Gromnir

am amused by self-made man stuff... seeing as how Gromnir had, 'ccording to typical socialist dogma, every excuse to be un-made. came from extreme poverty. were not raised by parents. went to historical worst elementary schools in the country. went to one o' the worst high schools in illinois. we purposeful refused to identify our ethnic background on school and job applications until we were in our 40s, so am not having benefited from affirmative action. am a member o' an ethnic group that has the highest rates o' alcoholism, illiteracy and suicide in the USA... and is some o' the worstest worldwide. etc. am not bloomberg successful, but am frequent grousing 'bout our tax bracket and our inability to get any additional benefits from ca for purchasing a tesla 3. https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/information-fiscal-year-2015-16-income-limit-changes we earned our success. we worked hard and took advantage of the opportunities available to us. we also got lucky. *shrug* self-made man coming from any strata o' American society is hardly a myth, but it is hard. gotta lot o' well-intentioned socialists telling us how impossible it were for a younger Gromnir to succeed were not helping. and you know what? immigrants from se asia, africa and eastern europe typical outwork Gromnir. is embarrassing to recognize how hard the immigrants work while we complain. and guess what, the kids o' immigrants is unsurprising successful in the USA. wanna exclude such folks from self-made 'cause their parents made requisite sacrifices? so be it. ... am knowing just how hard it is to overcome initial income disparity in the US. the obstacles to become a self-made man is herculean. is indeed twelve labors kinda herculean when looking at challenges facing youths who is poor and from a non-traditional family (regardless o' ethnic group) who wish to better themselves. nemean lion is a "widdle putty tat" compared to the Certainty o' Failure. have circumstances and well-meaning educated folks convincing you at every turn that improving your lot is impossible? am not the least bit shocked that most o' Gromnir's extended family failed to improve their situation and we believe such folks need and deserve help. when we were making our self, we didn't want help. foolish pride. even so, am glad we made something o' our self. in the US, people make themselves and their children every day, and they do a better job than has Gromnir. is no myth. but again, once we reached our 40s, we has done a 180 regarding programs such as affirmative action. self made ain't a myth, but is idiotic to expect that every young native american is gonna be as stubborn and angry... and smart, good looking and physically gifted as we were. we prove that self-made ain't myth, but is foolish to expect every young native american to be like Gromnir... and such a reality would be a whole different kinda nightmare. a few folks overcome a hurdle does indeed prove that the hurdle is surmountable. the thing is, as hurl kinda implied earlier, is a fail to build a modern society in which only a small handful o' people can overcome ordinary obstacles. in the US we need millions o' engineers and scientists and doctors, not just a handful o' elite. speaking o' fails, if we gotta says "Gromnir" more than once in a post, we consider it a fail. apologies. HA! Good Fun!

sjw is a mark o' pride or ribbon o' shame... depending on pov. in our professional and real life, Gromnir is frequent labeled as sjw. why? our typical clients: fringe california religious groups that bare escape cult label, asian gangs. homeless folks whom we suspect is too long off their meds. the folks who come to us for help rare have sufficient money to pay their legal fees and they is almost invariably seeking seeming trivial relief from The State. make a federal case (literal) out of the most minor First Amendment concerns one could care to imagine. oh, and we is a frequent volunteer at the local catholic soup kitchen/food bank/homeless shelter. if we had a pony tail and bad suits, we would be classic sjw attorney, no? *shrug* am not considering our self sjw. am doubting most obsidian boardies would use the sjw label to describe Gromnir. mother teresa, gandhi, mlk, and nelson mandela is among the role models o' the modern sjw, yes? is admirable role models, yes? for those proud to be called sjw, they sees self as carrying on a proud tradition. ... perspective. if one believes that a cause is insignificant or too left, then they apply sjw label as a ribbon o' shame to the offending party. too many a$$ shots o' hot female characters in games? unisex bathrooms? idiot undergrads championing whatever is the cause du jour at berkeley? whatever. is just a seat on a bus. am honest unsure what is the proper use o' sjw. am of the opinion that the term is malleable and highly subjective. curse in the mouth o' bob is gonna be a compliment when steve uses the same descriptor. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Y11hwjMNs among our top three female vocalists along with aretha and etta. HA! Good Fun!

just so is clear, in the US you ain't can't be criminalized for training your dogs to do nazi salute or goosestep or bark at pictures o' famous jewish celebrities. possible create and post videos o' your pugs denying the holocaust will be a crime o' good taste, but am having a hard time imagining cop involvement. animal cruelty? *shrug* we got hate crimes in the US, but they is functional very different that those in other parts o' the world... and keep in mind that the civil rights legislation o' the 1960s is technical hate crime stuff. you not need rent your house or give a job vacancy to ANYBODY. nevertheless, am thinking that most folks agree that to deny a job or housing to a person 'cause o' their race or religion is a social harm worthy o' prevention. such civil rights legislation obviously considers the motives o' the offender, no? perhaps is best to consider the actual implications o' "It's still thoughtcrime. It's still evil," yes? HA! Good Fun!

What I mean by unknowable is that you can often assume someone's reason for doing something, but it's very rare (I'd say it's nearly impossible) to know someone's reason for doing something (especially given how often people can't truly identify their own motivations for their actions.) Basically, I think it's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt someone's motivation for doing something, and therefore don't think that there should be an elevated criminal status such as hate crimes. "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not gonna be the threshold, is it? the threshold o' reasonable doubt is not near so insurmountable. nevertheless, it is indeed difficult to prove motivation above and beyond proving elements o' the underlying crime, which is just one reason why such prosecutions so often fail. try and prove that a bigot or racist committed a particular crime because o' their bigotry is not gonna be easy... save for in the obvious exception-- if the defendant admits that they were in fact, "motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity," to have committed the crime, then the State is gonna have pretty compelling evidence o' motivation... so long as the finder o' fact believes the evidence. am not sure what % o' all criminal convictions is at least partial dependent on admissions, but am gonna guess that the number is far closer to 100% than 0%. HA! Good Fun!

am seeing that there is more than a little confusion regarding hate crimes. scotus rationale for hate crime is as Enhancement. is easiest to think o' hate crime as mandatory increased sentencing. yes, am oversimplifying, but not by much. am knowing it sounds the opposite o' what you likely know 'bout hate crime, but if State attempts to craft legislation that specific criminalizes the viewpoint o' the defendant, it is gonna fail. if a kinda speech or act is not subject to criminalization, then you ain't gonna be able to apply hate crime statute. "thus, the government may proscribe libel; but it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing only libel critical of the government." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul, 505 u.s. 377 try and criminalize speech because of a particular viewpoint is unconstitutional. can't criminalize the viewpoint. so what 'bout hate crimes? first and foremost, you need a crime. murders and assaults and whatnots is the "actual crimes" identified by leferd: if government were choosing to criminalize murder but only if it were racial or religious biased, then there would be a Constitutional violation. that ain't happening with hate crimes. there must needs first be an "actual crime." because the crime were committed with a motivation the People finds social repugnant and 'cause o' the belief that such crimes is more likely to provoke violent response, hate crime statute becomes applicable. you need underlying crime and you need repugnant motivation. it doesn't sound strange that we would allow a jury to consider a repugnant motivation when reflecting 'pon a sentence, yes? well, hate crimes statutes is functional a sentencing enhancement. may seem like legal nonsense to a lay person, but the landmark hate crimes case for first amendment, wisconsin v. mitchell, 508 u.s. 476, were a unanimous decision with no concurrences. HA! Good Fun!

use chuck as your standard for espionage is a bit like using a-team for black ops, no? HA! Good Fun!

the free speech issue comes up frequent in this place and am suspecting the reason is the rather unique perspective re: speech that is prevalent in the USA. this board understandable has many posters who have US citizenship. in the US, speech is considered a fundamental right, and while nations in europe, south america, asia and africa also claim that speech is a basic human right, the threshold for protecting speech in the US v. the rest o' the world (with almost no noteworthy exceptions) is different. in the US we accept that speech which can offend a listener is the speech most needing protection, though there has been some slippage on this point in recent years and 'mongst the younger generation. while bruce's perspective strikes us as antagonistic to protecting basic human rights, the rest o' the world is dedicated to the belief that curbing social disruptive speech is essential to protecting rights. bruce is the majority, and it got nothing to do with uniqueness o' sa. same rationale is given in muslim nations and japan and virtual all o' europe. Americans, for the most part, do not believe that the government has any business deciding if the content o' a speaker's message is worthy o' protection. we make exceptions for child pr0n because such "speech" cannot be uttered w/o harming a child. child pr0n is repugnant to the Constitution 'cause o' the damage it causes to a speaker as 'posed to a listener. is several other limited exceptions, but an American is educated from a young age that speech, and the right to speak one's mind w/o fear o' State interference, is a cornerstone o' liberty and democracy. the Constitution, thankfully, does not protect a speaker from ordinary social pressures resulting from making a complete d-bag outta one's self by spewing hate and vitriol, but is no government power to censor the message o' the unpleasant speaker. the American perspective, which is current out of favor in near all o' the rest o' the world, is the kinda freedom o' speech that de tocqueville, locke, mills and other giants o' liberty advocated. does it not scare bruce a little that Gromnir can quote john stuart mill when advocating the importance o' keeping speech genuine free? mill argues that there should be, "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." from history past, mill pleads with bruce... "the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race… if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error." does it not worry bruce a little that the giants o' liberty, even those who is arguing pragmatism, would be so clear 'bout the importance o' keeping speech free? instead, folks such as bruce has gotta argue that their situation is unique, or that times has so changed such that john stuart mill is no longer relevant? has fundamental notions o' liberty changed since the 19th century? if so, how? bruce speaks o' uniqueness o' his situation, but it ain't. the rationale he embraces is tragically widespread... almost ubiquitous. where speech has a tendency to cause social unrest, the speaker can be silenced. when speech offends ethnic or religious groups, the speaker must be silenced. doesn't matter if is sa or sweden or japan, is not gonna be difficult to find examples o' speech being limited when social stability is the interest the State is protecting. bruce sees sa as being different. is not. is no different than arab nations, which were likely european colonies in recent historic times, imposing harsh penalties 'pon speakers who would offend islam or arabs or the state government. is more than a few former colonial nations in the middle east, northern africa and asia that can boast similar scenarios in which a minority exerted power over a disproportionate majority. is particular disconcerting that in a place such as south africa there would be such widespread willingness to abridge basic human rights. how many people were imprisoned (or worse) by the apartheid government for no reason save that they expressed the wrong ideas too often or too loud? one woulda' hoped that a people so long deprived o' personal liberties woulda' been more protective o' their hard won freedoms. liberty has never been a gift. the people o' south africa, as did the people o' the US, paid for their liberty in blood. for the people o' south africa to throw such liberty away makes Gromnir weep. again, it should be axiomatic that the only speech that needs protection is speech which has a tendency to offend. what is the point o' protecting speech that does not anger or offend? to use fears o' unspecific social unrest to abridge speech freedoms is making those freedoms impotent.

the entertainment industry is interested in making money. sure, directors and actors and writers will take opportunities (and risks) to fight 'gainst perceived social evils such as mccarthyism, but am doubting that anybody is shocked to realize that the prime motivator is dollars. the weird pro-chinese content that is finding its way into movies is perhaps a result o' hollywood's favorable outlook on totalitarian regimes that suppress free speech? or... but am perhaps getting off-topic a bit. HA! Good Fun!

more than one person has pointed out the hypocrisy o' strongarming the beamdog developers to make changes to their expansion given the criticisms o' gg folks, yes? entertainers has always had beliefs. for folks to actual use entertainment as a means to raise awareness is shocking? for chrissakes, junai didn't realize the hypocrisy o' using the Bible to illustrate his point. individual developers- the writers, artists, designers and musicians- is all gonna have opportunities to add meaning beyond entertainment value to the medium in which they work. they do. throughout human existence, that is what entertainers has done. is no surprise when they do. *chuckle* folks such as amber scott and david gaider is extreme open 'bout what they is doing, which is a good thing no? is no subterfuge. as hurl's list suggests, The Industry, if it has an agenda, ain't sjw. am suspecting that The Industry is far more interested in the quarterly report than advancing awareness o' lgbt issues. but yeah, as always, individual entertainers gots beliefs. kinda funny that w/o amber interviews, without her honesty, many folks would never have noticed the terrible sjw transgressions that beamdog were attempting to force 'pon unwitting children. gg, when it first became a Thing, were claiming that the wrongness were intricately linked to subterfuge, yes? a developer were accused o' using her feminine wiles to ingratiate a poor sap, and the sap did not disclose his relationship with the developer. amber scott clear weren't using deceit to get gamers and journalists to approve o' her game. what were beamdog's sleight o' hand? so we got open and honest entertainers doing as entertainers has done always. the sod problem is not ethics. is sure not mechanics o' companion dialogues which transform trivial into vile. some few folks is arguing a failure o' craftsmanship, and such complaints would be more valid if they did not so frequent flow from folks who were complaining 'bout sod's sjw agenda and/or violations o' bg canon Before they actual played the expansion. even so, craftsmanship criticisms is no doubt welcome at beamdog, even when those criticisms appear to suffer from more than a little o' the subterfuge complained 'bout by the gg folks. regardless, it is delusional and ridiculous for folks to complain o' the sjw agenda o' sod given how trivial is the actual sjw content. for many the sod content is intrinsic offensive, and that is a terrible recognition that would suggest that amber scott's efforts, which induce in Gromnir little more than a roll o' the eyes and a fatigued internal groan, actual has value and need. what a waste. HA! Good Fun!

Come on. I agree with many of the reviews given by the GG guys, but endemic, leukemia and conspiracy? And you accuse me of dramatizing? Otherwise you're right. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It's like Koveras giving you a +1 defence ring. When you realize it's from him, it's no longer a present, but an insult. As I mentioned a few pages back, I'm more preoccupied with the authors' intent than the actual material. Trying to understand art without knowing who the artist is? I suppose some people might read the Bible as an historical tale and learn certain things from it, but when you understand where the author is coming from, that's when you really understand what's being said. Try not to understand the author, and you end up with people like the Creationists, who think the devil interfered with God's work and placed dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us. After reading a few interviews, I decided I didn't like the author very much, and consequently her jokes are less funny. To me. It seems hundreds of fans agree. Are we all deluded? A couple of hacks who want to cash in on a 20 year old franchise, who makes the game look worse than it was 20 years ago, who are preachy and lofty, mediocre writers, and deletes criticism. And Grommie wants to support them, cause he feels fans are unfair. J. use Bible to explain your preoccupation with an entertainer's politics in same post you accuse us o' unfair calling you overdramatic? lordy. so, the part 'bout being finished were more nonsense? just checking before we indulge. HA! Good Fun!

our top 3 is gonna be caves of steel, demolished man and gun, with occasional music... though one needs be a bit more flexible regarding lethem's work. lethem goes to a less familiar place than does asimov or bester, but his protagonist is clear channeling marlowe and other noir detectives. also, keep in mind that every phillip k. **** novel is arguable a mystery/detective story. scanner darkly and flow my tears the policeman said, while not specific detective stories, follow the detective formula kinda close. HA! Good Fun!

I have a hard time imagining circumstances where it would be necessary to exclude it. I agree with this sentiment, there is no reason to not make games more inclusive where applicable And yes, you're absolutely right, I'd probably see the goblin joke as trivial - funny even - if the whole project didn't have that preachy feel to it. Anyway, probably best to stop before this devolves into two pages with Hiro-Gromnir you-said I-said monstrosity. J. but the preachy feel is, 'ccording to your earlier post, based on your reading o' developer interviewers and your belief o' endemic sjw indoctrinations/educations. the goblin stuff IS trivial. you yourself see as trivial when viewed only w/i context o' the game itself. is what junai brings to the game that makes more than trivial. junai and Gromnir is actual discussing, so is nothing like hp. however, you is likely correct that we has hit a point beyond which devolution is inevitable. end up repeating ourselves in different ways, which is largely pointless. HA! Good Fun!

ok, we could channel our inner bruce and go all leonard peltier on ya, but truth is we never much sympathized with peltier. am gonna avoid the rather considerable number o' books focusing on indian suffering while recognizing that many is fine reads. you a laura ingalls wilder fan? be honest. a couple o' her books were set in south dakota... at least that is our recollection. another pioneer/settler book worth a read is giants in the earth. is historical fiction and does a fair job from the portions we has actual read. given the recent thread direction asking 'bout fantasy, is perhaps appropriate to observe that dan simmons, the guy who wrote hyperion and ilium, also wrote a book called the black hills. am gonna avoid comment on quality, but keep in mind as fantasy, is not 'posed to be historical accurate. am knowing you asked 'bout history books, but is some good movies too. again, am gonna avoid the obvious dances with wolves kinda stuff. little big man were a novel before it were a movie. is a fun read if full o' inaccuracies. if you want a kinda modern indian perspective, watch powwow highway. national geographic also included an impressive pine ridge piece a few years ago... see if we can get a linky. http://www.aaronhuey.com/pine-ridge-national-geographic-magazine/ am sure you can get a copy o' the national geographic article if you wish to have the accompanying text to go with the photos. thus ends our preachy indulgence. custer actual wrote a book, so if you are genuine interested, we recommend starting with his personal account. custer and the epic of defeat is a nice book that does a fair job contrasting fact v. fiction surrounding custer's doomed final battle, but custer were a noteworthy personage before his death and many books give only cursory recognition o' the general's early life and military career. HA! Good Fun!

So the poorly written transgender character was not a joke, but the goblin was? Maybe Gromnir can keep better track of American and Canadian developers' attempts at humour, as he is english speaking and familiar with all the out-of-place jokes. Personally I just thought the writing was preachy and boring. What I read, anyway. I'm not sure I want to use the term leukemia to describe the current trend. More like watering down the whiskey. Then again, with all the violence and misogyni in many computer games, maybe it's natural that Baldur's Gate received a trendy sjw makeover. And please don't pull the tiresome conspiracy card when there's no conspiracy. Many feminists loudly proclaim they want to teach us values and add more sjw content to games, including the writer(s) of SoD. It's all over teh Internetz. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html There's hardly a game these days without LGBT content, or a healthy mix of Caucasian, Afraican and Asian characters. Wasn't there some male man & dwarf lovemaking in Dragon Age? Is it necessary to add this stuff to every game? Now they're campaigning for a lesbian Disney princess? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/frozen-elsa-first-lesbian-disney-princess-lgbt I don't mind if the progressives' and feminists' contribution helps end macho bs games like like GTA or COD. I never play FPS, and I don't even own a consol. But how they managed to find sexism in little old Baldur's Gate is beyond me. J. joke v. serious distinction matters not too much to us when is trivial. were trivial. were like a minor rash. also, is hardly impossible to be both a joke and serve some kinda goal to enlighten, yes? am not seeing anything inherent funny 'bout a transgender character who is not obvious transgender until you push for information, at which point they share their tale o' hardships. is nothing in the setup that strikes our funny bone. the presentation is awkward more than anything else... but definitely trivial. on the other hand, a common speaking goblin playing the race-card doesn't make you believe the developers were trying for a joke? maybe gotta use words that include hard K-sounds? mukluk? kumquat? tough room. need oversized shoes and a floppy hat? as for conspiracy, am pretty sure that it is a secret that developers is using bg style expansions to teach kids values. is a secret that only j is aware o'. but again, a writer who doesn't have a message that they try to work into their craft via means both subtle and salient is gonna be the exception. how many song, movie and lit references need we include o' entertainers from various media who use their entertainment to promote a message before it sinks in that such is commonplace? entertainer with a message is the norm. if such proselytizing is done with skill, then for Gromnir to be offended, the message must be inherent vulgar. birth of a nation? if the message is the grandness o' the kkk, then am not caring 'bout craft. even so, am doubting that junai is gonna place lgbt agenda on a similar level as kkk or nambla. similarly, if the craftsman's efforts to enlighten is incidental or trivial, then we have a hard time generating much venom. if such efforts detract from the narrative 'cause they is individual or collective distracting, then Gromnir will cry foul, but our complaint will be one o' craftsmanship and not the agenda itself. by all accounts we has seen regarding sod, the agenda pushing efforts o' the LGBT Values & Moral Educational army were a minor inclusion. would such efforts have offended junai if he did not read the developer interviews? would the goblin comment have bothered junai if he did not envision a widespread conspiracy to educate children via games such as sod? out of place. junai is at least honest. is not a rationalization o' fail that focuses on mechanics o' the included message. and good on junai for not going that route. the same mechanics were used w/o giving offense in bg. nope, is the message itself that offends junai. we do agree with junai on one point: we didn't see noteworthy sexism in bg. as we noted elsewhere, the companion dialogues from bg that offend amber is little more than a collection o' catchphrases. see portrayal o' jaheira or safana as shallow = yes. see portrayal o' jaheira or safana as NOTEWORTHY sexist = no. sure, one could argue that the femme fatale is an inherently sexist cliche, but to find any kinda meaningful sexism in the bg safana portrayal requires imagination and a personal agenda that has a person proverbial jumping at shadows. is more than a little amusing that amber's actual fail were the same fail as that which plagues junai. HA! Good Fun!

agreed, but am dreading that the developers chose improve-through-use. HA! Good Fun! ps am also not a fan o' talent trees. trees got loads o' prerequisites built into them. prerequisites is bad if maximizing customization is a goal.

What can I tell you... I'm picky picky is good. Gromnir has been called a lit snob more than once. been called a snob... period. been called far, far worse. our snobbery, while unapologetic and obvious, confuses folks. after all, while we frequent proclaim the sorry state o' the fantasy/scifi genre(s), when asked to reveal examples o' the best such works, we tend to follow mr. frost's advice. yup, for the dyed-in-wool snob, our list o' fantasy greats is gonna include crowley's little, big and updike's the witches of eastwick. our condemnation o' the prose o' tolkien would make even harold bloom wince, though we will give tolkien's lotr a respectful nod as an exemplar o' deep and complete myth crafting. am thinking octavia butler's kindred is coarse, but readable in its own way. typical snob, eh? two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveler, long I stood and looked down one as far as I could to where it bent in the undergrowth; 'course we ain't done with our list after crowley and updike, gardner and carroll. nope, 'mongst our favorites is gaiman's stardust and the graveyard book. while his most mature novel is american gods, we do believe it is his least impressive book as the numerous plot strands confounded his storytelling efforts the deeper he got into his work. most impressive is gaiman writing when he writes for kids or when he writes w/o pretension-- include his graphic novels and neverwhere 'mongst the numerous stellar gaiman offerings. the aforementioned graveyard book is our favorite fantasy work written in the last decade. second best ain't even close. sure, is a coming o' age story, but after reading you ain't never gonna forget the dread manjacks and you will no doubt feel at least a moment's ridiculous regret that you never grew up 'mongst silent stones o' granite and marble. the phantom tollbooth and a swiftly tilting planet is gonna show up near the top o' a list by Gromnir o' the best fantasy ever written. is for children, but is not written to children. read those books as adults and you realize just how mature is the themes and how well-crafted is the prose. is good to be picky, eh? is good not to worry 'bout convention. as an aside, we heard that bbc were doing a tv show based 'pon jonathan strange & mr. norrell. sure, one needs endure the typical englishman's (woman in this case) preoccupation with early 19th century london and its environs. am not sure what it is 'bout ubiquitous dirt and endemic human misery that so charges the english imagination, but regardless, the children o' the britons see such a setting as inherent magical. *shrug* am not gonna claim that strange and norrell's portrayal o' magic is unique, but it is refreshing. is a worthy read, and assuming that the show develops a loyal following, you can be one o' the handful o' Americans who can lord it over your colleagues at the watercooler while they discuss the show while you is able to remark on the differences 'tween the book and the bbc offering. sneer as the literary manhood o' bob in hr shrivels in the presence o' your abject superiority. muwahaha! we kid. HA! Good Fun!

walter scott gots some fantastic stuff. rob roy and waverley is also enjoyable. if we are going beyond scifi and fantasy, then we would add dumas' works to the list. got the political infighting, that is for darn sure. as hard as it is to believe, dumas were actual more interesting than his novels, but one must needs keep in mind that authors such as dumas were paid by the word for their manuscripts. as such, there were a tendency to indulge in a considerable amount of dialogue padding for those involved in writing popular fiction. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. we would say that gene wolfe's new sun and short sun is very much hero journey w/o too much political intrigue. that being said, is not typical hero journey 'cause they is actual done well. the short sun books, while not getting much attention as new sun, is our personal high water mark for wolfe as a writer o' novel length fiction. still, is very much hero journey stuff-- so too is knight and wizard. unfortunate, once again, wolfe in his wizard knight books is far more concerned with allegory, extended metaphor and personal character development than he is 'bout political infighting. am not disagreeing that wolfe is fantastic, but he is much a classical adherent o' the hero journey formula. david gemmell (particular the drenai series) is another fine writer o' fantasy, but hero journey is core. relative simple themes and well-developed characters. before game o' thrones became popular, gemmell were embracing a more grim notion o' fantasy, while seeming to take delight in killing off his protagonists. still, is much embracing hero journey... but so too is gd's tolkien books and kingkiller, so am actual not certain what he likes. if gd simple wants our notion o' good fantasy novels with an explanation 'bout why we like, we would provide a much longer list. nevertheless, if we gotta combine political intrigue, in a fantasy setting, w/o embracing hero journey and its trappings, then list gets much shorter. HA! Good Fun!

Sorry, but... what? am equal baffled. "If you take all the interviews with the developers and the rest of the content into account, together with the current trend to teach children about real life values via computer games, you'll see that the goblin ain't all that tongue-in-cheek." regardless, if the only way we can find writer sin is to follow developer interviews and imagine an overarching conspiracy 'mongst game designers to use bg-style games to enforce values for kiddies (HA!), then am feeling little difficulty in recognizing the tongue-in-cheek quality o' the goblin... and a host o' other sod transgressions. apparently gorth snipped somebody, which sounds painful... or perhaps obligatory if gorth is a mohel. regardless, we gotta be careful. nevertheless, w/o directing comments at anybody in particular, one wonders what is the threshold for out of place or inappropriate or immersion-breaking. bg went for the cheap laugh as often as any game we can recollect save for fallout 2. were multiple mechanics used to make sure that players were aware that the developers did not take the sword coast setting particular serious. the thing is, while few here is aware, there were much negative board feedback regarding bg levels o' camp, quirk and irreverence. obviously with the blair witch stuff and neb's head, the developers did not completely stop indulging their inner teen. even so, bioware scaled back the out of place encounters and dialogues when building bg2. 'course then the developers had to deal with players complaining 'bout the assault to their immersion via the bg2 npc contest winners as well as the numerous boardie cameos. can't help but feel a bit bad for the developers given how difficult it appears to be to judge that which is out of place. regardless, we can understand sod developer consternation regarding out of place, particularly if using bg as their guide. is the actual problem as junai explains? his view, which we disagree with, is nevertheless honest. am believing that he is indeed genuine affronted by the goblin, but only given the context o' developer interviews and a belief that beamdog and others is attempting to force an sjw agenda down his gullet. junai is being truthful 'bout why the goblin offends him personally. is not interactivity or some other such nonsense. the goblin is a symptom o' the disease, yes? a rash might be incredible minor-- a simple allergic reaction. might also be a symptom o' something life threatening. where Gromnir sees a rash, junai sees leukemia? a rash can be funny, but leukemia is unlikely to produce a hearty guffaw, eh? am thinking that junai is delusional, but he is being honest. simple advice for developers: avoid particular hot topic issues. doesn't seem that mechanics is the issue for folks like junai, so key is to avoid the wrong topics. 'course that has gotta be tough advice to take for folks who believe they got something worth saying. HA! Good Fun!

is fantasy essential? our personal and frequent shared opinion is that the vast majority o' scifi is not worthy o' distinction from fantasy. scifi and fantasy were convenient labels for the sellers o' pulp magazines and books back in the mid 20th century, but is no meaningful distinction... with admitted few exceptions. true speculative fiction is kinda rare and am not certain it requires a unique genre label even so. sure, asimov, kim stanley robinson, arthur c. clarke, and a handful o' others is genuine predicting the impact o' future technologies on human culture, but for the most part, scifi is ray guns, spaceships and aliens... aliens who is fundamental human in terms o' motives and behaviors in spite o' their differing physical appearance. star wars, for example, is fantasy regardless o' the presence o' space travel, yes? reason we ask is 'cause even when scifi is being little more than fantasy, it tends towards the stuff that interests gd. still gotta be careful. dune, which gd has likely read, has got loads o' political intrigue, and the series don't begin to suck something terrible until midway through the third book. even so, paul atreides is clear a hero's journey protagonist, so perhaps it ain't what you is desiring. if scifi is viable, you might have more options. the moon is a harsh mistress isn't quite as romantic 'bout its subject matter as the fantasy novels you mentioned, but perhaps you find something interesting. alfred bester's demolished man is not a series, but also read the stars my destination for the invention o' what would eventual become known as cyberpunk. asimov's robot series starts as quasi mystery novels and ends with your star spanning political intrigue. begin with caves of steel. ursula k. leguin's left hand of darkness? is newer material as well. for fantasy. *shrug* is not particular profound writing, but as a change o' pace, you might consider matthew woodring stover's caine books. again, not fantastic writing, but Gromnir gots criticisms on that point regarding rothfuss and his mary stu protagonist, and we never liked a majority o' tolkien. the caine books is set similar to bester's but also is fantasy... and the hero ain't. even if ain't great writing, is a change o' pace and seeming gots elements you want. HA! Good Fun!

our friend and former neighbor, after 7 years in the nfl and a pro bowl appearance, went broke a few years ago. wish he woulda' talked to us. tax evasion. probation. is not like he were a 7th round draft pick neither--top 50. can't imagine how difficult it must be to try and convince the average nfl player, a guy who on average will be in the league less than 4 full years, is unlikely to ever get rich. cte scares us. got moments when we is ashamed that we is still a nfl fan. those moments increase every year. is more than a couple helmet technologies that look promising. am particular interested in helmets that is made to be broken. regardless, something needs to be done and sooner rather than later.

aluminiutrioxid summarized your points. thanks for him. lord knows why you were so impotent. can't blame aluminiutrioxid for your shortcomings. is not his argument. unfortunately, as we noted already, the summary of points didn't actual address our question(s). we have attempted numerous times to clarify, but you are in pee-wee mode. and as to you trying to get back on topic, sod IS the topic. you claim "out of place" for goblin while ignoring the long and storied history o' outta place for bg. hp wants to change topics 'cause this one is uncomfortable? HA! hp has been running away from the question you posed to hurlshot. kinda amusing actually. is only off-topic when your responses is off-topic. weren't off-topic when we responded to aluminiutrioxid, but your post immediate preceding our post is indeed off-topic, as is ours. like links and quotes? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1806059 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1806064 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1806066 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1806069 etc. is all off-topic. so, try not to be too hypocritical. want back on-topic? simple: 1) answer the question Gromnir posed 2) stop if you can't do either, then you got nobody to blame but yourself. Gromnir is the one trying to get on-topic... your recent sod topic as a matter o' fact. HA! Good Fun!

kadir beneath mo moteh can't have a useful discussion with a guy who won't respond other than to claim he already responded or that Gromnir don't comprehend. channeling your inner pee-wee? ah well, can't claim we didn't try. HA! Good Fun!

and am not posting just to cheese off guard dog. HA! Good Fun!