Gromnir

alternative: first tavern visited and she tries to order a beer. gets a mclovin. HA! Good Fun!

Why? Do you always plan to get hit in the face when starting a fighting? You need to work on your dodging skills. ain't been in many fights, eh? yeah, we assume we is gonna get hit in the face even if we work very hard not to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOcxnQRUhMM josh is a sabre fighter, yes? ask him if he would forgo headgear in competition, much less wear real glasses in actual combat. HA! Good Fun!

well, shady should be happy. happier. intelligent soulbound at $4.25... though not a companion. oh, and glasses-girl for the 8th companion is silly. got no problem with her wearing glasses, but doing so while wielding a sword is ridiculous. no doubt is shatterproof adra lenses. HA! Good Fun!

Sorry, I left my Pirates! - game manual at home. with that sail plan, a two-man crew would be sufficient to actual sail. is all the other stuff which would require extra bodies. HA! Good Fun!

every time we see folks posting 'bout the surplus o' investor funds still available, we cannot help but hear springtime for hitler playing in our head. perhaps too obscure a reference? HA! Good Fun!

Wasn’t there some game like that? arcanum HA! Good Fun!

with few exceptions, the weapons not already in the game would be o' questionable battlefield viability. remove lances and other mounted combat weapons. remove weapons only useful in actual squad formations. we got almost all the real stuff already. HA! Good Fun!

disagree somewhat. people is suspicious o' the well-intentioned do gooder as it is so rare. also, the folks most in need o' help will often reject no matter what. denial? even so, in our experience it don't take much effort to help many. it doesn't take long to develop a reputation o' being a genuine good samaritan. yeah, not everybody will take help, but having spent so much time at shelters, food bank/soup kitchens, and legal aid clinics, we can say with some sense o' personal certainty that you will never run out o' folks willing to accept your help. never. HA! Good Fun! ps apologies for two-posts in a row. weren't paying attention. shoulda simple edited previous.

To be fair the real world doesn't usually reward you for being a goody two shoes who goes around helping everyone either. In fact that kind of thing can also ruin your life, sometimes to much realism makes for a less fun experience. true. being a "goody two shoes" is still far more plausible in the real world than is being crpg evil or erratic, but rl goodness ain't gonna incentivize you the ways games do. HA! Good Fun!

​Wouldn't that be a trap? HA! Good Fun!

if there existed appropriate and believable in-game punishments for playing erratic or evil, many would throw a tantrum o'er the perceived injustice. in reality, unless you are a celebrity (or possible the President) behaving curel or erratic will have repercussions. as a level 1 n00b adventurer with no powerbase and no allies, behaving like a l00n would reasonable result in you being shunned. insane folks is disturbing even when they ain't immediate dangerous, so act erratic would have you ostracized. similar, behaving overt evil is gonna get you imprisoned, or worse. "but nobody saw me murder and steal from every home in Bikkleford." so what? a crime spree sudden hits when you show up in town and folks gotta pretend to be idiots? such folks sure as heck wouldn't need proof to, at the very least, run you outta' town. likely worse. folks wanna play evil, so evil needs must be made viable. as each quest is insular, the evils you can indulge is gonna be insular and largely petty. wanna be good needs be as viable as evil, so you get result where erratic is also possible. can't make a reputation system too restrictive (realistic) or folks will complain. is not fixable. have made suggestions 'bout implementing long-con and evil plans for characters into games, but such stuff won't actual solve your issue. playing evil needs be viable even if it ain't always reasonable or rational. given that we are talking 'bout a crpg wherein choice is a foundation feature, you is gonna face inevitability o' the potential implausible erratic protagonist. HA! Good Fun!

fixed. HA! Good Fun!

before poe were released, we complained 'bout animancy. we complained how the descriptions o' animancy in a world where souls is objective real made no sense whatsoever. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66230-the-morality-of-animancy/?p=1452295 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66430-i-feel-like-im-missing-something-here-related-to-souls-and-the-game-mechanics-in-this-game/?p=1465141 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66212-some-questions-about-undeath-in-poe/?p=1451325 didn't seem plausible to us that animancy would be anything other than reviled by the vast majority o' any population. 'course obsidian assured us our concerns would be addressed in the game, so we waited patient. am still waiting. on the positive side, the developers have admitted their disappointment with how they presented animancy in poe1 during those twitch q&a segments. obsidian seems dedicated to fixing animancy, though am not certain such is actual possible. regardless, am agreeing (kinda) an animancer companion appears almost vital to any kinda portrayal o' eora animancy as something other than dangerous and disturbing. animancy, as presented in poe1, would seem beyond the ability o' ordinary folks to be seeing such 'science' as other than moral repugnant and potential catastrophic. an animancer companion would go a long way towards making it possible to fix current busted animancy. 'course we think making ydwin a final stretch goal and number 8 were bad planning. poe 2 funding reaches only to $4.9 million and Gromnir will be perfect satisfied as am not believing another companion will necessarily make the game better. HA! Good Fun!

Whoa whoa, I've seen a lot of Westerns, and you could totally get away with a lot of cool stuff back then. Isn't that why Westworld was so popular? In a bit more serious vein, I was researching my great grandfather recently for a little project, and in the 1935 census he had taken on two borders. They were both teachers, and they didn't have to pay taxes! I was jealous. But then it said they made $496 that year, so it was a bit of a wash. on the serious side, places such as deadwood and tombstone were not at all like the movies. were much safer than depicted. why? local gun ordinances were far more restrictive than anything we would see today in the US. charlton heston would rise from his grave in the throes o' apoplectic fit if chicago imposed gun ordinances similar to what were passed by tombstone in the late 1800s. imagine being stopped at chicago city limits, searched and relieved o' any and all firearms. ... if modern chicago successful implemented such a restrictive gun ordinance, am suspecting gd would suffer a similar fit as chaz. HA! Good Fun!

if you don't like the now, then change it. is only bad 'cause we let it be bad. patriot act were voted overwhelming bipartisan. the ordinance preventing your little girl lemonade stand? weren't a demagogue who implemented. is nothing preventing you from getting changed. you are part of heavy handed government, so fix it. and yeah, val's argument sucked. we got far more functional freedom today than 100 or even 50 years ago. has government become too protective and invasive in specific situations? sure it has, and we rail 'gainst such, but use patently wrong and utter ridiculous appeals to the past is not gonna help. just realize it is the saame democracy we spoke o' earlier which makes it possible for government to do stoopid stuff such as patriot acts and little girl lemonade stand prohibitions. such democracy is also available to you if you wanna change. fix the problems. we made the problems. now fix. HA! Good Fun!

well, volo, who one assumes is the inspiration for fulvano, is present in two ie games. am pretty sure you can kill volo in the original bg, though not in the bg:ee version from beamdog. if such cathartic slayings is needed, we recommend loading old bg1. leave the paradox o' having destroyed the idea behind fulvano for those nights when the rain is hard and cold and you has had one too many shots o' bourbon. HA! Good Fun!

am on a tiny desk kick at the moment. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking you vast understate the ways in which things were worse 100 years ago, and if children's lemonade stand closures bother you, then am wondering how you feel 'bout fact that the loving case were 1967? heck, were a considerable time post civil war before most States would recognize the possibility o' a black woman being raped by a white man. ain't just 'bout race neither. upton sinclair's protagonist in the jungle, published in 1906, were lithuanian. the accurate depiction o' horrors faced by an immigrant working in the chicago meatpacking industry were vivid documented and so offended the sensibilities o' the elite o' boston that the book were banned in that city. banned books? want us to recite the history of banned books in, of all places, the US of A? such bannings is largely a thing o' the past, and is limited to vague community standards of "obscene," but the First Amendment weren't always so protective o' authors or artists. 100 years ago v. today? were our personal freedoms more at risk then or now? sure, technology allows the Government greater access to our privacy, but the notion o' privacy as a protected freedom is actual a recent legal invention. *shrug* not even a second does we need consider which time were having more more o' our freedoms protected. http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/wounded-knee not one second.

100 years ago? 1917? definite weren't more free for blacks, native americans, asians and others. weren't more free for women, and they were/are better than 1/2 the population, yes? 1917 is also the year the infamous espionage act(s) o' 1917 were made law. the Court didn't get around to knocking some o' the free speech teeth abridgements outta the act 'til 1969 with brandenburg v. ohio. also, folks ignore our frequent lessons 'bout the dangers o' democracy. contrary to what most folks believe, democracy ain't what protects your freedoms. democracy is the danger, not the solution. our checks and balances which make our government so ineffective is what largely protects folks. culture also protects. but democracy? democracy is the majority, and the majority has never been a trustworthy repository o' freedom. the majority is petty and fearful and often very stoopid. for much o' US history, the fed government had very little say regarding how States protected freedoms o' citizens. never forget that the bill o' rights is a check on democracy, and that check were a relative weak limit for much o' US history. oh, and absolute liberty rare equates to universal freedom. those with money and power have an advantage in maintaining the status quo. those w/o are typical too busy trying to make ends meet to serious devote energy to changing the system. so in the early 1900s we got stuff such as child coal miners https://arlweb.msha.gov/CENTURY/LITTLE/PAGE1.asp and women working in factories in nyc http://www.history.com/topics/triangle-shirtwaist-fire give folks a myth o' equal opportunity and call it freedom? is seeming paradoxical, but absolute liberty do not result in perfect freedom. hobbes' state of nature is absolute liberty, but it ain't what most o' us think o' as freedom. given human nature, absolute liberty, freedom from any kinda government constraint, inevitable results in the exploitation o' man by his fellow man. dunno, but particular as a native american, am having little difficulty proclaiming with certainty our greater freedom today than were enjoyed by our great grandparents and grandparents.

"what trump has wrong about nafta is pretty much everything." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-21/mexico-and-canada-say-nafta-should-be-re-negotiated-trilaterally HA! Good Fun!

ah. shoulda' guessed. well, we will leave, but only after observing how illegals do pay taxes https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ http://www.businessinsider.com/how-illegal-immigrants-pay-taxes-2012-3 http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/23/myths-half-truths-about-immigration-reform-382855.html and likely will never draw social security benefits they has paid billions (more than a trillion) towards. however, education and medical costs is issues... but not necessarily how folks think. illegals don't get fed medical benefits as some s'pose, but they still have medical problems. illegals, much like our indigent population, typical use emergency room medical. by the time an illegal gets desperate enough to seek the medical help they need, is usual serious and emergency rooms is necessarily expensive regardless. billions. education is also a tough issue and worthy o' debate... but again, this ain't a simple issue. trump talking on sixty minutes 'bout ramping up deportations from obama levels (approx 400,000 per year) so as to get rid o' 2-3 million reveals a lack o' foresight. HA! Good Fun! ps worth reading the forbes article too http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2017/01/28/why-president-trumps-border-wall-is-an-example-of-bad-leadership/#6aafc49a78fd

obama, the guy who significant increased deportations compared to previous administrations, is the guy who constrained ice and the border patrol? the guy who in spite o' 8 years worth o' steady decrease in illegals coming into the US, nevertheless managed to deport more than 2,400,000 is the President who limited such efforts? okie dokie. HA! Good Fun!

kinda missing the point. when Congress makes a law, there is a process in place. the process results in studies conducted and solutions to anticipated problems being formulated. as bass ackwards as Congress can be, they at least must needs consider the implications o' their actions before they vote and send for President's signature. sure, sometimes they leave more than a few details vague, seeming anticipating the courts and executive will fill in the gaps, but at least Congress is aware o' what they is (or is not) doing. am not suggesting illegal deportations is a job for Congress. am contrasting how Congress goes 'bout similar decisions as we has seen from the new chief executive. trump has access to folks who are able to study any number o' esoteric subjects and formulate plans and solutions, but as with his sweden crime flub, he ignores the considerable resources available to him and simple authors doomed or idiotic actions. as a President, it is the height o' foolishness to simple act and then come up with how to make immigration or travel bans or walls work after the fact. the Presidency does not seem to be what trump believes the office to be. HA! Good Fun!

No kidding. I posted a few pages ago a woman right here is Tennessee is facing six months in jail and fines for giving horses massage therapy for free because she isn't a veterinarian. But an illegal immigrant can work in the stable the horse lives in, pay no taxes and that's all ok? Personally I think it's all ridiculous but it's so much worse when the government chooses to hammer some folks but ignore others. I'd say leave everyone alone but failing that how about some consistency. am actual in favor o' reforming undocumented alien policies. 'course the problem isn't simple the executive's desire to make changes. once again, the President appears to have an unclear notion o' the powers o' the presidency. just 'cause a piece o' paper is signed, it don't warp reality. woulda' thought the appeals court taught him a lesson. Congress has apparatus which allows for careful and meaningful deliberation o' problems and it also, in theory, has means o' considering options and solutions to problems. well, at least Congress once had such, but they has kinda voluntarily stepped away from their responsibilities. am not certain what it is the President is doing with these grand actions which ignore any sorta consideration o' implementation or actual impact. perhaps trump saw a documentary on fox regarding illegals? so many illegals. bad. ok, that is kinda a starting point, but where is the actual plan? leave vague and all you do is guarantee that the courts is gonna smack you 'round, again. HA! Good Fun!

and the fact that nobody is safe is precisely why there will be a chilling effect on housing sales. the fact o' nobody being safe is also why bloomberg and aclu and others is predicting considerable and costly lawsuits as leaving so open is necessarily placing greater pressure on all those new ice agents to meet legal standards which only immigration lawyers and federal judges genuine understand fully. etc. again, similar to the travel ban (but moreso,) this is not a well-considered move. the President wants to make a show o' doing something significant, but he is going 'bout it complete wrong and it is gonna be an expensive mistake. HA! Good Fun!