a fantasy universe wants to make a new race they just slap a new kind of animal head on a human body and call it a day. I mean how would something like that reproduce? Would it be bestiality? What do they think about their animal brethren? It just seems a little stupid after awhile. And of course once you've discovered furries seeing any kind of humanoid animal just sort of makes you nauseous.

Your like of dislike of it is wholly irrelevant. Actually it's not. IIRC you for some reason seem to think I'm trying to prove that cultural mash-ups are "wrong" or "illogical" or something and thus attempted to use firefly to disprove this hypothesis. Your problem is that it's not a hypothesis, it's a personal preference, If I didn't like it in firefly why would I like it in PE? I was never trying to say that two cultures becoming entangled would be impossible so stop trying to force words into my mouth, this is a forum for a computer game, the antagonism is unnecessary.

Now that you mention it...does PE have druids? Anyway, the Monk class despite its namesake is not synonymous with a cleric. Religion is not the main driving force in a monk's life, it's just some philosophy or discipline. I don't think the Monk class needs to be expanded, or at least not in that direction, because at that point you start encroaching on other territory I don't mean expand the monk's role, I mean expand the types of people who would be monks to those outside the stereotypical temple monks you normally see. I mentioned druids in order to try to explain that I was refering more to the kooky old man type of hermit (such as Herman Toothrot) rather than the druidic type. And having said that, who agrees that Herman Toothrot would make an awesome monk! :D Also, I wasn't sure on whether the druid had been added either, but I had read posts that seem to indicate that it was and having just checked the Kickstarter updates to make sure it appears that the druid is indeed in PE and was even added quite early on (it's mentioned as one of the first seven classes, so probably the first or second class added after the original five). Good to hear about druids. I still think I'm going to have to disagree with you though when it comes to monks. There may be some overlap in the whole "in-tune with the natural world" thing. But druids by their nature are tied to the forest, and like psychedelic mushrooms and animal friends and stuff, so kind of a celtic vibe, whereas I see a monk as being more tied to buddhism and a very harshly disciplined lifestyle. As opposed to essentially the dude from the big lebowski in the woods. Monks aren't really so much kooky hermits, I mean they could be, but by virtue of being kooky you kind of forgo the whole focus and discipline thing. Once again I'm not sure why there is such a strong desire with people to attempt to push the monk away from it's buddhist roots, the paladin class is based on Christianity and nobody complains.

I wasn't proposing this. Nor was I proposing the animal body, human torso thing that is so popular in fantasy writing. I'm talking about races that make some sort of evolutionary sense. Like, what would an arachnid who developed further along it's evolutionary timeline to the point of intelligence look like? Act like? Etc. Evolution doesn't really work that way, but I see what your saying I suppose. I'm all for more races, just idk, give me something different.

Now that you mention it...does PE have druids? Anyway, the Monk class despite its namesake is not synonymous with a cleric. Religion is not the main driving force in a monk's life, it's just some philosophy or discipline. I don't think the Monk class needs to be expanded, or at least not in that direction, because at that point you start encroaching on other territory You are right to point out that there was a fair amount of trade between Europe and Asia during the period in question. I really can't understand those who posit that suggesting the fact that other cultures exist outside of the European ones would somehow ruin the setting and be out of place. D&D and other fantasy settings like those in Conan and Game of thrones are set largely in medieval Europe but in all of those settings other cultures exist, this is an entire planet we are talking about, unless it's so small that it only encompasses Europe and a few surrounding territories, we are going to see travellers from far off lands. It would be unrealistic not to.

How about what defines a god? Awesome powers? We have the capability to do things today that people a few centuries ago would consider godlike. We know there are 'gods' in the setting, but do they deserve such a title? Are they just really powerful individuals or do they possess some innate 'divine-ness' that warrants them to be treated like a god? In short, does having power warrant worship? What about if they created the world, does that warrant you worshipping them or are they still fallible beings? It has been said by the devs that the gods have withheld knowledge on certain things, are they afraid that mortals may become like them? So you would believe that they are gods because they said so and have awesome powers? Most of the Faerunian gods weren't even involved in the creation of the world, and seem rather petty... I suppose this would have to do with what defines a god, because there are different examples. The greek god's weren't all creators either, and were petty, but we still refer to them as gods.