Mandragore

Herbert yes, Vonnegut no. I've always found Vonnegut really pretentious and his satire doesn't really age well, not to mention that this game isn't even satire...

You were making the case that slavery made people "docile" and that slave states were viable (not just that they could "survive") I was disputing that view. You can't cherry pick one example from history of a slave state that happened to survive revolts to make the case that slave economies are viable or that slaves are resigned to their lot. ...so your justification is that the leaders of this theoretical slave wizard kingdom are just stupid? Brilliant -slowclap-

Let me get this straight: people with nothing to lose are less likely to revolt, than people who are not in an immediate danger of being killed? It does disprove your assertion. If people in a much more extreme situation remain pacified and docile, allowing themselves to be murdered, then people in a less severe situation (slavery, as opposed to extermination) would too. In ancient Sparta, one of the largest (as a percentage of the overall population) slave states, the helots revolted constantly; the militarization of the spartan state was due primarily to the constant threat of slave revolts. It was also one of the reasons the spartan army rarely campaigned far from Sparta's borders from long periods. Likewise in pre-civil war america, the history books rarely mention it, but plantation owners spent vast amounts of money on overhead just to employ thugs who could put down slave uprisings. Slaves in the south rebelled, killed their masters, tried (and succeeded) to escape etc. Apartheid-era South Africa was a similar situation. Slave states are never stable because they're heavily militarized by necessity and always a revolt away from collapse. Rome and Athens aren't good examples because, like Jezz said, their slaves had some rights and social mobility. In light of the above, the whole slave-wizards thing doesn't really make sense either, why wouldn't they just use their powers to rebel? The explanation would have to be pretty creative; the whole thing with the mages and templars in DA:O was ridiculous. TD;LR: you don't know wtf you're talking about. Interesting how you avoid ancient Rome, which was a massive economy relying on slaves, that survived for a very long time. The problem here is that you're assuming that every wizard is walking powerhouse. If you'd read my post you'd see that I mentioned Rome and Athens. Roman slaves had the opportunity to become free and were protected from (some) mistreatment by law, which meant that they revolted LESS. Historically this type of situation (slaves with rights) was pretty rare. This does not mean Roman slaves were "docile". Ever hear of Spartacus? Even a magic user with minor powers could escape conventional imprisonment with ease if he used them creatively. You'd need other wizards to control your slave wizards, which begs the question, why wouldn't you just pay them (the free wizards) to do whatever magic you needed done?

It does disprove your assertion. If people in a much more extreme situation remain pacified and docile, allowing themselves to be murdered, then people in a less severe situation (slavery, as opposed to extermination) would too. In ancient Sparta, one of the largest (as a percentage of the overall population) slave states, the helots revolted constantly; the militarization of the spartan state was due primarily to the constant threat of slave revolts. It was also one of the reasons the spartan army rarely campaigned far from Sparta's borders from long periods. Likewise in pre-civil war america, the history books rarely mention it, but plantation owners spent vast amounts of money on overhead just to employ thugs who could put down slave uprisings. Slaves in the south rebelled, killed their masters, tried (and succeeded) to escape etc. Apartheid-era South Africa was a similar situation. Slave states are never stable because they're heavily militarized by necessity and always a revolt away from collapse. Rome and Athens aren't good examples because, like Jezz said, their slaves had some rights and social mobility. In light of the above, the whole slave-wizards thing doesn't really make sense either, why wouldn't they just use their powers to rebel? The explanation would have to be pretty creative; the whole thing with the mages and templars in DA:O was ridiculous. TD;LR: you don't know wtf you're talking about.

I like monks, I'd just rather have Yip Man than Goku. Please no herp derp "I use glowing energy fist -insert name here- attack" which is what OP sounds like. Also there shouldn't be crossover between the fighter and monk. The fighter has his own techniques (yes *gasp* the west had its own martial arts) the monk is supposed to represent something exotic and different. No. As far as we know the monk does not represent anything particularly unique or exotic in terms of the PE setting. We don't know the history or form of monastic orders in PE. You know what differentiates a fighter and a monk? The exact same thing that will separate every single class in the game. They way in which they utilize their soul. That is not to say there will be no cross over. The devs have set up a system where the use of the soul mechanic is class defining. I would conjecture, and again, this is my own personal opinion, that other aspects of the class will be viewed as interdependent with the soul mechanic. Hence, there will be something particular and unique in the monk's soul mechanic that lends itself to a possibly unarmored, unarmed or exotically armed warrior, in the same way that the warrior's soul mechanic will enforce and enrich the use of particular weapons and actions while in armor. I think its a perfectly reasonable assumption seeing as ever one else is wearing western medieval getup and Forton is dressed up like bruce lee. The way that the classes utilize their souls is part of it, but they also represent different archetypes, I think crossover would make them much less interesting.

I like monks, I'd just rather have Yip Man than Goku. Please no herp derp "I use glowing energy fist -insert name here- attack" which is what OP sounds like. Also there shouldn't be crossover between the fighter and monk. The fighter has his own techniques (yes *gasp* the west had its own martial arts) the monk is supposed to represent something exotic and different.

because we're going for HYPER REALISM right? thanks for the criticism and thanks for not reading the entire thing How do you know he didn't read the whole thing? I think he summed up that whole wall of text quite eloquently. Because Weaboo characters usually have no disadvantages to them, I tried to balance them out as best I can and offer meaningful disadvantages and instead of giving actual criticism he writes it off with a bad joke I think he was calling it weaboo because its all so over the top and goober-high fantasy, also the Japanese names. (I'm assuming they're that and not gibberish)

Inability to detect sarcasm detected, but you posted American Vampire, so all is forgiven.

because we're going for HYPER REALISM right? thanks for the criticism and thanks for not reading the entire thing How do you know he didn't read the whole thing? I think he summed up that whole wall of text quite eloquently.

Off topic, but it always annoys me when people say this. Is it impossible for someone to see one episode (an entire episode mind you) of something and legitimately think its bad? The whole "you don't like it, just watch more" argument seems pretty lame to me. Also WTF was with that crying radish with the face on it? Anime is such nonsense...

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the amount of money developers supposedly lose from piracy is negligible compared to the amount of money they lose from used game stores like gamestop. If you think about it, most pirates are probably people who wouldn't have paid for the game either way, while gamestop customers are buying a used copy, the sale of which the dev won't see a cent of, instead of a new one. All this pissing and moaning about piracy is both pointless and unwarranted.

I think OP's idea is a bit convoluted. If the gods wanted to off humanity why not just wipe us out? They are gods after all. If the "creator god" is a good guy why doesn't he put a stop to the plot? How could he be unaware of the plot (if that's what your suggesting) given that it involves a dramatic change in itinerary of every mortal soul? Kinda weak IMO.

Did you just skip re-animator? Not to mention Cool Air, The Thing on the Doorstep and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward... People need to read before they pontificate.

I never said they should be. What I said was that I would rather see cosmic horror (shoggoths, deep ones etc) than gothic horror (vampires, werewolves etc) TES had vampires/werewolves along with virtually every game based on D&D. Do they have to be in every game?

From the Middle East. Apart from a few explorers who went to East Asia (Marco Polo, for instance), Europe had little to no contact with East Asia during the Middle Ages. The East Asians traded and warred with the Central and Western Asians, who in turn traded and warred with us. I didn't say the middle ages, this game is set in like the late renaissance or something isn't it? Even if trade was monopolized largely by middle eastern nations, Europe and Asia were connected by land and trade routes, travel from one to the other would have been perfectly reasonable, if hard. Besides in this game presumably their is travel assisting magic, so theoretically a Chinese person could just teleport to Europe. The Renaissance was a cultural movement, not a historical period, and it began during the Middle Ages. The game setting is inspired by the Late Middle Ages (15th century, IIRC), and we didn't really develop a trade relationship with the Far East until the 16th century and the beginning of the Early Modern Period (at which point we started going there, but they didn't start coming here until much later). Also, the Silk Road didn't go farther west than the Ottoman Empire, which half of Europe was pretty much perpetually at war with. And we did get gun powder from the Middle East. IIRC PE is 16th century, at least in terms of technology. I think we need to stop getting so bogged down in real world history here; while its great for the game to draw on it, because it makes the setting look more plausible, it doesn't really matter who traded with who and when.

D&D monks do use weapons, even if the list of weapons they're proficient with is pretty short and mostly consists of repurposed farming tools. There are even special monk weapons available (kama, nunchuku, siangham, etc.) which a monk can use without losing his/her unarmed base attack bonus. I was thinking of AD&D Monks, but after looking it up I'm actually wrong on that count as well. Can't remember why I thought they had more weapon restrictions... They do get fewer or no bonuses when using them though, not to mention that even the AD&D list (which is slightly longer) excludes historically used weapons such as spears, broadswords (dao) and hook swords. Back on topic I think it would be really cool if Forton (or another monk follower) unlocked new styles based on weapons you found for him from his homeland.

I have to say, from the interview it seems like avellone was just more in favor of a darker take on romance than completely against it, which is fine by me.

The obvious question here is why they don't empower, say, a gun or a halberd. We need an explanation why monks are restricted to empowering their own bodies. This is were the "spiritual" aspect of it comes in I would assume. Either they feel that their is greater satisfaction in using ones fists/that it gets them closer to god, or they have sworn against the use of weaponry for some reason or another. Like say their religious sect prohibits the use of weapons in combat, thinking that it will result in pacifism, but conveniently neglects to mention the use of ones fists. So a monk desiring to fight, finds a loophole. The thing is, historically, shaolin monks (and other quasi-religious/ascetic orders) used a wide array of weapons, the idea of them doing nothing but unarmed (like in D&D) comes from kung-fu movies. It doesn't really make sense for them to use nothing but unarmed in a setting that tries to be even somewhat realistic. I think PE is probably going to reflect this, given that there will be no weapon/armor restrictions based on class. My guess is that Forton (or a PC monk) will gain bonuses from being unarmored, but will probably be able to invest in improving his skill with weapons.

REH and Clark Ashton Smith were basically who I was thinking of with regards to cosmic horror in fantasy.

Good point. I know of a few cRPGs that do have some lovecraftian elements. Two of them are MMOs, unfortunately. Too bad Iron Tower Studio cancelled Cyclopean. There are way too few games of that kind. I'm amazed anyone actually remembers Cyclopean, but yeah, I meant more fantasy games, not just computer ports of CoC (not that theres anything wrong with those) What MMOs are those incidentally? Because I'm wondering how a lovecraft mmo would even work... Quest Giver: "finally, you behold the shoggoth's true from" PC: "so did that complete the quest?" Quest Giver: "no, you realize the quest is insignificant against the vast nothingness of the mad, uncaring universe" PC: "so do I level up?" Quest Giver: "no, your mind breaks under the strain and you become a gibbering lunatic, confined to the psych ward of miskatonic general, where the whispers of nyarlathotep endlessly taunt your fevered brain" PC: "well ****, I'm never going to make it out of the starting zone, am I..."

Abhorrent mutants, eh? :D I really don't understand where all that hate is coming from but it kinda scares me. There will always be certain individuals in any group or (sub-)culture that act like total jerks, but that's just the way it is and the rest usually suffers due to the action of a few. If I met some of those that were described previously, I too wouldn't want anything to do with them. I don't want to know what they do in private and neither do I care to know. So yes, in that regard you are right, those are total idiots. Now I've been part of that certain community you all hate so much for about 15 years, and I can say that it has been a great time and met lots of fun people you could party and enjoy life with. Of course there also has been people I despised and loathed, but as I said, that's bound to happen and you find them everywhere, no matter what their interests are. On the whole though there were lots of decent people that are fun to hang out with and who happen to enjoy the same art and life style. Do we differ from the norm? Well, certainly, but that A doesn't harm anyone who isn't interested in it and B is for the most part, quite frankly, none of your damn business. Why would I constantly hate on things that I neither care about nor even like? There are lots of things in a game like PE that I don't like but do I hate on the people who ask for them? Of course not, I am glad they find their enjoyment in it and that's pretty much all I expect in return. Ironically this thread and how some derail it with hateful posts reminds me of a similar thread on the SWTOR forums some time ago. There a similar wave of nauseating hate and intolerance swept over the boards, just that it wasnt furries that were the target, but gay people. Some of the "arguments" against anthro races here are worded almost exactly like the ones coming from those fanatical bigoted posters. It's pretty sad really. Why do people feel the need to hate on something so much, something that just happens to be different from a perceived norm but doesn't hurt anyone. Ok, that's all I am going to say about this topic, and hopefully we can continue to have a civilised discussion about the original topic without the constant trolling and flaming. If you feel that you absolutely have to hate something, then please do so where noone else has to witness it. Thank you. How about this, why don't you start fighting the stereotype by NOT trying to inject your fetish into the game. You are right that it doesn't hurt anyone, but no one else wants to see it either, in fact, as this thread has proven, most people find it disgusting. And you can quit it with the "most furries aren't weirdos blah blah blah" I think most of the people posting in this thread are internet savvy enough to know that that definitely is not the case... P.S. Also its pretty retarded, not to mention offensive, to compare being gay, a sexual orientation you are born with, to being a furry, a gross fetish subculture you CHOOSE to take part in.

I agree, this is exactly what scares about this thread.

On a side not I would recommend fighting a real dragon, with a real sword, getting real loot, real armour and real magic spells. It beats fighting digital pixels by a huge margin. Truth. My shameful secret is that I play crpgs because I lack the confidence to slay dragons in real life...

That assumes that.... 1. Having romance means that gameplay, C&C, story, and interesting relationships automatically suffer if romance is included in the game 2. Obsidian is incapable of creating an interesting romance 3. The sacrificed content in question was even being considered to be put in PE 4. Assumption 1 is not provable, Assumption 2 is entirely subjective, and Assumption 3 is not known at the moment. If you're going to make a statement, please use facts instead of assumptions. 1. No of course not. Money, time and energy come from nowhere and you don't have to sacrifice anything to implement anything. 2. Interesting romance? What is that supposed to mean? How a story about getting into someones panties can be called interesting? 3. Anything is better than seeing characters destroyed by lame & immature lines to justify the need of sex in the dungeon before last boss. Or even pressing a wrong number and finding someone's **** in your charters ass, is also an attractive option. 4. HAHAHA. 1. Google the meaning of statistical significance. Is this the IQ of a romance fan? 2. Nobody can draw conclusions from incomplete data, because it's meaningless. 3. I have a hard time believing that they donated at all, but that's irrelevant as I said that "I HAVE A FEELING". 4. So you need evidence to have feelings? 1. No? Porn hub still has a hentai section IIRC and "The English Patient" or "Titanic" can be downloaded any time. Problem solved. 2. Am I supposed to care why you want **** pixels? 3. Dude, there are hot lines that give counseling for free or you can share your problem with a doctor and he will help you. Church or actually finding a woman/man could also be an alternative. You have to remember that if you spend time in romance thread you will never find one! 4. I thought I escaped such poster when I left gamespot. Guess not. Wow dude, hows the view from that high horse you're riding? Maybe we should remove all the violence from the game, since all us sad nerds really just need to play more contact sports and get counseling. Its a computer game, its supposed to be entertaining. Sex and violence are entertaining, if this game about elves and wizards isn't highbrow enough for you, feel free to go drive your prius to an arthouse movie where you can sit in the back row and sob quietly into your knit cap. Seriously bro, get over yourself.

Like Jezz said. It's a french comic that used to run in Heavy Metal. It is literally the baddest ass thing ever conceived by man. Give it a read.