KillerClowns

Anyways, back on topic. With the first game involving me planning to go gun-toting ranger, I'll be needing ideally a few meat shields, a cleric to keep them in the game, and a wizard or druid to help bombard mobs, since firearm reload speeds apparently aren't so great. In practice, this may vary, with me tailoring the party a bit to allow particularly fun/interesting characters a chance to shine. The second, I think, will involve me playing as a Bleak Walker. So I'll be limited a bit by those willing to tolerate the brutality such a person sows in their wake. I'll be joining the fighters and barbarians in the front lines, but a chanter and a priest of a suitably dark deity to help buff them even could make for a big, ugly, mean wrecking ball. I'll also be making room for any characters who found the witty, kind-hearted character of the first playthrough unbearable, but open right up to someone who knows the best way to solve problems is to find the people responsible and teach them the meaning of pain and fear.

Probably a human of the Vailian Republics for my first run, because they sound fun with their culture's emphasis on wit and intelligence -- and being, IIRC, technologically advanced, they're likely to have what's needed to support the gun-toting ranger I'm aiming to play.

Bleak Walkers definitely win for most interesting paladin order yet revealed. Yet I have to wonder how their mercilessness is defined, given their stated purpose is "to bring a swift end to conflicts". When the Bleak Walkers are unleashed, are their terms "surrender [under these harsh and non-negotiable terms] or die", or is it too late to even surrender if they are finally called to battle, with the mere threat of their presence used to coerce?

In my mind, that will always be Auric Ulvin. (If you'll pardon the reference to a semi-famous Civ IV mod...) That inspires a lot of optimism, though. Like the painterly style; the characters are distinct and you get a feel for their personality. Even though I'll probably end up using a custom portrait for my PC anyways.

This article is out right ridiculous. This guy only resolution is having more police/moderators to enforce civil behavior? Is that Germany '39? I would take a good close look on that guy, as he is prone to follow Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Mao road. "As it turns out, we have a way to prevent gangs of humans from acting like savage packs of animals. In fact, we've developed entire disciplines based around this goal over thousands of years." Yes, we developed a whole bunch of preventing disciplines. This guy claims they are effective, looking at the riots in Greece, USA, France, Russia, Poland etc. they are clearly not. Moderating comments is not a method of preventing hateful and uncivil comments, it's a way of dealing with them. A very bad way, because the same flaws apply to real life police and moderators. They are recruited from the same people that are prone to misbehave, so you have to have another group to control the controllers and so on. That's why we have corrupted cops, criminal cops and so on. That's why moderators are often the ones being attacked most often. So sum it up, this article is fascist beyond comprehension. Wow, that's a lot of butthurt over an article. With a side of Godwin's Law to boot! ...then again, that's really why I posted the article. I don't agree entirely with it -- though it makes some legitimate points, I think PrimeJunta has it right when he says social pressure is a much better solution, albeit one that will take longer. And yeah, noting what TrashMan said, I too reserve the right to be a jackhole when I feel people have it coming. Maybe that makes me no better than other trolls. I just figured watching people bitch and moan when they realize that a bunch of dudes in suits could take away the right to be a jackhole on the internet would be funny.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

[citation needed]

I don't need every farmer and merchant to comment on a Godlike's odd appearance, but race should be touched upon where appropriate. I'd love it if, say, a human supremacist group had racial slurs for every other race and a speech about "a traitor to your kind" for humans. At least some of these some of these reactions might be subtler, requiring multiple playthroughs -- an elven character might be civil, if cool, to a human, and only reveal he's actually a racist prick to a fellow elf. It encourages multiple playthroughs, to see the world through perspectives hidden from previous PCs

Heh. This ain't trolling. This is genetly giving a guy a bit of a ribbing. If we were trolling, trust me, things would be a lot uglier. Personally, I'm not directly interested in the exact "who's doing what," but I've always been a sucker for good devlogs, which would implicitly give that sort of information anyways.

In what sense it is any lesser crime than any other mentioned here? Slavery, one of the popular evil choices, implies a certain amount of rape -- even when the slave isn't explicitly sold into prostitution, there's a real chance they'll be taken advantage of if they're even somewhat attractive. And even if raping one's slaves is illegal, enforcing such laws is difficult at best, and when it's a slave's word against a free person, the slave's got pretty much no chance. Genocide as well, unless maybe the species is completely non-humanoid. It's hard to imagine someone brainwashed into treating a certain class of people as objects not taking advantage of their victims before slaughtering them, for the dead tell no tales. And yet, in both cases, because these consequences are abstracted away... I'm sure you all know that old saw. "One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."

Damn, you wrote the post I was planning to. Well, mostly. Just one thing to add. How actions are viewed should depend on context, such that an intelligent and pragmatic player should always be able to figure out the "smart" choice out of "good" and "evil" options. Take the old "accept reward or politely refuse" schtick. A poor peasant would view this as a kind deed, and the peasantry would love you for it... for what little that's worth. An idealistic nobleman might give you a greater reward than the offered gold. A wealthy merchant might file you under "sucker," and take advantage of your generosity by manipulating you into eliminating rivals for free with sad, half-true stories. And a foreign warrior, not used to the local culture, might read the refusal of the reward as an insult.

It's about time! The sexually ambiguous sofa demographic is sadly under-represented in modern gaming, and this is a brave step forward.[/selfdeprecating]

On the suggestions of genocide, I can't help but wonder how a small adventuring party is supposed to pull something like that off. Participate in or callously ignore, perhaps, but I somehow don't see the PC's party doing it unilaterally. Just... logistics, y'know?

This is actually my main problem with the whole discussion surrounding the incident. There's reasonable and good voices (people shouldn't behave that way), but there are people that are upset because a *artist* was attacked and how dare you insult someone *special*. I must agree with this point. Being an artist, even one as clearly skilled as Fish, does not give one a right to be a jackass. An artist shouldn't have to endure torment and mockery simply for trying to create art. But it's a damn shame nobody was there to drag Fish away from the computer before he did anything stupid.

I love offensive humor (see ), and I can shrug off trolls if necessary. But the childish insults and obscene threats that are so common among third rate trolls? Why would anyone who isn't utterly unfit for society think that counts as somehow funny? As for Phil Fish: he was being a jackhole, yeah. But let's be honest, he did what a lot of creative types have fantasized about doing, but thankfully do not. That doesn't make it right, to be clear, and having played Fez, I'm hoping he reconsiders on making a sequel, but... c'est la vie. Actions have consequences