Katarack21

I'm pretty sure you aren't the market for this, and therefore nobody in particular really cares what you and the people who agree with you want. I, and apparently many other people here, *liked* those and found them immersive and are simply stating that more of it would be something we enjoy.

No. Something is very different between the species on some level. They can't reproduce with each other. A horse and a donkey look a hell of a lot alike, too--but they rarely breed naturally (mules are *mostly* a creation of man). Polar bears and grizzly bears occasionally crossbreed--but again it's quite rare. Same with bonobo's and chimps (never recorded in the wild, a few times in captivity). They are separate species. Just because they "look at lot alike" doesn't *mean* anything as far as biology, reproduction, and sexual attraction is concerned.

I think you are overestimating how much relevance this issue has to the real world, just like people in this thread are generally underestimating how diverse human sexual tastes are in the real world. It's not so much racism as it is underestimation of the human drive to bonk anything and everything. As for those who are doing the underestimation, I'd like to remind you that most people with Western European heritage have Neanderthal DNA. Yes, and most Asians have Denisovan DNA, etc. But it was never very common--the DNA percentages we see indicate that some hybridization took place, but that it was *very rare*. The scientific paper actually says "analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level." It happened, but *it was rare*. This makes sense; homo sapien sapiens (which includes black people, white people, etc. all together) evolved to be sexually attracted to homo sapien sapiens so as to continue the existence of homo sapien sapiens. Homo Sapien Sapien did not evolve to continue the line of homo neanderthals. People keep acting like elves, humans, orlans, etc. are somehow not completely separate and independent species with no relation to each other at all.

They're not different races, they are separate species with distinct evolutionary lineages. Less like white people and black people, more like gorillas and chimpanzees. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I don't care about lore justification. The point is, they only superficially differ in appearance, size and shape. No, dude, seriously. THEY'RE DIFFERENT SPECIES. They can't reproduce because they are fundamentally incompatible BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES. A human being can't reproduce with a chimpanzee, because while we are superficially very similar creatures we are chromosomal incompatible. Matings between species are very rare, and very rarely reproduce offspring--and when they do, the offspring is almost always sterile. It's not a matter of racism, it's a fundamental aspect of how creatures are built--we mate with our own species. It has nothing to do with Africans and Asians, it's ****ing ORLANS and HUMANS. They can't reproduce and their's no reason to suppose they'd naturally develop attractions for each other. On occasions, yes--but usually different species don't mate.

They're not different races, they are separate species with distinct evolutionary lineages. Less like white people and black people, more like gorillas and chimpanzees.

Elves and humans, yes. Maybe dwarves if you don't mind the height difference (many do). But good luck convincing an average human girl to sleep with a midget covered in fur. Or a human guy to get a blowjob from a lady with shark teeth. You clearly haven't spent much time on the internet. That doesn't count. Nobody on 4chan is human anymore.

Seriously? Like...seriously?! I do not understand. How can you be so dead-set against such a basic matter of convience?! Hell, BG had color-coding too--a generic long sword, a generic +1 long sword, and a generic +2 longsword all had different pictures of different color, and it was the same for *EVERY+ sword of the same enchatment leve. Hell, all the enchanted ammunition was easily identifiable with unique colored portraits in the same way. You must just be *searching* for things to complain about.

Right?! Blue and yellow with shark teeth? Practically identical. Four feet tall and covered with a thick pelt? Meh, almost can't tell the difference. White-haired and slender? Good god, how could I have confused it for one of my own? True facts. Thing is, in almost all setting's elves are basically really thin, pretty humans with pointy ears. So for elves, specifically, the logic does in fact work. But I have a hard time thinking that most human beings in any world would, under most circumstances, be sexually attracted to something that is for all intents a purposes a midget Yeti.

Now we're even getting colour-coded for stupid? Crickey, man! It's just a color-coding based on rarity! It's a *basic* convenience feature that took probably no time at all and hurts nobody in any way. How can you *possibly* bitch about that?!?

Right?! Blue and yellow with shark teeth? Practically identical. Four feet tall and covered with a thick pelt? Meh, almost can't tell the difference.

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism. They're not *used* as gods in Buddhism, though; the names and **** are there, but they are *very* explicitly just teaching tools. Bodhisatvas are a thing in some branches of Buddhism, but they are also explicitly stated to not be gods but simply souls like you or me who are at a different stage. Buddhism is one of the prime examples of a form or religion with no gods, and often used as an example of such. I understand what you're saying. If you are describing how Buddhists practice their religion I will always say that is wrong as that isn't how I've experienced it. No matter what you quote, link or say will you convince me that you're right as my life experience what I use as evidence that I'm correct. If you're stating that is how Buddhist doctrine and writings present different gods and spirits I will agree with you. What the text say and how people live are two different things though. And, since I doubt we will be able to convince the other that their posistion is the right one it's best that we just let this end and continue on with the rest of the conversation. To be more explicit, I'm not just telling you what I've read in books, I'm also telling you the practices and methods I've been told and taught by Buddhists in my life. I'm not a Buddhist, I find myself incapable of believing some of the basic tenets, but if I was going to be any religion it would be Buddhism. I like much of what it has to say about morality, and I was following the Five Precepts before I knew what they were. That being said, I think we've reached the end of what we can usefully discuss here.

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism. They're not *used* as gods in Buddhism, though; the names and **** are there, but they are *very* explicitly just teaching tools. Bodhisatvas are a thing in some branches of Buddhism, but they are also explicitly stated to not be gods but simply souls like you or me who are at a different stage. Buddhism is one of the prime examples of a form or religion with no gods, and often used as an example of such.

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc. Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will. In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods. It's almost always demigods lifted up to Godhood, or sometimes a specific mortal is taken by the gods who then collectively decide to make him a god, or the original creator-god remakes a mortal into one of the gods. Never, ever, that I know of do *mortals create the gods*. That's the distinction--the "gods" in PoE are just tools made by mortals. Really advanced, really clever tools--the highest of automaton technology, but automatons nonetheless. That would be an interesting idea for future games to play around with, if the gods of PoE are confined by their initial designs. I feel it would it's conjecture to say for certain either way. As the specifics of their creation is so vague. Though I feel this argument has reached the level of semantics. You say automaton, I say god. Either term describes the same fictional characters. Neither of us disagree as to what they are capable of. My last argument would be that if the gods of PoE, as made my mortal hands, would be indistinguishable from what they would have been if they had occurred naturally then the two sets are equivalent. I disagree; just because one may have power and ability equal to a god does not make one a god, IMHO.

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc. Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will. In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods. It's almost always demigods lifted up to Godhood, or sometimes a specific mortal is taken by the gods who then collectively decide to make him a god, or the original creator-god remakes a mortal into one of the gods. Never, ever, that I know of do *mortals create the gods*. That's the distinction--the "gods" in PoE are just tools made by mortals. Really advanced, really clever tools--the highest of automaton technology, but automatons nonetheless.

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc. Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

Within the actual game you are correct, but in the lore it makes it pretty clear about things like what an Effigy of Skaen will do, etc. Even the process to make an Effigy and get Skaen's attention is pretty horrific. I don't know how much difference that makes to you.

Games, of all sorts, regardless of type require certain skills and capabilities. Some people will be better or worse at it as a natural factor of human variability. You play at whatever difficulty setting makes it fun *for you*. I've never understood why this a cause for belittlement.

To me, a god is a sentient manifestation and/or incarnation of some aspect of the universe. The PoE god's don't qualify, because they're simply constructs created by mortals to simulate exactly that, because they don't actually exist in PoE's universe. To use an analogy, the PoE beings are gods in the same way that Data from Star Trek is a human being. Now, Data is a *person*, and the PoE beings are powerful sentient entities, but Data is a simulation of a human and the PoE creatures are a simulation of a god.

That's exactly it, though! Their not "gods", they're just "powerful entities". They're constructs, they're soul-robots. They are nothing more than the ideals of the Engwithans given form and power by the Engwithans. They're not gods in any meaningful sense; ie, Skaen is not the God of Violent Rebellion, he's a robot created to represent the Engwithan ideal of what violent rebellion is and should be, and given enough power to force people to follow that ideal.

I like this idea. It would be cool to have some quests in the game that you can actually fail by leaving the dungeon before finishing. I also liked the examples a lot. I hate this idea. To me it just seems like arbitrarily limited my experience and playstyle to fit some pre-determined idea of how I "should" play. I don't abuse rest--but sometimes I get bored and want to go do something else for a while. I should have that freedom. Obviously, that shouldn't be the case for all dungeons or quests. But for some, like the Raedric's Hold quest, it actually makes a lot of sense. BG2 had time-critical quests, but almost all those quests were only time-critical if you had the NPCs related to the quest with you, f.ex. Korgan leaving if you don't do his quest or Nalia going for the De'Arnise keep alone if you refuse to travel there soon. A certain amount of "urgency" makes sense in several quests in PoE. To me that's a different thing; many of the companions in various games I can think of would go off if you didn't eventually get around to doing their quests. That's frustrating sometimes, but makes sense with the characters. And while I find quests with time limits frustrating, I can understand the reasoning and if I have the option simply avoid them rather then complain. What he's talking about is literally just arbitrarily limiting my characters movements and forcing me to completely clear an entire map--possibly multiple maps like in the Temple--and dictating what I'm allowed to do so that my gameplay fits into the style that he feels is best. Sometimes I may be under level and want to come back later. Sometimes I'm just going to get the unique dialogue from a companion, then head out to switch companions to somebody more effective and come back. Sometimes I'm literally just bored and want to go see something else, because I've been in this dungeon for four hours and it's starting to get a little tedious. There's a lot of reasons I may want to leave a map before it's cleared, and I almost always come back and finish it up later. Heck, I went in to the Temple of Eothas, looked around a bit, left, and cleared it in *Act III* when I remembered it was still a thing.

I like this idea. It would be cool to have some quests in the game that you can actually fail by leaving the dungeon before finishing. I also liked the examples a lot. I hate this idea. To me it just seems like arbitrarily limited my experience and playstyle to fit some pre-determined idea of how I "should" play. I don't abuse rest--but sometimes I get bored and want to go do something else for a while. I should have that freedom.

Yes, because I always need more boring "go get x, y, and z then return to receive better item" quests. They're lots of fun. I enjoy them. They make games awesome.

also, to take this a step further.. what i really hope to see is a game like this set in the pathfinder system. IMO, that is THE BEST version of D&D 3.5 thats currently released. i think it would be fantastic to see it translated to the video game realm. it sure wouldnt be that difficult to do. You should check 5e- imo it's the best d&d edition so far, by far (I ve been playing dnd ever since the AD&D days) I'd have to disagree. I'm with Kale on this, Pathfinder is for me the ultimate expression of D&D awesomeness.