Katarack21

I've got 826.

Honestly I see no reason PotD wouldn't be that high. I mean, it's in *third place*. Classic and Veteran are both rated more highly, Relaxed and Story more low, and for this forum that seems like a legit placement for PotD.

Nobody is "glossing over" the atrocities that were committed. I have made it clear that the European colonization was a great evil. This thread began because you see an example of atrocities committed by the Huana and instead of understanding the realistic depiction of an indigenous culture capable of doing bad things (ie, racism towards a less advanced culture) you see only a "but they do it too" simple morality play. You don't understand the point and the nuance. Yes, the colonization of America by European whites and colonization in general brings great evil--but that doesn't mean that the native cultures are somehow incapable of displaying the same basic cultural trappings. The Huana are capable of being racist towards less advanced cultures; this doesn't make the statement or depiction of this some form of moral equivalency, it's just a basic fact that the Huana *are capable of being racist*. Showing this makes the Huana a more nuanced, more realistic depiction of a cultural group. To deny that the Huana are capable of being racist--or that they can oppress other cultural groups or do any other evil act--would be to remove complexity and nuance from the depiction of an indigenous culture. Cultures are complex and many-faceted. The actions of the European colonists brought great evil, but they were not actions taken in a vacuum against a homogeneous group of innocent victims. It's more complex then that. So to is it with the Huana; while shown in a sympathetic light, they are *not* shown as being a homogeneous group of innocent victims, but rather are a fractious alliance of various tribes with their own internal conflicts in addition to the greater conflict with the colonizers. They have their own flaws, their own blind spots, and their own failings--much like every culture in the world does. One of these blind spots is that they treat and regard the Lagufeth as animals, rather than as sentient beings with their own rights. They don't consider it "cannibalism" to eat a Lagufeth, as it's just an animal to them, not a person. How you choose to deal with that fact, both in game and out of game, is up to you. Somewhere on Deadfire you'll probably encounter Orlan slaves, too, I have no doubt--since "slave" is a background you can take if you choose Deadfire Archipelago as your origin. And there will *definitely* be racism against Orlans. Some of that will no doubt come from the direction of the Huana, and you'll have to deal with that, too. I don't know that this is going to be the game for you if you can't accept the fact that the Huana are occasionally going to be shown in a bad light. They will do bad things, like slavery and oppression and murder. They definitely will not be shown as purely innocent until the Vailians showed up and started exploiting them all because Obsidian is aiming for realism, not a fairy tale of evil empire vs exploited victims. For what it's worth, I'm planning on playing on the side of the Huana, not least of all because my main char is an escaped slave from the Deadfire Archipelago and he's just not down with exploiting weaker people for ones own benefit. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with the Huana in every case; my char will fight oppression and most especially slavery wherever he sees it, whoever practices it.

Things I Learned Studying Cultural Anthropology: A List of Basic Information 1) There were literally thousands of unique Native American cultures. "Native Americans" is not a culture, it's an ethnic grouping. You can't compare the cultural experience of the Haida with the Navajo or the Iroquois, etc. You have to approach each culture independently and examine them for the unique expressions found within that culture. 2) No reputable anthropologist denies the horrible atrocities committed by the European colonizers. None deny the lopsided devastation that occurred. What is denied is that the European culture was somehow unique in their institutions or in their achievements. Slavery is just one example. The Haida were basically West Coast Native American vikings; they raided other tribes, took slaves, had *generational inherited slavery*, traded slaves with other tribes, had sex slaves, all before the European contact ever occurred. That's one example of a greatly evil cultural institution--chattel slavery--developed independently between these two cultures. Everything found within European culture can be found within a Native American tribal culture--that includes things qualified as good, like metal working and agriculture and religion, and things qualified as evil like slavery and rape and racism. 3) Cultures are not morally superior or inferior to each other. Cultures just are. Each culture generally contains the same components and traits, in various degrees and in different mixtures relative to each other. How those traits are expressed varies wildly. Addendum: Columbus was a greedy murderer and child rapist who made his fortune selling nine year olds into sexual slavery. His existence has nothing to do with this discussion, however.

YEAH! **** the Chantry! **** the Templars!

Look. I'm an anthropologist in real life. I know a great deal about the cultures of pre-Columbian Native Americans. A *number* of Native American tribes practiced various forms of slavery prior to the presence of European colonization. There's nothing "racist" about this, it's a literal fact. The Iroquois, the Creek, and the Comanche are probably the most well known, but there's also the Pawnee, the Klamanth, the Haida, the Yurok, and various others. The Haida were one of the few Native American tribes that didn't just take slaves from defeated tribes, but actively engaged in slave *trading* prior to Columbian contact. You have a *really* ****ed up concept of who and what the Native American tribes were. Not a one of them was some pure innocent cultural group who were suddenly victimized by the evil white guy. They were people, who had developed various cultural institutions over the course of thousands of years. They had farming, they had murder, they had metal working, they had slavery, they had marriage, they had rape. Some tribes had fluid gender roles, some tribes had *really* strict and immovable gender roles. All of these things and more can be found in various different tribes in various different places at various different times. Deadfire isn't doing "moral equivalence" except insofar as they are showing the Hauna as being capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else, and that *is* actually realistic. Real cultures all have the same *potential* for good and evil. There are no "good guys" in life. You accept that reality is nuanced and cultures do not have "moral superiority" over each other, or you remain in a childlike state with a narrow view of morality, perpetrating stereotypes and inaccurate historical information. Once again, for the people in the back: cultures are *equal*, not inferior or superior, and the many thousands of Native American tribes--just like the Huana in the game--were fully capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else. Colonialism is a great evil, yes. But the cultural group being colonized are always themselves *capable of the same things*. A victim can be a victimizer in another circumstance and another time. Just because the Huana are being victimized by the Vailians does not mean they cannot themselves victimize others. That's reality. As an anthropologist I think they've done a great job of showing the Huana in a sympathetic but realistic light where they are not shown as "noble savages" but as a real culture with all the complex mixture of good and bad that involves. I enjoy the fact that they *do not* shy away from depicting the Huana as capable of oppression within their own cultural system, or capable of racism against other groups, or any of that. It's *real*. It's *complex*. It forces you to make *hard* moral choices. That's a *good thing*.

I play on normal most of the time. If it's a game I really like, I might try to get through a game on hard difficulty. I rarely go beyond that; I'm easily frustrated by death/reloading and cannot *stand* to redo the same battle twenty times in a row. I'm a veteran of IE games, but I'm not very tactical minded; these games are actually not easy for me despite being very much my favorite style.

They aren't being depicted as "the same as" they're colonizers. They are depicted as a unique culture that is undergoing severe challenges, in part at the hands of colonialists, and full of individuals who are dealing with those changes and challenges in different ways. They are *ALSO* depicted as exactly the same type of sentient individuals as their colonizers--ie, they are Kith. The Huana are fully capable of the same range of good and evil as the Vailians, including slavery and including oppression. Just because the Huana are undergoing these issues from colonization doesn't mean they can't also themselves oppress other species and races. Just because the Huana are the victims of racism doesn't mean the Huana themselves are incapable of being racist towards others. Things are nuanced. Everybody is just people, and all people and all cultures are capable of the same degree of both good and bad because *they're just people*. That is true moral complexity; when they are not shown as being "the same as" but are shown as being "capable of all the same range of both good and evil". This is also reflected in the real world. Native Americans had developed systems of slavery *before the white man got here*. The Indian subcontinent had the Dalit *before the British ever showed up*. Each culture has it's unique attributes, but *all* cultures are capable of the same degree of good and evil. The Huana are not shown as lesser or as better; they are shown as capable of both good and bad to the exact same degree.

Strongly disagree. I want continuity of protagonist between all parts of my trilogy. I want to be able to play *MY* character the *whole way through*. If the third part is suddenly entirely different from the first two, then I suddenly don't give a damn about the third part. All the time and effort I invested in that character suddenly no longer matters? The series suddenly no longer matters, in my head.That is like refusing to play Icewind Dale on the grounds that you aren’t playing your CHARNAME from Baldur’s Gate. I would love to play more stories in the setting. Stories of other characters who aren’t the Watcher give Obsidian more narrative flexibility. Lots of RPGs (Fallout, TES, Dragon Age, Divinity) have you play as different characters in each game because the series is about the setting more than any individual story within the setting. Baldur's Gate was a *different series* from Icewind Dale. Fallout 2 didn't have the same character from Fallout 1, so Fallout 3 *didn't have that investment*. They're not the same situation *at all*. Well, both Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate take place in the same setting with the same gameplay running on the same engine released by the same publisher and were developed by some of the same people. There is just as much in common between those games and Morrowind and Skyrim. The only reason the former are a different series and the latter is one is because of the naming convention. That is it. If we take these articles and follow them to the logical conclusion, if OBS make a game set in Eora with a new protagonist and name it something else then you will play it, but if they name it Pillars of Eternity 3 then you won't. If the only deciding factor about whether you play a game is the name, then I think that is a miscalibration of priorities. No, the difference between IWD and Baldur's Gate is that BG was a *continuous storyline* and IWD was a *separate storyline*. That's why they were made different series. You're artificially narrowing down my complaint from "undoing the investment in this character/story" to "naming convention" by taking absurd statements and pretending their true. Yes, Fallout and Elder Scrolls all have different protagonists and stories in the same series; that's the convention that those series established *FROM THE BEGINNING*. That is not the convention here. If Pillars 2 had established that convention, I'd have been disappointed but I would have played it, and then I wouldn't have had the pr-established investment in the story and character. But changing the established series convention partway through the series is *****ed* for a lot of people, and for good reason: it destroys the investment one has *already made in this series*.

Exactly right. However, in the colloquial sense of "animal" as opposed to "person", the lagufeth are people, not animals. They are not "talking animals", they are sentient beings with a developed culture. They don't "decorate themselves with found items", they *craft jewelry*. They don't just nurture they're young; they *ask a member of an opposing species to rescue their young from imprisonment*. They don't just communicate; they *use language*. They don't just gather food; they *hunt using crafted traps*. They are a *culture*. They are a primitive stone-age tribal culture, and yes they are being oppressed by the Huana. Once again, I feel it needs to be pointed out that the Huana *are not the good guys*. There are no hard-and-fast "good guys". The Huana are realistically depicted as being capable of the same evil as any other Kith. I much prefer that over some ridiculous "noble savage" stereotype where the good and innocent tribe of peaceful loving indigenous people is being destroyed by the evil outsider colonialists.

The devs have *explicitly* made it clear several times now that the Huana are not the "good guys" in this game. Their is no "side with the good gentle natives who are being terribly exploited by the evil colonialists" storyline here. If that's what you're expecting, then you *will* be disappointed. The Vaillians are not evil oppressors. The Huana are not an exploited group of innocents. Things are much more complex then that, as they often are in the real world. The game is basically being built around "bothsidsing" in the sense that *both sides have good and bad aspects to them* and *both sides do good and evil things*.

This is a false equivalence. ... No, it's not. It was a polite and reserved manner to hint at the problem. Had he/she used racial, gender or politcal aspects as examples, it would have become clearer but maybe offensive. It is at the core the attitude of making the world as you like it by getting rid of people, in our nice game environment: by changing them, which was criticized. To the rest, I do not really care. They can make ambivalent characters with interchangeable sexuality according to the players behavior, a very efficient kind of game design, or create true characters with restricted sexual orientation, straight, homosexual and bisexual, as the reality is. In the latter case however I would prefer an additional way of creating a preferred "partner" besides the normal companions. The mercenary system is a good way for this. It also simulates reality because why should the player character pick only from the "ugly"companions? They have the personality, great, but lack the body ... To Anders et al., I did not understand the "hype" around him. BTW belonging to a minority does not make one a better human. So there can be jerks in any group. It wasn't a hint, it was a comparison, and it was a false equivalence. Hair colour is not remotely the same as sexuality. I really don't think that drawing a direct one-to-one comparison of hair color and sexuality was the point of that analogy.

Talking animals? 1) They talk. 2) They create and use tools and clothing. 3) They use sophisticated hunting methods involving traps. 4) They decorate themselves with crafted jewelry. 5) The broodmother literally begs you to rescue her children from imprisonment They are not animals. They are a stone-age culture that is physiologically limited in it's ability to communicate with other species. So pretty much the same islanders are to Vallians Exactly. Except as far as I know, the Vallians don't *eat* the Huana.

The best thing about Anders was that he hated Templars as much as I did. If you are willing to kill Templars with me, I could give two ****s who you are or what you do. What I'm saying here is **** Templars.

Talking animals? 1) They talk. 2) They create and use tools and clothing. 3) They use sophisticated hunting methods involving traps. 4) They decorate themselves with crafted jewelry. 5) The broodmother literally begs you to rescue her children from imprisonment They are not animals. They are a stone-age culture that is physiologically limited in it's ability to communicate with other species.

Strongly disagree. I want continuity of protagonist between all parts of my trilogy. I want to be able to play *MY* character the *whole way through*. If the third part is suddenly entirely different from the first two, then I suddenly don't give a damn about the third part. All the time and effort I invested in that character suddenly no longer matters? The series suddenly no longer matters, in my head.That is like refusing to play Icewind Dale on the grounds that you aren’t playing your CHARNAME from Baldur’s Gate. I would love to play more stories in the setting. Stories of other characters who aren’t the Watcher give Obsidian more narrative flexibility. Lots of RPGs (Fallout, TES, Dragon Age, Divinity) have you play as different characters in each game because the series is about the setting more than any individual story within the setting. Baldur's Gate was a *different series* from Icewind Dale. Fallout 2 didn't have the same character from Fallout 1, so Fallout 3 *didn't have that investment*. They're not the same situation *at all*.

Strongly disagree. I want continuity of protagonist between all parts of my trilogy. I want to be able to play *MY* character the *whole way through*. If the third part is suddenly entirely different from the first two, then I suddenly don't give a damn about the third part. All the time and effort I invested in that character suddenly no longer matters? The series suddenly no longer matters, in my head.

New big idea week incorporated into game after final beta: DRESSING GAME! Woo hoo!

Path of the damned it is. Hail Satan! Praise Him!

Honestly not sure which is worse.

Where did Josh say this?

And being able to drive it down to three wasn't useful to you? I am really not seeing the complaint Being "useful" doesn't mean "fun" or "good game design".

Did you ever play a mage? You used to be able to dump resolve down to 3 on a mage and gobble those points up in spell damage and area effect with no consequences whatsoever. Every stat *WASN'T* useful for everybody, because resolve was utterly useless for ranged spell-based characters.

Just did my first ship-to-ship combat. Was really disappointed. It's not fun.

They don't "owe us" ****. But if they give the backer beta away for free, then I'll be pissed. I paid twenty bucks for the *privilege* of being in the backer beta.