Yonjuro

No. What's criminal may or may not be immoral, and what's wrong is a matter of perspective. Given the state of the old city, I'd say that the Huana have a pretty broad definition of what's wrong, and yet none of their own behavior meets the standard. In some ways the RDC is a breath of fresh air. They don't say their targets deserve death, just that it's expedient to grant it. Suppose for the sake of argument that the criminal has done something immoral according to your own moral code. Also suppose that the political assassination target has done nothing wrong, also according to your own personal moral code. Is the RDC still a breath of fresh air? And of course we had a trial to determine their guilt, right? We confirmed that they were criminals who'd done something immoral? (And, further, determined that those immoral things warranted death? Because, I assume that we don't think stealing a cookie warrants death, as immoral as it may be.) No, we didn't, but that wasn't the question. The question was, if one thing was moral and the other was not according to your own moral code. You get to decide the morality in this question. If you are trying to play a good character, you wouldn't take the bounties you didn't agree with. Presumably, if Maia's target was offered to you as a bounty, that would be one you wouldn't take because, to use your example, he didn't even steal a cookie, as far as we know. Certainly some of the bounties cross a line; Maia's mission clearly did.

Yes, and back in those days, in order for somebody to be offended, you actually had to say something offensive. It was so much work thinking up offensive things all the time! Luckily, it's much easier now.

Pillars XXXVI: "Oh my Gaun, they killed Concelhaut!" "You bastards!"

While they do want the practice to stop, they want crookspur island as a naval base a whole lot more... Yes, that is what I meant by politically expedient - they got you do the dirty work and then took over the island.

If every corpse in old town, and every outstanding bounty besides were vicious fiends, and every one in the RDC's sights was wholly blameless? In that world the RDC would be doing evil for a good cause. While those carrying out the Huana law would be doing good, but for a neutral cause. Sure, but just to be clear, in my example, I was specifically talking about Maia's political assassination. That specific case was, according to me, morally problematic (moreso than the majority of bounties by any of the factions) even if you otherwise think that the RDC had good intentions overall. (And, it is easy to argue that they are doing some good things in the region). It may be, but your character is making choices about how to act and may have become an accomplice (in a very real and legally binding sense) to a crime. I think that is what the OP was getting at with the title of this thread.

You're right - I suppose the thinking was that the pirates are assumed to be doing a lot of bad stuff by default and so there needed to be some good reason to make them an option. Note that the RDC will also ask you to kill the slavers (but, if you press them, you learn that they knew about the slave trade for a long time and are only doing something about it now because it is politically expedient).

Maia's mission was an assassination of an effective leader who was politically inconvenient. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. That isn't exactly the same as killing someone for criminal behavior. You can certainly argue that killing is not the right penalty for a criminal, but one of those seems worse than the other. No? If we start talking viewpoints, how about this one: Maia's simply carrying out her orders to build a better Rauatai, while the bounty hunter chooses to murder people so long as he gets paid for it. "I was just following orders" didn't work as a defense at Nuremberg. Should it have? There are, of course, multiple ways to look at every situation. Not all of them are equivalent and you have to make choices about how to act in the world. You stated several viewpoints in your post. Do you have an opinion about any of them?

No. What's criminal may or may not be immoral, and what's wrong is a matter of perspective. Given the state of the old city, I'd say that the Huana have a pretty broad definition of what's wrong, and yet none of their own behavior meets the standard. In some ways the RDC is a breath of fresh air. They don't say their targets deserve death, just that it's expedient to grant it. Suppose for the sake of argument that the criminal has done something immoral according to your own moral code. Also suppose that the political assassination target has done nothing wrong, also according to your own personal moral code. Is the RDC still a breath of fresh air?

Maia's mission was an assassination of an effective leader who was politically inconvenient. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. That isn't exactly the same as killing someone for criminal behavior. You can certainly argue that killing is not the right penalty for a criminal, but one of those seems worse than the other. No? I'm not taking the bounty because I want to right wrongs and make the world just. Fair enough, but if you had a choice of two jobs that pay the same and you can only take one of the two. One of them is to kill a killer who will kill again and the other is to kill an innocent person who has done nothing wrong but is seen as political rival by the person attempting to hire you. Do you see a moral difference between these two choices or would you just flip a coin?

What is your character's perception score? I've been using Maia to detect traps -

Spoilers ahead. Maia's mission was an assassination of an effective leader who was politically inconvenient. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. That isn't exactly the same as killing someone for criminal behavior. You can certainly argue that killing is not the right penalty for a criminal, but one of those seems worse than the other. No?

Do you play the game in english or with a localization? I have heard that some of the translations have problems. I play a female character in english and havent noticed weird things, but im a man so its possible im just blind to those because of it. Je joue en français. Mais tous les sons sont en anglais, donc cela ne change rien. Je ne parle pas de mauvaise traduction ou je ne sais quoi. Je parle d'interactions sociales, comme quelqu'un qui me tape le dos, comme si j'étais sa compagne de beuverie. Je suis une femme et non... juste, non. Il me semble qu'Edèr (entre autres) fait souvent ça. Et je déteste. Comme il dit lui-même au début de l'aventure : il n'est qu'un "pauvre fermier qui suit (aveuglément) la Gardienne et prend les coups à sa place". Ce n'est pas pour que lui m'en colle. Et puis, c'est déplacé. I play in French. But all the audio are in English, so it does not matter. I'm not just talking about a bad translation or whatever here. I'm talking about social interactions like someone who hits my back, as if I were his drinking buddy. I am a woman and it's a no-no. Edèr often does that. I hate it. As he says at the beginning of the adventure: he is a "poor" farmer who follows (blindly) the Watcher and takes the blows in her place. And then he slaps me (the back, the arm...) ? No, it's out of place. I think you may be projecting certain cultural assumptions about gender norms onto a game that does not share those assumptions. I've got to say, as a man, that I'm totally comfortable in that kind of low-key roughhousing and physical camaraderie with my female friends - and that's not at all unusual where I'm from (or, incidentally, in California, where Obsidian is located). Obviously you see things differently, which is fine, but you shouldn't expect gender reactivity to social norms that don't exist in either the setting the story is taking place in or the culture the writers mostly come from. Yes, and female NPCs do that too. The head of the RDC faction claps you on the shoulder with her prosthetic hand which several of your companions find amusing. That's just how this world works.

One thing? Your position is that the only thing the game does right is graphics? I said "one thing" not to be confused with "only one thing" The statement was to be taken as a broad/loose general observation and not literal or provocation. Yes, but you also said the other two lines quoted above. If you intended to say that graphics was one of many things the game does well, it would have been relevant to mention it in your initial post. I think you already knew that, but in case you didn't, now you know.

It's a known problem that POTD is too easy. The next patch will be addressing it.

You're not the only one - this was a fairly stable release. I think I had one crash and one minor pathing bug in my first playthrough (and maybe some minor things that I didn't notice) but overall, no real problems. It makes sense that people who have had game breaking bugs would have more to say because they are the ones who need to get things fixed.

So, slash lash can save you cash and it leaves a nasty gash when you bash?

That's right. That is what the OP meant. You understood correctly and so, the usage was sufficient for you to understand. That is how language actually works. Recently, some people in universities, who should be educated enough to know better, have mistakenly thought they could control how others speak. It won't work, so you may just wish to ignore it. "Triggered" will mean whatever it ends up meaning based on usage - those who are triggered by that fact will be in for a rough time as it is just how language works. They will become even more triggered when newly born children begin to acquire language and learn a meaning of 'triggered' that has nothing to do with the accepted definition but is, instead, consistent with how people actually speak. It's best not to be triggered by any of this.

One of the very few real 'rules' of language, almost like a law of nature, is that words derive their meanings from usage. "Triggered" will mean whatever people have in mind when they use it. You are free to attempt to police language use but it will only frustrate you.

Opinions can clearly differ, and that's fine, but I would be surprised if a majority of people would put "ME2" and "better" in the same sentence. I thought the cover shooter gameplay was fun but the story was a steaming pile of thresher maw excrement. Again, opinions may differ, but I thought the writing for ME2 was ridiculously bad (partly because, as you mentioned, they ignored everything that happened in the first game). I didn't bother to finish it and that was the end of ME for me.

Do you play the game in english or with a localization? I have heard that some of the translations have problems. I play a female character in english and havent noticed weird things, but im a man so its possible im just blind to those because of it. I play in English and I notice a few times I get referenced to as a man, particularly by npc comments. My chanter gets "sing us a song, brother" when going by. Where were you?

To the extent that abducting an orlan baby to avert her sacrifice, bringing her to your castle and then later to your pirate ship can be described as 'realism', it is a good thing about the decisions you make in PoE 1&2. All solutions are imperfect and there are tradeoffs to consider. can't recall atm, but was there an honest conversation reply that went something like... "you're lucky i just happened by, if i hadn't been strolling by just now... your chieftain would be slurping vela soul tonic right now. i doubt abandoning her to you would be a kindness." or some-such? It may have been. It was a while ago. I just remember going outside and having Vela's negligent relative attacking without much provocation. Something like:"I was trying to keep her safe" , "Well, die scum", "uh, wut?" Thanks. It seemed to fit once I chose my forum name.

In a lot of traditional staff fighting styles, you don't hold it in the middle specifically to take advantage of the length of the staff. In the PoE universe they went with that style rather than the one that you are thinking of (often done with a tapered staff for speed which limits the ability to change grips). Neither style is incorrect, per se.

To the extent that abducting an orlan baby to avert her sacrifice, bringing her to your castle and then later to your pirate ship can be described as 'realism', it is a good thing about the decisions you make in PoE 1&2. All solutions are imperfect and there are tradeoffs to consider.

That fits. It's a generalization of Judge, Jury and Executioner. Except it's Family Court judge, Child Protective Services, and Foster Parent in a world that doesn't officially have these things.

Keeping her was the best and only choice. In my game, when I left the house, her "good" brother appeared and we ended up fighting. He and his people didn't seem to care about the fact that I had a baby in my arms. One of them even cast Plague of Insects. Trust me, she is safer in a pirate ship than among people that do things like that. Yes! And, she gets to be a pirate! In her eyes, only then are you truly a paragon of virtue.