Yonjuro

Do you know (approximately) what fraction of the lines are triggering in the game? In my playthrough, most of the companions had no new questions I could ask them after the first set. I did get a few more interactions at different points, but it was a small number. well..I know somewhere on the spoiler section , someone posted a Vid of all missing dialogues with companions. I didn't watch it..since I didn't wanna spoil myself . But sorry..I wouldn't know how much is missing . can see some in here (beware spoilers) : https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100041-official-characters-and-romance-thread-spoiler-version-part-two/page-14 Thanks. I'm not not going to watch it either - for the same reason. It sounds like we aren't seeing everything though.

Yes. In fact, there is proof of the reverse - you can make both male and female characters with any combination of attributes and background. That's a gameplay abstraction to avoid the old "-4 Str" arguments. Men are quite clearly stronger than women for all of the kith races we've seen because sexual dimorphism is on full display and the males are noticeably larger than the females - this would directly translate to increased physical strength, longer reach, etc. It's silly to assume that the two sexes possess equal physical strength, on average, unless there's fluff somewhere that states that females have increased muscle fiber density or something. And even then, they'd still be at a practical disadvantage because shorter limbs would result in reduced leverage, even if their muscles were just as strong despite being smaller. Gameplay abstractions are just that - abstractions. Attributes themselves in Pillars are explicitly abstractions. Supposedly a Wizard with 18 Might is just really, like... mentally powerful or whatever, not a Duke of Swoletown. Unfortunately, in-game crunch doesn't line up with established fluff, because every single Might check I have ever seen in either game has been a straight up "use your muscles to do things" check. It results in unintentionally absurd interactions where a three foot tall Orlan can lift a presumably ~6 foot tall human off the ground, by their throat, and shake them like a rag doll in a dialogue option. Well which is it? You said one gender is clearly stronger than the other in spite of the abstractions and then you pointed out that the in-game might checks that contradicted what you just said. It's fine that you think it's absurd, but that's how the game world works.

Surely your view is that of a foreigner too? The innocent Roparu being tortured for a crime he didn't commit voiced his opinion and he disagrees with you, but perhaps he doesn't represent the majority. Would you explain his culture to him in the way you are explaining it to me? Seriously, does he just not understand how un-oppressed he is or are you excusing the inexcusable because you don't think cultures can be interfered with? Yes, that is what I was referring to when I said there were people complaining that they weren't segregated from the Roparu. There are also people of different castes in the house working together and getting along well. Should they be forcibly re-segregated because their culture demands it? Just to be clear, I am not saying that your opinion is wrong, but you seem to be defending some actions that are indefensible because of a well intentioned belief about the sanctity of cultures. Or, am I misunderstanding your point?

Yes. In fact, there is proof of the reverse - you can make both male and female characters with any combination of attributes and background.

For a minimal combat run, you can probably sneak by the panthers and finish the quest (that is, find the notes in the dungeon) without fighting them. Aloth is resourceful enough to handle things on his own.

Spoliers ahead. Actually, Arkemyr's is not home initally. The best approach to rob him is non-violent one. And it starts with you going in through the window of the second floor of his shop (The Dark Cupboard) and stealing his robes from his room up top. After robbing his vault and giving the tablet to one of those women an imp sends a message that Arkemyr has returned and sends you an invite - that progresses into a quest about the observatory. Thanks for the tip. I was wondering if there might be some sort of way to get from the store to his house, but I forgot to go upstairs to take a look-see. And, you can sneak in to the lower level from the bathouse.

In PoE1, you would be locked into a faction when you accepted the third quest from them and other factions would attack you. A lot of people complained that they didn't realize they would be locked in at that point. Obsidian is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Though, maybe there is a middle ground that would satisfy more people - have the lock in but make it more obvious when it would happen.

I'd rather leave them alone and let them reform themselves, it seems inevitable anyway. And, btw, that bad situation in the Gullet can be perfectly solved by Huana themselves, if you convince the prince. Leaving the situation to be resolved by Rauataians only leads to them razing the whole district without solving any actual underlying problems. Fair enough, but we also see a Huana leader attempting to torture a confession out of an innocent Roparu. The Roparu are screwed in several ways in the Huana culture, not just the problems in the Gullet. On the other hand, you have the 'long house' where all of the Huana classes are treated equally. That was reason for my question. It is still consistent to believe that the Huana need to sort out their own problems, but let's not ignore that a large segment of their population is oppressed badly under their own rule and are treated more fairly by the Rauitai. The worst thing that seems to be happening in the Long House is that some of the upper class Huana are resentful that they aren't segregated from the Roparu and that isn't even the majority opinion. Here's another way to look at it, if you view the upper class Huana and the Roparu as two different peoples, which is a reasonable way to view things, why is it ok for one to oppress the other?

Overall, the game worked for me. I was drawn in and really enjoyed the game play, the characters and the setting. Several people have commented that the main quest is a little disconnected from the drama surrounding the factions and I agree. When you have an emergency that large, you might expect that the power politics of the region could be set aside, at least temporarily. I suppose I was willing to suspend my disbelief about that issue because I liked the rest of the game.

Do you know (approximately) what fraction of the lines are triggering in the game? In my playthrough, most of the companions had no new questions I could ask them after the first set. I did get a few more interactions at different points, but it was a small number.

The reason for the question is that we may have gotten fewer companion interactions because the voice acting makes each one more expensive. Maybe there is a way to make this clearer.

Wow, it sure is quiet in here. Wait, are those crickets?

I liked the game overall but feel that the companions ran out of things to say too early. Would the game be improved by adding more companion dialog? If you think it would, would that still be the case if the interactions were not voiced? Edit: The reason I am asking is that we may have gotten fewer companion interactions because the voice acting makes each of them more expensive. Some people have also pointed out that we may not be seeing all of them due to bugs. That's possible too.

This is a fantasy game. You can view it as speculative fiction. In this world male and female characters have exactly the same range of physical and mental attributes and backgrounds - you can verify this for yourself by creating any male character you like and then convince yourself that you can also create a female character with the exact same characteristics. The converse is also true. The extent to which any of the above is or should be the same in our own world is left as an exercise to the reader but you shouldn't necessarily expect this fantasy setting to mirror whatever you have experienced in your own life or to mirror the experiences of real people generally.

My answer will still be no. I've explained why in earlier posts - they're pro-military, have no respect for foreign cultures, assimilate natives whether they want it or not, aggressively conquer lands. Do you agree that the Roparu are better off under the Rauitai than the Huana?

Hey, I don't like them much either, but keep in mind that all cultures evolved by adapting to the environment. It is most likely that this caste system came into place for the Huana to survive after the cataclysm destroyed their old nation. So it is not beyond belief to imagine it can evolve again by being influenced by foreign factors. But I'm for gentle fusing approach, not for forceful militaristic approach. If the Rauitai weren't engaging in political assassination, would that make them the best faction for you? I ask that question because they don't seem to be an oppressive regime for the most part. Certainly the Roparu will do better under the Rauitai. The ruling class will do better under the Huana in the short term, but might even do better under the Rauitai in the long term (other than the royal family who live like, well, royalty).

Why do you say that? Surely you can invent two fictional cultures one of which is inferior to another in any way you care to measure, yes? Given two cultures, we could argue about the measurements and how to weight their combination - that part is subjective - but if we agree on what to measure, then there is an objective truth about how two cultures stack up w.r.t. a measurement. I wouldn't say that one culture can be inferior to another, but one can definitely be preferable to another. You can't objectively start "ranking" cultures, but I doubt many would prefer living in the Huana culture over the Vailian or Rauataian one. Also, cultures always change, evolve and disappear, though the hard core usually remains the same. Huana culture would probably change immensely if they're unified under Ukaizo and a single queen for the first time in millenia, and the Principi are only Vailian in name anymore, Furrante literally being "the last marcesco". Hell, in our history an argument during the confederate war was that the north was trying to destroy southern culture, and the romans considered slavery a key part of their culture. Considering how deeply the caste system is ingrained in them, however, I don't see them stepping away from it unless an outside force provides opportunity to do so, as seen on Sayuka. It's also virtually impossible to stamp out a culture completely in that day and age, especially when willingly incorporating its people among your own: the Roman empire is an excellent example of how cultures got incorporated into the empire in various ways, often to the chagrin of so-called "Pure Romans". Meanwhile, the british empire never seriously attempted to make the indian "territories" british as they only needed to be profitable, which is arguably worse. I think we mostly agree. It sounds you object to the word "inferior," which I can understand.

And that is bad? It's actually terrifying to know how much of Earth's rich culture and history was lost through the ages because of wars and conquest, and only now is being rediscovered. And I wouldn't wish any nation to forget itself, because it seems very important for us human beings. Just look how even the smallest minorities fight for their right to have a sense of identity - most of the modern conflicts rage on today from denying people that right. Well, there are examples of people willing to kill to maintain a culture, certainly, but most of the violent conflict in the world today is one group of thugs trying to best another group of thugs - not oppressed cultures trying to maintain their beautiful traditions against oppressors.

The Huana caste system is certainly terrifyingly regressive and lacks anything even remotely resembling humanity, but that's just me, I guess, being condescending and conceited to a culture that arbitrarily sentences entire populations to exploitation and starvation. Exactly. The Huana aren't just backward, their culture is toxic for their lowest caste. We witness a leader attempting to torture a confession from an innocent lower caste person so he can execute him for a crime he didn't commit. The lower classes give everything they have to the leaders who give them back crumbs (if there are any crumbs left over to give back). Obsidian is trying to dismantle the Noble Savage myth with the Huana. All of the factions have major upsides and major downsides - the question is what do you (the player) value and what are willing to overlook to get what you value.

Why do you say that? Surely you can invent two fictional cultures one of which is inferior to another in any way you care to measure, yes? Given two cultures, we could argue about the measurements and how to weight their combination - that part is subjective - but if we agree on what to measure, then there is an objective truth about how two cultures stack up w.r.t. a measurement.

Umm, "nobody is perfect so all of them must die" is pretty close to pure evil. That exact attitude is what has motivated many real world atrocities; someone has looked at the world as it is, found it wanting, and self-appointed as judge, jury and executioner - always with the purest of intentions. Nobody is perfect? These factions aren't Justin Bieber fans or love pineapple on pizza kind of evil. It doesn't matter if you ignore all of them or not, they'll all want to attack you once you reach the end unless you've taken their side, it just depends on certain calculations which gets to do the honor. If the game allowed, they would all line up and attack you if they could. So So, if you decide to preemptively murder everybody in all of the factions, you can't claim any kind of moral high ground. You've become the worse than all of them (though you do get some points back for recognizing that pineapple doesn't belong on pizza, so there's that at least).

Of course not. You make the choices appropriate for your character, whether your character is good, bad or anything in between. And if you want to explore different choices the next time, you make a different character. It's all about the player deciding how to play. Put in "difficult" choices for those who want them and "easy" choices for folks who want those. Is it really any skin off the writers' noses if I think their moral quandaries are silly and just want to get on with smiting evil? Well, it's ok with me if you want to smite evil (in fact, I encourage it), but the writers had an idea of the story they wanted to tell. You're certainly free to criticize their choice. Just to bring this home, how would you change the game so that it worked the way you want - add two more factions?

Several people have said that. Why is it a problem to discuss an idea, even a bad idea (or, maybe, especially a bad idea)? Seriously, have you read the arguments against the points of the OP? What are you concerned about? Do you think that people can't understand an argument and come to a reasonable conclusion? Do you not understand that censorship has the opposite effect from what you want it to have? Do you just not understand that if you can censor someone else, then others will censor you?

What?!?? Oh, crap, I've been doing feminism all wrong ....

It's better to have the discussion. Shutting it down makes it look like you don't have an argument and this one wasn't even difficult. I don't know if the OP is a troll or a misogynist or none of the above but we can let the arguments stand or fall based on the facts. I agree with you that ignoring this type of conversation lets it fester and just creates more hatred/frustration. That being said, the OP has little to no argument, so I don't see the point in engaging it with any semblance of dialogue. You don't negotiate with cancer, you treat it. Hating half the population because of its gender is a cancer. The OP answered my question and I responded to the answer. Anyone reading this thread can see the discussion and judge the merits of both arguments. If you believe that the OP has little to no argument, then you should want him to expose his weak argument to everyone. If you are going to label someone else's opinion as cancer and declare it off limits, it will sound, to a lot of people, like you think that opinion is too dangerous, i.e., that it is so solid that you don't have an argument against it. That is both a terrible strategy (for reasons I can elaborate on, if you wish) and an invitation to others to shut down your opinion when they have the power to do so. This is the same logic that drives CNN to give climate scientists and climate change deniers equal time on their broadcast. Some arguments are undeservedly elevated and legitimized simply by engaging with them: by extending the same platform to a flat-earther that you extend to an astrophysicist, you risk amplifying the former rather than diminishing it. Not all opinions are created equal, and OP's isn't exactly new. We've HAD this debate - there's no need to have it again every time someone washes ashore from 8chan with cultural provocation and division-mongering on their agenda. It isn't the same as giving equal time. You don't need to give equal time, you can ask for the argument and dismantle it with facts taking however much time you need. You don't need to engage in the discussion if you don't want to but censoring ideas you disagree with is a bad idea. The same rules that allow you to censor others allow others to censor you when they are in power (if, hypothetically speaking, you are on the political left in the US, you should be acutely aware of why that is a bad idea at the present time). In addition, if you force someone to shut up, you make it look like you can't come up with an argument. That's probably because you have never learned to argue and, if you censor everybody you disagree with, you never will.