BetrayTheWorld

lol @ this. I recall a point in the game where there were 4 people sitting at a table. I snuck in, slit 1 of their throats and immediately hid as my victim's face fell into his spagetti. The other 3 stood up, saying "WTF?!?! Hmm, must be rats, and sat back down with the dead guy." Then I slit the second one's throat, and so on. Ended up getting all 4 with neck cuts, but I gotta say, it was pretty hilarious seeing the last guy sit back down at the table with 3 dead guys saying, "must be rats." If situations like this MUST exist, please introduce neck-cutting ninja rats into the lore of the world.

Yeah, I think I'd just prefer to have crafting skills, and select those skills on whatever character I want to have them, much like in nwn2.

Or, you can try to get a quest from them, and rob their home if they don't comply. Trick or treat bitch! lol

I agree. However, I think that how the character thinks should be the first thing that they consider. The only problem with this is that other questions influence it. You can certainly have a character concept to begin with(who they are, how they think/act/etc), but you ultimately have to decide how that came to be. And doing so requires many questions and answers that will add up to who they are now/how they think. I honestly don't think the order is important, so long as the questions and answers are consistent and coherent. For instance, the story I'm trying to tell might require a specific history for a certain character. In that case, it's likely better that you come up with the history first, THEN define how they think based on how that history molded their personality. Basically, what questions you ask first is ultimately dependent on what your goal is with the character, and why you're putting them there. I don't either, however, it can be simpler since companions are already getting quite a bit of attention/fleshing out while that innkeeper might not be. Fair point.

Numbered quotes for ease of response: 1. I choose not to delve too much into this because of the fact that I agree with several of the methods listed in the thread you pointed out to me, and there are some of your arguments I disagree with from the thread. Primarily on how much work it takes to implement a romance into the game. No reason to rehash an argument that has already been made to you. Sometimes it's ok to agree to disagree. I think this is one of those times. 2. If someone already considers a character's behavior to be a "creepy sociopath", I think it's safe to say that some people are going to be disgusted by their behavior anyhow. That being said, I see no problem with giving said character the same depth of character as any other, and allowing those who enjoy the character in their party, for whatever reason, the same opportunities for interaction as any other personality, given the proper circumstances described in issue #3. EDIT: Oh, forgot to mention my other point. If we leave out parts of characters because of uncomfortable emotional impact(ie, too creepy), then where do we draw the line? I'm not comfortable drawing it at all. Characters should be fully developed and fleshed out. Invariably, some will like their personalities, and some won't, but at least they will -have- personality. If we start restricting available companions to only "nice do-gooders", then you end up with a bland, unbelievable palette of characters that isn't interesting or emotionally impactful. 3. Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm of the camp that believes 90% of who we are is a product of our environment. So if you believe that, then my questions are sufficient. If not, and you're of the camp that believes people are innately who they are, and their environment and upbringing only slightly mold that, then this list is probably better: Either way, primary characters in the game should be fully fleshed out. Even if we, as players, don't know completely everything about them, the developers making the characters should, before they're ever included as a companion/main npc. I also don't think it's necessary that all romance options be companions. What about the innkeeper at the inn you always stay at? There are non-companion NPCs that can be romance material based on how often you interact with them.

Reminds me of city elves in armageddon. lol

What is it, then? Maybe I'm dense, but it seems like a simple issue with simple solutions available to me. Well, not everyone has the same reasons, but the most common are: 1) The existence of romances in PE means that a certain demographic of people overly obsessed with romances will be attracted to PE and to these forums, bringing their habits and expectations with them. Did you see this post at page 2 of this thread? Those posts from the BSN aren't outliers, because many topics found there are just that romance-focused. Many people don't want the Obsidian forums to resemble the BSN. 2) The existence of romances in PE leads to sacrifices in character design that many people don't want to see. I wrote a post explaining the biggest ones here, if you're interested (it's really long and not really that detailed, but hey, this topic has been going for a while). 3) Even if you minimize the sacrifices in character design, far too many times there's problems with the implementation too. Ieo voiced here the impact romances can have on companion content. Sylvanpyxie wrote some good posts here and here about her experiences with romanceable characters, and she's not even against romances anyway! There may be more, but I already gave you a bunch of stuff to read. I know that's a lot to throw at your face, but bear in mind that this is a long running topic. A lot of stuff has been said about romances already. Might as well try to be up-to-date with the discussion 1. I don't think this is at all a legitimate argument to be made. Forums are there to facilitate communication for the game. Ultimately, the most important part of that is the game. If the game is the best that it can be, I can deal with the drooling knuckle-draggers that infest so many forums these days. And let's not pretend we don't have some of them already. 2. Valid points, but as has been discussed, character design sacrifices can be minimized to (near) non-existence by utilizing various methods and techniques of design.(I'm not going further into this because that's a can of worms that obsidian will choose how they deal with. It's not our concern how they apply their resources. Our concern should be on what final product we expect.) 3. I didn't read her entire thread, but I've read others from her in the past. I'm aware that she is self-proclaimed "on the fence" when it comes to romance options. I don't think many of the pro-romance people are interested in poorly written, romanceable just so we can do it proponents. I think all of us want to have the entire game be well-written and emotionally believable, so that argument goes without saying. As far as the creepy psychopath romance option she mentioned; well people, like characters, are built differently. To one person, said psychopath might hit on your character and be completely offensive. To another, it might be a legitimate proposition. To me, this emulates life, and is a fine way to implement character relationships. Unwelcome advances? Happens all the time, and there is nothing wrong with putting it into a game. It creates emotional impact. If the creepy sociopath keeps making passes at you and creeps you out, you may not want to bring them with you, even if his/her skills could be useful to the party. These types of choices are part of what make RPGs great. (EDIT: I would like to mention that I find it humorous that someone would be ok with having a "creepy sociopath" travel around with them everywhere they go, but when he makes a pass at you, that's just "too much." I might get set upon by raptors for mentioning this, but I thought the romance option for Isabella in DA2 was actually fairly well done. Based on her personality, you couldn't romance her with sappy emotionalism. She required a specific type of personality before the options even opened up, and THEN you couldn't go getting all mushy on her, or you'd scare her off. Different strokes for different folks. I think character personalities should influence what types of character they'd be attracted to, in most circumstances. Then you might have an NPC or two that has the romance priorities of 1. Is here, 2. Opposite sex, 3. Is alive, in that order. I think all NPC design should start with "Who am I?", and branch out from there. Even if the character background isn't available to find out in the game, the developer should answer these questions: 1. Where was I born? 2. Who are/were my family? 3. How did I grow up? 4. What led me to be here? 5. What do I value? 6. Who do I care about? 7. Am I susceptible to romance/seduction? #7 completely depends on 1-6. Someone who has been a loner by necessity, and who has never had an opportunity to be close to people might be a yes, while someone who grew up trained as a town guard, who is married with a family somewhere in the game might be a no. On the other hand, marriage itself doesn't necessarily cause 7 to be a no either, and could create an interesting romance storyline. The entire point is, once you answer questions 1-6, 7 should be fairly easy in most situations. And if you answer questions 1-7, and end up with a "yes" for romance, you should already have your answer about what kind of personality they'd be attracted to. This makes design from that point forward a breeze.

Yes to faction content.

What is it, then? Maybe I'm dense, but it seems like a simple issue with simple solutions available to me.

But if it's "content" that people are voting against existing to begin with, who gives a ****? If you don't want romance options, turn them off. If you don't want romance options in the game because you're afraid if you have the option you'll be compelled to leave them on, then you voted wrong.

Mebbe it should be treated like romance then. A pop up message that says "You happen to have some bread in your backpack. It looks delicious. Your stomach growls when you look at it, though you do not know why. You feel strangely compelled to sink your teeth into it. Give in to this seduction y/n" Completely optional. Or, you know, they could just have some options at the beginning of the game that you can toggle on/off. Click Start New Game. Please select the options for your new game: Optional Content: 1. Have to eat food <on/off> 2. Blood/Gore <on/off> 3. Romantic interactions <on/off> 4. Racy cut scenes <on/off> etc, etc. With some of the divisive topics that appear on the forums, I really don't understand why it's so hard for a community to get behind a simple idea like toggleable options that please both sides. This idea should be a thread ender, but it never is.

1. If the game is trying to sell itself as mature it usually has at least one, usually two of them chucked in: Dragon Age Origins had sex, rape and racism all thrown in. The Witcher 2 also had sex, rape and racism. The Witcher had sex and racism in there, possibly rape but I cannot recall any point it may have done so. God of War trilogy had sex in it. Lollipop Chainsaw, well I doubt I have to explain that one. The new Tomb Raider has rape as 'character development'. Alpha Protocol has sex and rape in it (yes there is a potential rape sequence in there). Overlord 2 has sex in them. Mass Effect trilogy has sex and racism in them. Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy to you yanks) has sex in it. Skyrim deals with sex and racism (yes, even with it's barebones writing there is racism in there, such as that dealt with by the Khajiit). Arcanum has racism. So in short, sex is put in a shedload of games, most of which do not portray it maturely and use it as a marketing gimmick, and that rape is, surprising even to me, in a lot of games and usually handled poorly in them. 2. I never said anything about ignoring their existence, I said that they are usually put in as an attempt to look mature and gritty in a juvenile way, which they are. If they stem from the story naturally then fine, the mature way would be to deal with them realistically, but their inclusion does not equate maturity automatically as some seem to believe, and mature themes are neither restricted to them nor require them for all cases. In short, mature writing comes from how those things are handled, not by their automatic inclusion. 1. Several of the games you listed, the most relevant ones to the genre, were actually great games. So far as the ones that aren't relevant to the genre, I'll be honest, I can't be bothered to research whatever Lollipop Chainsaw is. As a mature community, backing a company known for their ability to effectively implement mature content, I think some arguments about implementing mature content in an immature way can simply go without saying. Comparing a game called "Lollipop Chainsaw" to a game like PE is a bit of a stretch, I think. I was also never arguing for inclusion of any one topic without surrounding storyline and context. I didn't say "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if there was someone being raped in every alley, and you had a -save the rape victims- minigame?" Of course not. Of course I think any mature subject should be handled maturely, if included. The issue here is, I trust Obsidian to do just that: Handle mature content maturely. 2. We are pretty much in agreement on this, then.

Technologically, 13 years is a long time. Fiscally, 6 years is not. You're talking about two completely different things with regard to time. My cost comparison was using fewer technological resources than it would have taken 6 years ago to make nwn2, while adjusting for inflation. If they're making a game that is to be lighter in the graphics department than AAA titles of today, I was making the comparison that they could have easily created the game in the newer, yet still dated nwn2 3D style, and likely been the better for it, in my opinion. But that's just it, it's my opinion. I'm entitled to it, as you are yours. My entire point was that they had started this project only needing 1m. They got 4m, and will likely end up with 6m before completion. In expanding the budget by 6 times, it's possible to enhance the manner in which the entire game is presented. One of those possibilities(financially) was to go from isometric to 3D. All I was doing was gauging the public opinion on the matter, while weighing in with my own preferences. As for the rest of your post, all those issues have been asked and answered. I'm not going to rehash the entire thread for you. I put too much time into my posts to have to make them over and over again.

1. I respectfully disagree, and actually do agree with :1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others. Now, this doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one, and someone else might be perfectly OK with playing the stereotypical rogue archetype sans the sneak attack. Personally, I would view said character as being completely ineffective in combat, and would probably go with a bard instead to fill the role of lockpicker/trap disarmer who can also buff the party while having the same bab. Either way, I've been a huge proponent of giving options so that players can customize characters to specialize in the roles they want them to fill. 2. I have already responded to this point, in support of it earlier in this thread. I am not opposed to sneak attack being available to all classes as a feat/perk that you buy. However, it should be weapon-specific. Not every weapon is appropriate for backstabbing, for reasons I've already explained. Rather than rehash those reasons, I will quote myself...again. Sneak attack also isn't the only appropriate way to grant bonuses for flanking, as I have again, described below. It's not just the element of surprise that constitutes sneak attack damage. It's about catching someone off-guard so that you can stick a small object into a critical, unprotected area. For instance, a warrior has a helm with slits for the eyes and ears, so that he can see and hear reasonably well. A rogue sneaks up and shoves a dagger in his ear-hole: *boom - sneak attack*. This simply cannot be achieved with a claymore. A claymore is far too clumsy a weapon to be aimed at a 3mm by 1 inch slit in a helm. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to reach pinpoint precision with a thrust because the center of gravity is further out from your point of control. Source: Try it IRL. Small weapons like daggers are about finesse and precision, and are capable of such feats due to their size(being able to fit into smaller slits), and weight. The best you could hope for with a surprise claymore attack is to swing it at their general head region, which may or may not collide and contend with the armor they have there. Damaging? Absolutely. Representative of sneak attack damage? Not at all. It does plenty of damage on it's own. Numbered your quotes for responses: 1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes. 2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer. From here on out, if someone argues points with me that I've already answered in this thread, I'm not going to do all the work for them to find answers I've already addressed. I will simply be saying "asked and answered". They can find the information themselves. I've put too much time into my posts to have to rehash them over and over.

I understand your point, but then what about racism? I'm sure at least someone who plays this game will have endured severe racism at some point, so is having racism in the game - even if it's between fantasy races - acceptable because of how it may affect that person? I'm sure rape - if it were to be included in the game - would probably be between fantasy races too, but as you point out that wouldn't stop a person mapping it to their own trauma if they had suffered. In fact, for any one of the mature themes (severe deprivation, sadistic torture of violence, sexism, etc.) a case could be made - and if the main yard stick used as to why a theme is included in the game is "How many people would this deeply upset" (with rape I'd imagine it would be significantly more than other themes) that probably isn't the best way go about things. I think as long as the themes are handled carefully and correlate strongly to real life examples, then the inclusion of any theme is acceptable. For me I don't need to find all concepts in the game fun to find them enjoyable, and if something does unsettle me slightly then I'll find it interesting because it has made an emotional impact. Really that's the whole point of using a mature theme in the first place, to challenge and possibly slightly disturb the player because it resonates with them. If the devs really wanted to muddy the waters about these themes, then they could have likeable characters being racist and quite possibly former rapists. Say you had a really likeable Paladin NPC, and you build a strong relationship with him and become interested in his character, only to find out that he only took his knightly oaths because he raped someone and felt remorse and wanted to turn his life around - to me this would be very compelling as it would challenge me on a very big level. Rape is without a doubt wrong, but does that mean a rapist is forever without redemption - very difficult to judge and very interesting. I'd like to see some horrible characters in untouchable positions of power too. In so many games you get some slimy unpleasant character but it's fine because you can kill them, or ruin them, or whatever. In real life things don't always work like this, and you sometimes get a complete sleaze that you can't do anything about (for example a serial killer who is wealthy, well protected and has all the local constabulary in his pocket). Though this would leave a bad taste in some people's mouths, it is realistic. As a final point, many people are focusing on the fact that witnessing something horrible is the worst thing possible in a game - for me it is not. Witnessing a racial attack for example, though unpleasant, is at least a simplistic observation. Hearing a voice actor however tell the character of something truly unspeakable they did in lavish detail, you can practically hear the actor drooling, for me would be far more unnerving. Point being, there's more than one way to relay an event and make it horrible than simple visuals. I generally like your posts, and this one is no exception. Worrying about hurting everyone's feelings all the time is the reason entertainment seems more shallow these days. Without being able to approach sensitive topics, various medias will seem bland and lacking in substance. I mentioned it before, and I feel like the post you've responded to was a result of this "culture of politeness" that skews everything in the US from entertainment to education and politics. "I worry that we are approaching a time when that which is shocking is squeezed out by the Stalinism of political correctness." "Over-reaching political correctness is chipping away at the fundamental American freedoms of speech and expression."

Ah yes....because making a typo when writing in a non-native language late at night is clear indication of an inferior intellect and undisputed proof that the poster is "a complete ass". You can post as many intelligent-sounding quotes as you want, and you can type fancy word with flawless perfection. If you think that makes you look smart, more power to you. Personally I just think it makes you a salve that desperately tries to mantain a fake internet image. Sincerely, some guy on the internet That's not what I said. I'd normally suggest working on your reading comprehension, but in your case, you can take it how you like. And if my words are "fancy" to you, well, I don't know what to say to that. EDIT: Oh, but I do feel like mentioning the fact that you previously said it was on purpose, and are now saying it was a typo late at night in a non-native language. These two things are not the same. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just pointing out two facts.

I'd probably fail to save anyone because I'd be too busy drinking in the bar and gambling to try to increase my meager supply of gold coins to even notice the fire. .... wat? And I'd probably miss out on the do-gooder fun as well, while I was trying to pick up the chick gambling in the bar.

I'm not sure understanding is going to be reached. It's a bit like asking why do I like cherry pie. People can give all kinds of reasons, some of them even plausible technical ones, but in the end it's likely still going to just boil down to ... "because I do." I was talking about RPG's and the 3D explosion with someone else a while back. It's been kind of strange, because at first, I liked 3d for games. It was new. It was cool. But then I began to notice that my interest in a lot of games was shrinking. I'd play a game and be bored, even if I felt like I should be liking the game. But visually they're so generic now. It's akin to the special effects in movies...same thing. The first time I saw that dino in Jurassic Park, awesome. Now every dino in every movie is the same. First time I saw that cave troll in LotR was kinda neat. Then I noticed every giant, big-mouthed, screaming creature in future movies moved its slobbering mouth in the same way as that cave troll. Quite frankly, since the 3D "shiny and more shiny" "polygons are king" or whatever graphic revolution, I've found myself liking RPG's less and less. It's not that they can't be good (and they can certainly be very pretty), but there's something about full 3D worlds that makes me turn off from the actual story/gameplay much of the time. It's fine for more action-oriented titles/shooters but...I dunno, maybe it's just all too distracting, too much motion, too much of my having to fiddle with motion controls vs. the more static top-down point of view. It feels less personal, less inviting, less warm. Does this apply at all to P.E.? I dunno. It's just some thoughts. I don't have any big, logical, technical reasons for still being able to like or want a top-down, fixed perspective 2d visual style - even tho I'm sure there are such reasons. I just do. That said, I'm not against 3D or moving camera etc....but I would love to see top-down, fixed viewpoint games make a bit of a comeback for RPG's, if for no other reason than to give me more variety and choice in visual style and presentation. They could add a few modern tech touches to them, perhaps, while keeping to the basic old style concept. Thank you. Even though you didn't give me a "logical" reason, you at least explained your viewpoint enough to the point where I'm not completely baffled. Your sentiment does, in my opinion, validate my point though. If obsidian had come out and said they were going to make the exact same game, as the successor to the exact same games, with the same style of gameplay, but with a NWN2 style of 3D presentation, I think they would have had just as much success with the kickstarter. Even further, I think that many people who voted for 2d probably did so because that's what obsidian is making, rather than obsidian making it because that's what they want. But, of course, I could be wrong. We've proven that with my expectations for this poll. Mind blown. I never expected the results of the poll to be so lopsided. I want to mention why this thread originally came to mind to create. I've recently played through DA2 a second time. I decided not to finish my copy of skyrim until all DLC is released and goes on sale, so I revisited NWN2. I played through the OC, and MotB, tried SoZ and didn't like it much. So then I began looking for other games to fill my time with, and that's how I discovered PE. I put some time into the forums here and researching PE, and with the fond memories I have of FO, arcanum, and PS:T, I found myself highly anticipating the release of PE. Those games certainly bring back memories of excellent gaming, and nostalgia is a powerful thing. So, I decided to revisit some of these old greats. I went to GOG.com and purchased a new copy of PS:T. I fired it up, and buckled down for a 3 day weekend full of RPG goodness. Then, it happened. I realized how much work old-school RPGs were. I realized how poor the UI was, and how the 2d sprites sucked horribly. The primary issue, of course, was the atrocious user interface that felt like work to use. Obviously this isn't acceptable for a modern game, and goes without saying. However, while I was thinking about what else could be done to improve it, I just felt like improved visuals ala NWN2 3D would have made it great. And when you set out to create the "spiritual successor" to something, your goal is to improve upon the original, right? I mean, it takes a real loser to shoot for mediocrity as their end goal. So I automatically assume that people would try to improve upon previous incarnations of the IE games, rather than just rehashing things that have been done before. Now, I do understand that there exists the possibility with modern technology to create far more detailed and good-looking isometric views, and if they do this, that will be fine(even if I would have preferred 3D). However, if the graphics and aesthetics are presented in the manner that was done 13 years ago with PS:T, I must say that I will be disappointed.

Thus you've already understood why that style was used. The game was for younger audiences. The style fit the audience. The style used in IE games while we have greater technical opporunities fits the reasoning behind why OEI is using the cav-oblique style. It fits the game best. There has been a lot said about why they have used cav-obq for this game and it would behoove you to go and read up on it. I would love to. You don't happen to have a link handy, do you?

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game. Could you elaborate why you feel the need for this discussion? They make a kickstarter where they are very clear about what type of game they wish to make, in it's old style, and you make a thread talking about dated graphics. I don't see any smoking gun here. Because it was my thought that the primary drive for support for this game was due to the compelling storylines, mature themes, and fun gameplay of the classics. I didn't think there was some cult drive to return the game presentation to the stone age. So far, the poll is proving me wrong, but I don't understand why that would be. I've yet to see anything compelling to bring me in line with what appears to be the majority, and I like to understand things. So to answer your question, that's it. I like to have a full comprehension of how and why things are the way they are. Healthy curiosity, if you will. I'm saying that making something red, yellow, and green doesn't make it look good unless you're 5. I'd prefer the "turd" picture above to the colorful children's picture below any day.

So does having no evil/morally ambiguous options. Having no option to do anything bad detracts from the experience of doing something good, in my opinion. You might not believe me, but that's exactly my point. When I suggested removing the evil options I was being obviously sarcastic. Or so I thought. But yes, having no romance is exactly like having no moral choices, because it takes away from the experience. Hence, you can't simply leave this stuff to modders. Nude skins is what they are good at, not romance. Oh, alright. We're in complete agreement on this topic, then. I admit that the thought that you were being sarcastic -did- cross my mind, but sarcasm is a lost art when it comes to conveying it via text. Unless, of course you... /sarcasm

While this video did have some insight, it lost all credibility to me when it compared screenshots from golden axe beastrider, and parrappatherapper, and said the latter looked better. Really? I mean, I feel like they could have found a better example to make their point. And if the second picture here is better, give me worse all day every day.

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game. Yes, I've played every civilization game made, and warcraft up through frozen throne. And yes, I've played lots of RTS games. Before you explore that too much, you should know that several RTS games have rotatable cameras, even if you don't normally utilize that feature. Company of heroes comes to mind. That isn't a screen capture of gameplay footage. If that picture is an example of how good the entire game is going to look in actual in-game footage, that's fine. But I've researched that picture, and the general consensus elsewhere on the web is that picture is deceptive, and unlikely to be seen in the game in the manner presented due to angles and how much is shown on the screen at a time.

Good comparison. If he had to be one or the other, I'd say rogue(utility belt ftw). But under D&D formats, I'd say he's multiclassed into epic levels.

So does having no evil/morally ambiguous options. Having no option to do anything bad detracts from the experience of doing something good, in my opinion. And I feel like people are rehashing arguments that my previous post addresses. My previous post takes care of everyone on every side of this argument...bah, I'll just quote myself. There. Now agree with me and stop posting in this thread.