Katarack21

Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist. There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word. It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith. You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another. Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control. It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender. Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube. Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case. I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it. But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters". Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s. It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game. That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to? That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters. Strong female characters are one of the driving facets about the Game of Thrones novels. If anything, the women in the books are *stronger* female characters, with more things to do and more people to do it to--this is especially notable with the Sand Snakes. The only female character in the books who displays typical markers of femininity is Sansa, and...well, that doesn't go well for her. What the ****? So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda? But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children? Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something? I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age. Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing. Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all. That's on top of the fact that modern archeology has shown that pre-Neolithic homo sapiens were quite a *bit* less patriarchal than used to be thought. Modern anthropology considers the division of labor/housekeeping along sex lines to have originated around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture brought an excess of stored food such that half the population *could* be kept out of food production without everybody starving to death. Honestly I think this is an area where having studied, in an academic setting, comparative cultural anthropology has done me some big favors. A *lot* of things people think of as universal human behaviors--like the men hunter/women gatherer division--simply isn't anywhere *close* to universal. That sounds like an interesting case study. I wonder what they hunt? Maybe their population is abundant/stable, and the prey generally not dangerous. They do seem to have iron weapons, and using dogs as a domestication practice changes things a bit. Obviously there must be no survival anxiety related to hunting hazards, or tribal warfare - the fact they are isolated would help there. Anyway, more broadly -If that was the case, what you say about the Neolithic - why would we be sexually dimorphic at all? Testosterone for example makes men less anxiety prone, and studies have shown women have lower pain tolerance. Oxytocin makes one more inclined to bond and be social. The absence of testosterone accelerates social and language development, and the presence of it accelerates systemic reasoning - special logic for example. Recent studies of personality metrics, show that all personality differences accounted for - there is around 10 percent overlap. That's quite a bit of psychological and behavioural differences. The Neolithic is too late for genetic evolution to have occurred. If there was no role specialisation in the paleolithic, where did all the biological differences come from? Primates? And why did they have no impact on stone age society? Agriculture certainly could have deepened gender roles - before industrialisation and machinery, it was pretty much dependant on male labour. In the same way the industrial revolution has minimised gender roles - there's still role diversity, large amounts of it, on aggregate (say nurses versus labourers, or engineers versus biochemists), but we live in safe times, with no fertility threat and little warfare - and a lot of labour can be machine assisted. I think a similar thing happened when we first started building cities, and even in the late stone age, where there was a deeper abundance and safety - you can see the goddess cults in the late paleolithic, and there's some very matriarchal accounts of the Babylonian era. 1) There's a lot of reasons that those physiological differences could have evolved, and because of the extent of those distinctions, their nature, and the way evolution works the vast majority of them are virtually guaranteed to pre-date the evolution of homo sapiens. Testosterone for example--and it's associated physiological distinctions--is a gender-hormone found in a wide variety of animals including *all* vertebrates, and probably evolved first among jawed fish many hundreds of millions of years ago. It's interesting to note that homo sapiens are *considerably* less sexually dimorphic than all the other great apes, so we've clearly evolved towards a *more* egalitarian biology. 2) Evolution *has* occurred just since the Neolithic; lactose tolerance among Norther Europeans and certain enzymes responsible for rice metabolism among East Asians are solid examples. Also note the Sama-Bajau, a sea-dwelling indigenous people of Southeast Asia who have used free-diving as their main form of sustenance for around 1,000 years and in just *that* time have evolved spleens half-again as large as that of other ethnic groups, allowing them to store oxygen-rich blood and then dump it into their bloodstream and thus dive for much longer periods.

There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender. Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube. Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case. I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it. But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters". Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s. It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game. That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to? That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters. Strong female characters are one of the driving facets about the Game of Thrones novels. If anything, the women in the books are *stronger* female characters, with more things to do and more people to do it to--this is especially notable with the Sand Snakes. The only female character in the books who displays typical markers of femininity is Sansa, and...well, that doesn't go well for her. What the ****? So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda? But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children? Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something? I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age. Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing. Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all. That's on top of the fact that modern archeology has shown that pre-Neolithic homo sapiens were quite a *bit* less patriarchal than used to be thought. Modern anthropology considers the division of labor/housekeeping along sex lines to have originated around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture brought an excess of stored food such that half the population *could* be kept out of food production without everybody starving to death. Honestly I think this is an area where having studied, in an academic setting, comparative cultural anthropology has done me some big favors. A *lot* of things people think of as universal human behaviors--like the men hunter/women gatherer division--simply isn't anywhere *close* to universal.

You really need help... You seem upset that one of the characters wasn't white - how does that make it an agenda? And which ugly women? The latest star wars Film was great and Rei and fynn (not sure how their names are spelt in the film) are very funny and just what the star wars films needed The treatment of luke for example, was completely out of character - dude tries to save his dark side dad, and turns around and tries to kill a child because he might get up to no good. No, actually, he doesn't. He thinks about it *for a moment*, and then he *chooses not to*. At that point Kylo wakes up, senses the thought, and attacks him. And Luke is *horrified* at himself for even having the thought.

What the ****? So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda? But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children? Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something?

I'm curious about Fulvano's Voyage myself. Is it not in, which would *really* suck, or are the locations in the game but not united by any sort of quest or theme, which would be a big missed opportunity?

You are free to dislike the game, but Obsidian is not responsible for whatever craziness exists in the world, both real and imagined. They are certainly not responsible for how you imagine a hypothetical group of people would have reacted had the game been different. To your specific criticism, in this world there are 5 male deities, 4 female deities, 1 deity with no identifiable gender and 1 twinned deity with a male aspect and female aspect. This mirrors many real world religions but you are, of course, free to be offended by any of it. What do you think is the is the problem with the above setup and how would you fix it? Most gods that you see and talk to in the game are female and berath almost exclusively uses Pallid knight form, ugliest or most hideous god is male, You mentioned Skaen earlier. You also meet Abydon, Galawain, Rymrgand and, of course, Eothas. In addition, Ondra would give Skaen a run for for his money in the ugliest god competition. You are seeing what you expect to see not what is there. Woedica's *entire body* is covered with fresh burns. She looks a lot like Freddy Kruger. Just sayin'...

4. The Huana: They're the locals who are traditionalists. Actually, that's about the extent of what I know about them. Oh, they don't want to be taken over or exploited or raided. But beyond that, I'm not really sure what they want yet. I probably haven't talked to enough Huana to get a firm grasp on what they want. The Huana don't know what they want. That's part of the problem; they're not *nearly* as unified as the front that they give off to outsiders. The RDC, the VTC, and the Principi tend to treat the Huana as a single whole, but in reality it's a thousand different tribes with their own cultures, traditions, and governments--not all of whom agree with each other. If they get conquered or exploited, it will be due in part to their inability to truly unite into a single nation.

Actually found myself dissapointed with Frostseeker as an assassin/cipher. Not particularly impressive on an assassinate. I've had better luck using Serafen's mortar.

I'm thinking of going for a Sage (Monk/Wizard) multiclass for the Arcane Reflection spells in order to protect my Nalpazca's drug benefits. Could also wear one of those rings with "Suppress Affliction", I suppose. Suppress affliction rings won't help, they give you the level 1 priest spell which is a spell used reactively to counter afflictions, and I don't think it works on arcane dampener. Also doesn't seem to work on charmed/dominated/etc, which *really* ****ed my world up.

According to google translate it's filipino for "partner." If theres a connection I dont see it. The name is Filipino but the weapon is Aztec in design, and the cultures of the game are kinda Maori. thought the sword was samoan in origin? well, anyway... my 2 playthroughs first i boarded and got it, then second go, i sunk her... still got it. so, i'm two for two. does that just mean i'm lucky?Macuahuitl are actually Mesoamerican in origin; that is, Aztec, Mayan, etc. There is a very similar weapon, the leiomano, that is Polynesian in origin--but it uses shark teeth instead of knapped obsidian for blades. That's actually fascinating, aesthetically this is one of my favorite melee weapons so I was happy to see it included in the game. Even if the influences are pulled from all over I think the character of Fyrgist and Kapana taga is a fun little Easter Egg It's really quite cool, and I'm real glad Aarik worked as hard as he did to get the model in. Macuahuitl are *not* a weapon commonly seen in CRPG's, and I think it's badass that it's here.

Ahhh... I murdered all of the brainwashed zombies. ...yeah, me too. **** the undead.

According to google translate it's filipino for "partner." If theres a connection I dont see it. The name is Filipino but the weapon is Aztec in design, and the cultures of the game are kinda Maori. thought the sword was samoan in origin? well, anyway... my 2 playthroughs first i boarded and got it, then second go, i sunk her... still got it. so, i'm two for two. does that just mean i'm lucky? Macuahuitl are actually Mesoamerican in origin; that is, Aztec, Mayan, etc. There is a very similar weapon, the leiomano, that is Polynesian in origin--but it uses shark teeth instead of knapped obsidian for blades.

They still wanted to leave a window for themselves to have events trigger when you leave a building. Not to mention all the people on the street with quests that call out to you when you walk past.

Xoti can go *real* dark and almost straight crazy if you push her that way on her personal quest. I for one thought that she was going to empower Eothas with the harvested souls in her lantern, but...well, it doesn't go down quite like that.

That is a matter of opinion. Aeldys does that so she can have a base of operations nobody can touch and the Principi can raid throughout the Deadfire with total impunity forever. Not great, IMHO.

It's really not, though I honestly don't care whether you think it is or not. It *really* is. What it comes down to is you thinking "I didn't experience this, so I don't believe you did either, and if you said you did you must be lying." You'd rather think that a whole chunk of PoE players decided to *make up their experiences en masse* just because they don't like a mechanic? That people are just *straight bull****ting* about their gameplay, just so you don't have to accept that people who are not you experienced different reactions from you and this affected their gameplay differently from you. It's silly, it's illogical, it's actually *insulting* to a whole group of people and it does no good other than reassure you that *your* experience is the only *real* experience of Pillars of Eternity.

Sigh. I've no doubt people dislike the resting system. I didn't say otherwise. I said I doubt any significant number of people actually went back to town regularly during dungeons to resupply in PoE1. Regardless of whether *you* feel that it was an actual problem experienced by a significant group of people, *Obsidian* believes that it was. They apparently got enough reports back from enough people playing the game to believe that it's a legitimate problem that they needed to address. That feedback and the ensuing belief from Obsidian that it's a problem they needed to address is the whole reason hardtack is as commonly available as it is, so you don't have to slog back to town constantly. It's honestly frankly ridiculous that you'd rather believe people are straight making things up about their experiences in a video game than just accept that some people play very differently from you.

That balcony actually does have things in it--a pet and a trainer. You get that cutscene at the gullet *once*--the first time you go there, never again. Personally I enjoyed the small interactions in Neketaka and on the boat--they didn't happen very often, and they added flavor to the events. You feel like your crew actually exists, is doing stuff when you're not there--your crew is fishing while your sailing around, they go out for shore leave while your in port, etc. As far as older games are concerned, every time you leave a district to go somewhere else in BG2 there's a chance you'll be randomly attacked by thugs, assassins, or (in the wilderness areas) random monsters. Every. Single. Time. BG1 had attacking assassin cut-scenes in *EVERY NEW CITY*. You get randomly assaulted when you rest, too. There are far more interuptions like this in older games. Not to mention goddamned Noober.

1) The gods are not omniscient; they know no more than the Engwithans did, and in some cases it appears even less then that. Just because they say something doesn't make it true. 2) Hylea may in many ways be the most benevolent of the gods we talk to, but that doesn't actually make her benevolent. The gods are soul-constructs that are simply incapable of acting outside of their designated functions; Hylea is "motherly" because that's how she was programmed and she can't be otherwise. It's worth noting that at one point one of the god's points out that Eothas always "cared more for the Kith than any of us" and nobody corrects them--and Eothas is the one who murdered *THOUSANDS* of kith on his march across the Deadfire. And Hylea is just as willing to eat her childrens souls as any of the other gods, as you find out during the conversation with the gods after Ashen Maw.

Big junk mode incoming? Lol, knowing how people are I think it's safe to say that if devs won't do it officially sooner or later there'll be a nude mod floating around on Nexus.

Thanks for the information, it's nice to understand the behind-the-scenes of what happened. But...y'know....y'all are never gonna live this down. Naked Mirke will be famous *forever*.

Can you still buy from Arkemyr's shop once you leave with Fassina?

*video* I believe you misunderstood me; I wish to ignore the *patch* and thus keep this feature.