Valsuelm

This isn't true at all. BG2 is the biggest red herring in RPG history. It's one giant side quest. The BG story line is about Aluando's prophesy, remember? Specifically, the Chaos that Bhaal's progeny will wreak upon the world. Well? BG2's plot has nothing to do with that. It's a pit stop on the road. An uninvolved, peripheral meddler (Irenicus), with his own totally unrelated motivations, temporarily halts the road trip...with a kidnapping. It isn't until Throne of Bhaal that the BG plot gets continued. Hardly a side quest. You ignore that Irenicus was interested in the main character and Imoen in large part because of their import to Aluando's prophecy, and I'll leave it at that as to not spoil things for the OP who is on a playthrough. Also, whenever I refer to BG I also include Tales of the Sword Coast, just as whenever I refer to BG2 I include The Throne of Bhaal, unless the discussions is about specifics of the expansions vs. the games, and when discussing the overall story this really doesn't factor. Most people here who have played and completed one have played them all, and I assume that when most playthrough them again they also play the expansions. To do otherwise is akin to starting a book a third of the way through it or putting it down before you reach the final page. It's common when discussing most games to assume people also play the latest expansions (ie: If I discuss Civilization 4, I'm referring to all of it's expansions as well unless specifically state otherwise). Obviously, apparently you don't assume that. So I'll keep this nitpicking in mind when next I post.

And you're guessing. (probably a safe guess, but still a guess) This beta does not showcase any "different level". Lets take a look at the quests in it Please use spoiler tags for any discussion about the details of PoE's content. Yea.. .I (and no doubt others) don't want to know even the details you posted. If I did, I'd be playing the beta and reading the beta forums. That said, there aren't supposed to be any spoilers at all in this forum.

Yup. Baldur's Gate 2 is a direct sequel to Baldur's Gate, and a direct continuation of that storyline. It's one of the great things about that game: that it was a real sequel. Something that is sadly so rare in the gaming world. Obviously it's too late PrimeJunta, but you'd likely have appreciated the writing and characters more from the get go had you played and completed the original Baldur's Gate before playing BG2. In fact, that you'd even start a fresh game of BG2 and not start your new adventure in BG1 makes me shake my head to an extent as you're missing out on the grander experience and how it was designed to be played. I certainly would not say the writing for the BG series was bad. It doesn't have the depth of Planescape Torment but it was great for what it was. It was a step above everything else out there at the time it came out, and it's still a step above the vast majority of everything that has come out since. And on content density.... while I much preferred the open world of BG1 to BG2, the content density of BG2's city didn't seem any more dense to me than BG1's. It's just perhaps that in BG2 you get to that city a lot quicker so a new player is more like to be overwhelmed (but again, BG2 isn't meant to be played having not played BG1). A city should be dense in content. And another of the great things about BG2 was that though it allowed someone to play having not played BG1 it was designed for the veteran player that played BG1. That the designers didn't try and hold everyone's hand was a good thing, and contributed to making BG2 a better game than it would have been had they tried to (an all too common design decision uberflaw these days). And that said, the manual was top notch.

Yea... Having played and beaten the IE games multiple times on core rules difficulty or higher, I think I might have used the kiting strategy once, and that was just as a trial strat (I usually try everyone at least once). It certainly wasn't how I went about fighting your average let alone most fights, and it certainly wouldn't work on a great many of them. And counterspelling being deliberately removed from the game is just bad. The complexities and diversities of the IE magic system is one of the primary things that made fights in that game very fun, challenging, and interesting.

You miss the point if you're focused on the KKK. Most KKK members certainly wouldn't call the KKK a hate organization, and I only mention them (and the Black Panthers) due to the amount of stigma Average Joe perceives them to have, and in case the point wasn't already clear up until the time I mentioned them. I wouldn't feel any differently if some Christians had done the evil deed (some Christians very well may have), that you even ask me that tells me you completely misunderstand what I was saying.

They aren't shut up, today Charlie Hebdo stated they will continue publication as normal, and Google has donated a quarter million Euros to pay help pay for even wider circulation. Let's put this is a different yet more appropriate perspective for some of you. Let's say that Charlie H was a publication known for publishing anti-black (or anti jew, or anti women, or anti pick a) people material. For over a decade they'd made a point of belittling those who hailed from place X, had color of skin Y, or believed in widely held belief Z, depicting them as subhuman, bafoons, and other unflattering/belittling/insulting ways. They mocked their way of life, they paraded failures of individuals of group X in their publication, took shots of all kinds at them over the years, and so on. They did this under mantra of 'satire', but a real lot of black people as well as a great many who were not black didn't quite see it as satire. We aren't talking about one cartoon here either. We are talking about people at Charlie H dedicating their lives to this 'satire'. Then one day a someone(s) threatens to blow up Charlie H if they don't cease publication of their anti black (or whatever group) 'satire'. Threats are unheeded, dismissed, or ignored, and publication of the 'satire' continues. Threats continue. Warnings continue. Eventually the office is firebombed.The leader of Charlie H stands tall and firm, stating his right to publish the material he's publishing and even say's he'd rather die doing it than not. The treats and warnings continue, and in light of this, as well as the firebombing, the State, which has a vested interest in seeing anti group X 'satire' published as it helps galvanize it's populace to support it's foreign policy/war agenda on group X's homeland, assigns a taxpayer paid for bodyguard to the leader of Charlie H. Some years pass, the publication of the anti-black material (as well as other anti group of people X material, because Charlie H isn't just focused on 'satirizing' blacks, it's got plenty of 'satire' to spread around) continues. Then one day, a couple of masked men walk into Charlie H's office, gun everyone down, and shout 'Freedom for *insert group of people X here, be there blacks, Jews, etc*!!'. 10 people in the office are killed, and so are two police officers, one of which being that bodyguard. Would some be trying to be making this a freedom of the press issue if the 'satire' had been focused on blacks, Jews, gays, women, etc? Sure, some would, but a large majority would think that's vile, and rightly so. I'm a thousand percent for free speech, moreso than most you'll ever meet I'm sure (ie: I'm vehemently against 'hate speech' laws,as well as most moderation I've ever seen on this forum, will defend someone's right to say anything), so don't get me wrong. But saying the Charlie Hebdo murders are a free speech issue really is misguided at best. You can say what you want, but there are consequences. If you tell someone to go bleep themselves or make a point of insulting their mother to their face, don't be surprised if they punch yours. I'm not saying that's right, and I'm certainly not condoning the evil murders of those at Charlie Hebdo. But what those at Charlie Hebdo were up to had no more to do with freedom of expression than the most vile KKK publication ever did. In other words, if the members of the Black Panthers walked into a KKK newspaper that for over a decade had published innumerable 'satirical' pieces targeting blacks in a unflattering at best manner, and mowed all the members of said newspaper down, and killed two cops in the process, would you think it's a free speech issue because some cartoons they didn't like supposedly were their motivation? Would you think the taxpayer should have funded a bodyguard for the leader of the KKK newspaper? Would you think the Black Panthers were terrorists?

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. The cartoons really aren't necessary to most news stories about this, and would be a waste of space in most news publications. Consider if what we're talking about was a photo from a snuff film or pornography. Would we be calling people cowards for not publishing the material? Were news organizations cowards for not publishing photos from the various beheadings in the last decade? Freedom of the Press exists. You can publish anything you want in the U.S. and many other western nations (but not all (including Canada)), but it doesn't mean you should. 'The better part of valor is discretion.'

While your argument in itself is an acceptable reason, let's be honest here, the one and only reason the American news people refuse to show those pictures, they're afraid a couple crazy muslims will kill them. CBC is Canadian.

A decent presentation on the NRA and some of the issues it is associated with: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gunned-down/

Well, on that note... it's relatively safe to say that if France wasn't directly and indirectly mucking around in Muslim country X, blowing up people and things, sponsoring coups, assassinating people, etc. over the years, then people from those nations would be less inclined to bring that war to Paris. Would Average Joe care if a group of retards halfway around the world dedicated their careers to 'art' inciting hatred against his nation or peoples? Probably not. However, if that group of people resided in a nation that was actively waging a war upon your nation/people, chances are Average Joe's perspective would change.

Is it so clear? If it was clearly targeted at them, why invoke Mohammed at all? Surely one can draw a cartoon targeted at these folks which does not invoke something that is sacred on at least some level to nearly 2 billion people. Most non evil people would find insult on some level in being associated with very evil people, or having something they hold dear associated with very evil people or evil deeds. That said, is it wise to go around insulting people publicly who are known for killing people?

Do you have an example of major American news outlets that post insulting Jesus caricatures? I've never seen one, it would be incredibly foolish given the fact the US is still predominantly Christian. It would alienate a large audience. I will criticise anyone that publishes insulting and degrading material about religion. I will certainly not buy such publications, and will not be surprised if they lose advertisers or go out of business. But I will always defend their right to publish such material. That is how freedom works. The ones I've seen are usually amusing and not insulting. But then, some of the caricatures of Muhammad (the original Danish ones) weren't insulting either, and there was no reason not to print them. What might be amusing to you might indeed be insulting to someone else. Islamic tradition generally forbids depiction of religious figures, somewhat in the same manner that many sects of Judaism and Christianity forbid idolatry. So the very act of drawing a representation of Mohammed is insulting to some, let alone drawing him in the manner that folks such as those at Charlie Hebdo did. I realize some here might find that ridiculous but chances are some things that you would find insulting are seen as ridiculous by others, and chances are that someone can draw something that would insult you.

A whole bunch of misinformation in this one to make many an ignorant hateful racist living in ****ed up fantasyland happy. I recommend fact checking before posting things such as this. Yet, you didn't provide a single one. You peaceloving dip**** living in anal **** fantasyland. A single one of what? If you mean facts, go fact check that picture yourself. It only takes a minute or so to find that the major points it makes are false. I'm not doing all of your homework for you. You have a problem with peace? I generally prefer it I admit. Though I fail to see how it relates to picture posted that ignorantly endorses a hateful view of a couple billion people.

You can stop your trolling anytime now.

A whole bunch of misinformation in this one to make many an ignorant hateful racist living in ****ed up fantasyland happy. I recommend fact checking before posting things such as this.

How easy is it to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else and fight for someone else's cause and ideals? If I was a radical Right-Wing Neo-Nazi, how could I use someones faith I don't like for the benefit of myself and my own ideologies? (This happened a lot during the worst of GamerGate, Anti-GG dressing up as Pro-GG, harassing. Pro-GG dressing up as Anti-GG, harassing. This can happen just as much in the real world as it does in the virtual world. I remember that a lot of people thought the attacks in Norway, by Breivik, was fundamental/radical Islamist before the story unfolded). It might be controversial of me to even ask these aloof questions and speculate/analyze like this but... who benefits from these attacks, in the long run? And what political ideology has been on the rise all of 2014 in Western Europe? EDIT: The point I want to convey here is: Don't jump to conclusions until the story unfolds, and more research has been conducted. Agent provocateurs on all levels are indeed a thing. A not uncommon thing.

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things? The rise in crime due to immigration plus a bad economic situation and terrorist attacks both in Europe as well as from extremists that migrate from Europe has drawn more support to far right groups across Europe. Mind you these are their national equivalents of the KKK or Neo Nazis, they aren't reformist and aren't very likely to begin mass deportations of immigrants if they get their chance. Even if they have good point extremism ins't the way to go, but in the face of unfaltering opposition the only possible response is violence. From all I've seen for the most part the association of those who are against the mass immigration that is and has been occurring for the last couple of decades in most of the west with 'far right groups' is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the position and argument of those who have issues with mass immigration. Classic label them a 'bad name' or guilt by association (never mind if there's an actual association or not, that doesn't matter) to de-legitimize the argument. The main steam media is and has been for the most part pro immigration for a long time now, which shouldn't be a surprise given who generally owns it. The very fact that some groups are labeled as 'far right' should ring alarm bells, whether they be generally against immigration or not. This label is pretty much only ever used to marginalize an argument, and sadly it works on the more ignorant out there. ie: in a somewhat related issue, it's purely asinine that those who are generally nationalists are considered 'far right' these days as there are oodles of people from all schools of political thought that embrace the merits of nationalism, just as oodles of people from all schools of political thought have issues with mass immigration and are not members of the KKK or neo-nazis. That's pure propaganda designed to marginalize the argument and merit discussions of nationalism, just as it is in regards to the subject of immigration and other issues. 'You're against immigration? You must be some fringe far right loony!' So sayeth the modern dogma preached by talking heads bought and paid for by evil folks who generally want mass immigration and a divided populace. Neo-nazi's and the KKK should almost never make the news because they rarely do anything newsworthy, yet they are invoked often to marginalize. In fact, it's been more than a decade since I've read an article or seen anything where those two groups are mentioned where marginalization is not a goal of said article or media presentation. Successfully associate someone(s) or an idea with either of those groups and you've completely shut down their argument in the minds of many an ignoramus. For anyone really paying attention, it's really as ridiculous as someone saying 'Joe likes hamburgers, and so does the KKK!!' and then idiots believing that not only hamburgers are bad but Joe and everything about him or that he'd ever say is bad, crazy, evil, nutty, etc., never mind if any of this is true or what Joe actually has to say. There are a real lot of people that are not really paying attention at all though, or are half-assing it, that fall for this brainwashing trick. All that said, the issue of immigration/emigration is complex and the relevant discussion points vary both in terms of specifics and degree depending on the nation we're discussing. In general though, both extreme positions, that of wide open borders and completely closed ones (and even wanting to mass deport millions of legal residents) are beyond asinine, and neither deserve much discussion in the media as they are positions that have as much merit as the occasionally put forth idiotic at best idea of nuking the whole of the middle east. Yet both get oodles of attention while the complex realities are nearly completely ignored. One should ask themselves why.

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things?

It's not a left/right issue. Nothing really is other than the very issue of the false left/right paradigm itself. The 'gun debate' entered the conversation via what apparently was essentially two trolls posts. The first being by a moderator of this forum. And then the second follow up: Well, it probably makes more sense than arming copy editors would... Apparently they didn't get the 'no laughter aloud' memo, and ironically another mod sunk to the level of telling someone(s) to 'STFU' when the conversation went further and more serious. Poor form all around. @ Hassat: You completely misunderstand the discussion that occurred if you think it's about someone's 'insecurity'. If you find yourself hating anyone, let alone a large group of people, for any reason whatsoever, check yourself. Hate is irrational at best, generally grows out of ignorance, and leads to downright evil things.

Of what?

Fair enough. I have not read the manga (forgot there was one), and likely never will. Not due to lack of interest but lack of time. My backlog of things to read is already at the point where I'm set for the next few years at least. That said, I very much appreciate that written source material is nearly always superior to someone's cartoon/movie/play interpretation of it. And perhaps one day I will get around to reading the Ghost in the Shell manga. Of all the anime movies I've seen I recall Ghost having one of the most interesting worlds.

He might be right, seems every driver here is a self centered idiot. Speak for yourself. And it's very doubtful he's right, but even if he is in that regards I'd argue the cost for us to even find out is far too high. Wait, you trust the people that are driving around you? How terribly naive. I drive like everyone else is an idiot, because it is true. Like with everything else, trust is earned. Believe it or not some drivers are indeed trustworthy on the highway. Having once had a job that saw me log 10s of thousands of miles a year behind the wheel, I picked up a few things your average driver doesn't have in regards to figuring out who to trust . Regardless of that though, yes, one should always drive defensively. Driving defensively however does not mean I need to have contempt for everyone else on the road, nor wish to deny them or infringe upon their basic right of travel at will, or privacy during that travel.

In the U.S. at least, since the early 90s yes. Which has lead to more than one tragedy.

"Even if everyone in the office was armed it wouldn't have helped them one bit." Nonsense. When was the last time two armed gunmen walked into a place like a gun club, military barracks, police office, or anywhere else where everyone there was armed, shot everyone there (~10 people) dead using only fairly standard handheld weaponry, and then got away without serious injury (if not entirely uninjured) while shooting random people on the getaway? Never happened? Right. And it never will. But hey, in your world an entire religion is the problem, rather than a handful of evil people. You saying 'Islam in France' is the problem is as legitimate as saying 'Hamburger Eaters' are the problem the next time a non-vegan blows a bunch of people away somewhere on earth.

He might be right, seems every driver here is a self centered idiot. Speak for yourself. And it's very doubtful he's right, but even if he is in that regards I'd argue the cost for us to even find out is far too high.