Gromnir

the way you make plant aspect o' crafting neat (i.e. free o' disorder) is to get rid o' plants as ingredients. plants is an unnecessary bit o' bloat with an awkward and tedious mechanic. more is not always better. this is one such case. disable plant pixel hunting and remove plants from recipes. alternatively, at least let us use tab. is freaking annoying to pixel hunt. plants is an unnecessary addition with a horribly unimaginative and uninteresting mechanic. at least let us tab and reduce the tedium. HA! Good Fun!

No I don't though I'm sure inXile wants to spin it that way. I was there on PS:T forums back when the game was being developed so I know what I'm talking about. Black Isle obtained IE license when the engine wasn't even finished. And then they heavily modified it for PS:T until it was exactly what they wanted. Feargus said to use it, they didn't plan to use it originally. You can check out Matt Chat videos with Feargus as guest to get the full story we observed the old ps:t boards as well... which doesn't matter. bis reason for using infinity engine don't matter. is ps:t an infinity engine game? yes? is infinity engine games real-time with pause? yes? and most important, did obsidian specifically state in their kickstarter that they would use real-time with pause for combat? yes? if this were an issue, it were an issue before obsidian made their kickstarter pitch. doesn't matter how or why ps:t ended up as an ie game 'cause ps:t, for the actual relative small number o' people that played it, were an ie game with rtwp. and again, one o' the few specific claims made by obsidian in the kickstarter were that combat would be rtwp. perhaps some thinks PoE would be better as a tb game. *shrug* is an intriguing hypothetical. after you folks save mr. schrödinger's cat, you can work on the PoE tb question. HA! Good Fun!

this the "spirit" or "spiritual successor" stuff is mostly nonsense. however, one o' the few kickstarter claims obsidian made were... well, we might as well quote. "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. "Combat uses a tactical real-time with pause system - positioning your party and coordinating attacks and abilities is one of the keys to success. The world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing. You’ll create your own character and collect companions along the way – taking him or her not just through this story, but, with your continued support, through future adventures. You will engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. …and you'll experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out." we underlined and bolded for emphasis. am wishing folks would quit all the "spirit" hokum-- doesn't mean anything. one o' the few features that obsidian were clear about in their kickstarter were the bit above about real-time with pause. HA! Good Fun!

OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it. am not wanting to be a wet blanket, but that would represent a considerable amount o' work. at level 12 you would have 6 talents if obsidian switched to one talent every two levels. hopefully most o' the talents will not be class specific, but many will be. you need add a considerable number o' talents at each tier to makes folks believe they is making meaningful choices-- nobody is gonna be happy with worthless talent choices that is just filler. we don't even have a particularly deep spread o' talents at the moment. ... we would be ecstatic if obsidian could add one talent every two levels, but at the moment, Gromnir would be quite satisfied if we could get genuine diversity and usefulness from the one per three scheme currently in place. HA! Good Fun!

Bows fire slower than melee weapons do, and you will also note if you read my post earlier in the thread replying to Josh that 1H fast and 1H normal weapons are also an inferior choice at the moment against any armor (except Stilettos and Maces) compared to 2H weapons. Ignorance is bliss I guess. What I am saying to you is that the DPS reduction you are inflicting on the enemy (0.5 seconds every interrupt) is not worth as much as the DPS you gain from a point in Might, a point in Dexterity or the extra duration length you get from buffs in Intellect. Your Bow and Bear ranger is one of the only use cases where Interrupts are kinda useful. Shadenuat also managed to have good results with his Dual Stiletto wielding Barbarian. I have to ask, does your Ranger also have a good Dexterity ? our ranger has excellent dexterity and perception as its main function is interrupting... maybe. am not certain if we is interrupting and what actions we can interrupt or how successful we is. regardless, you is looking at the wrong stat in the present case. you should be asking about resolve. the immediate question is if the relative longer reload time o' firearms is creating a greater window o' opportunity to be interrupted, and how being a Victim o' interrupts is affecting actual damage output o' bow users v. firearms users. our cipher damage with the hunting bow were considerably better than labadal's numbers, but the genuine question is the effective increase in attack frequency we is getting due faster reload time for bows... which o'course needs must take into account Resolve and resistance to interrupts. as has been noted elsewhere, the current ai is a bit wonky in the beta with the bb fighter being mobbed. such will, apparently, be less frequent in the regular game. our ranged combatants will be targeted more frequent. as we noted already, our firearms users is already more noticeable victims o' interrupts. if that factor will increase in the non beta portion o' the game, bow usefulness further increases... maybe... potentially, don't know. HA! Good Fun! ps am still believing the bear companion is busted. haven't played a ranger since the recent update, but the bear typical had an accuracy o' 77 and were doing damage in the 50-70 range. our ranger bow damage were an almost negligible factor in determining our effective dps

Not quite. Interrups are dependent on a number of factors. Firstly you have to score at least a graze to qualify for an interrupt. Interrupt rolls are reduced by 50% on a graze and increased by 50% on a crit, making Interrupts reliant on your Accuracy to be effective. A point in Dexterity will add between 0.5% and 1.5% to your Interrupts over a course of time, whereas a point in Perception will add 3%. However this percentage is relative to the Base Interrupt of the weapon or spell you are using, the Defense score of the enemy and their Concentration so it's really hard to quantify how useful Interrupts are but it's safe to say that a point in Perception is weaker than a point in any other attribute. all of which tells us very little about how interrupts are affecting actual combat. am aware o' the relative impact o' perception and dexterity on causing interrupts, but we cannot tell what actions is interrupted and how. *shrug* as we said, firearms have a longer reload time and appear to be getting interrupted more frequent. that is an important factor that is being overlooked. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking interrupts is a factor being overlooked... but we cannot tell. as we noted above, we have frequently seen our firearms users being interrupted. bow users is interrupted far less frequent... maybe-- we can't say for sure. if because o' interrupts we is getting significant more potential attacks with a bow than with a firearm, that is a big consideration. nevertheless, we don't know how to check such. is not transparent. the combat log gives many numbers, but the combat log is brief, and the numbers aren't attached to specific causes... can become very confusing. HA! Good Fun!

interrupts are missing for one thing. the combat logs is also extreme brief, so while we can see one attack by every combatant in a melee, that don't translate to useful combat feedback. as noted above, a single firearm blast is doing more damage than a single arrow hit, so we cannot compare overall combat efficacy o' bows v. guns without doing some quirky number crunching and extrapolating. we also can see deflection and accuracy numbers, but frequently those numbers... change. on one attack our accuracy may be 53. on another it will be 49. ok, we got the numbers, but the numbers don't tell us the why we need to make sense of combat. other numbers is similarly peculiar. give us all the numbers is nice, but we don't always have a cause to tie those numbers to. we can replay PoE later and give specific examples if that will help. the numbers ain't the problem... or they might be. honestly, we don't know if the numbers is problematic 'cause we typical is guessing 'bout the causes attached to numbers that do not meet our expectations.

magic ammo were an issue with d&d and the ie games http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68032-no-arrows-good-thing-or-bad/?p=1497056 'course, we don't have such ammo in PoE, so that ain't an issue. honestly, the combat logs is so brief that we cannot tell what the relative damage outputs are. we use bows for interrupting, and we don't know when/if/how interrupting is working. guns throw up very obvious large damages that are startling big compared to bows, but over the course o' a long battle does the numbers even out? am suspecting it is more difficult to interrupt a bow user, and we know our gun users have been interrupted during long reloads. this is another case in which the brevity o' the combat logs make it difficult to be certain about relative combat efficacy. oh, and seriously, we need some better notion o' how interrupts work and is defended against... and we would like to be able to recognize when a successful interrupt occurs. HA! Good Fun! ps inability to recognize when we successful interrupt is an example o' our biggest current complaint with combat. we like that PoE combat is multi-layered and complex, but at the same time, we frequent feel a bit lost as to what is actual happening. we use buffs and abilities mainly 'cause the descriptions o' such abilities sounds impressive, but we often have little notion as to whether or not such abilities are efficacious or how efficacious. is also difficult to tell which friends or foes is affected by buffs and debuffs. we see some numbers that don't necessarily make obvious sense in the combat logs. is buffs and debuffs adjusting numbers? possibly, but we can rare tell which beetle, spider or guard is affected by a buff or debuff. there is much happening in PoE combat... is good that PoE is complex. heck, if this were a turn-based game, with turn-based mechanics, am certain that we could easily make sense o' it all. 'course tb would probable make combat soul-numbing slow at times too. in any event, PoE is not tb, and so it is frequent very difficult to figure out wth is happening given the brevity o' combat logs and seeming lack o' transparency with certain mechanics.

*insert eye-roll here* we gave indira benefit o' the doubt that there functional isn't a difference 'tween actual promises and spiritual successor nonsense, but trying to use as a bolstering of the initial flawed argument is bold... amusing, but bold. HA! Good Fun!

to be fair, indira never actual claimed obsidian promised "spiritual successor." he took kickstarter promises and extrapolated that phrase. after a few pages, folks adopted indira language. *shrug* "Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment. "Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG's that we enjoyed making - and playing. At Obsidian, we have the people responsible for many of those classic games and we want to bring those games back… and that’s why we’re here - we need your help to make it a reality!" from a practical pov, is there a difference between imagining promises based on the above as 'posed to spiritual successor? as we noted elsewhere, the more vague obsidian made their promises, ironically, the more they opened themselves up to criticism from those who ain't seeking to be fair. can PoE possibly pay homage to the ie games if it doesn't include __________ ? HA! Good Fun!

1) objective v. quest is complete irrelevant relating to the question of the thread: both/either/whatever exclude kill xp. 2) objective v. quest is a semantics issue. honestly. were not an issue two years ago and isn't today. 3) yes, you get incremental xp for taking various significant steps in achieving quests-- this is confirmed. HA! Good Fun!

the one observation we will add is that in one o' the mattchat videos, feargus observed that resources were already being allocated to the PoE expansion. feargus also expressed certitude that PoE would release in 2014. am guessing based on comments about the south park game, that interview were done more than a month ago... though am admittedly not certain exactly how long ago the actual interview took place. seriously expecting feature changes that would require significant resource costs strikes us as a bit narcissistic. if one could get many thousands o' people to protest overwhelming against a specific feature, then perhaps a change might be implemented, but even that don't seem too likely. that being said, folks can be lobbying for expansion changes, whether they is explicitly asking for them or not. now, keep in mind that many boardy observations about game features that don't match what developers has seen from their own testers and QA feedback will be viewed with developer skepticism. is fans who is prognosticating doom based on inclusion or exclusion o' particular features and no doubt the developers who is getting feedback direct from folks playing is listening to the wannabee Oracles at Delphi with more amusement than concern. at the same time, perhaps some boardy will indeed make an interesting observation or come up with a unique solution that had not yet been considered and dismissed by the obsidians months or years ago. the boards is a valuable bit o' cheap advertising for obsidian, but am thinking most fans have a disproportionate sense o' the worth o' the boards to the developers. the reality that the boards, from the developer pov, is mostly noise does not eliminate the possibility that a poster will offer constructive feedback or devise an elegant solution. yeah, anything said here is unlikely to result in changes to PoE, but it is possible that changes to the expansion, which is apparently already being developed, could be implemented. folks might be screaming for PoE changes that is impossible, but that doesn't make expansion changes out of the question... even if the stuff likely to get changes is not meshing with what many current boardies believe is required changes to make PoE a true spiritual successor with the right feel. HA! Good Fun!

which don't mean anything. seriously. define what qualities make for a spiritual successor? Simple. You extract the spirit from the original game using Animancy, then +1 it, and then put it into the body of a new game... isn't that how the developer's update regarding animancy informed us that those horrific undead monsters were created? or were that how magic item were made... or both? we should probable reread animancy stuff. undead were binding spirit to corpse, yes? actual bind spirit to game probable only results in a game we wish were dead rather than undead. regardless, PoE uses % rather than d20, so we give +5%... unless that violates the spiritual successorship o' the game. is all very confusing... and silly... and pointless. HA! Good Fun!

what you are stating is self-evident and should be beyond the possibility of contesting. and yet... *shrug* bg wilderness is actual another great example similar to bg ranged weapons excess. the bg2 boards were extreme vocal regarding the loathing o' bg1 wilderness maps. More durlag's, Less random wilderness. hell, even vol will chime in and admit that the bg2 boards were ugly and angry against bg1 wilderness being in bg2. nevertheless, many folks see a return o' such maps as essential. it strikes us as slight amusing that obsidian should use such vague and ambiguous descriptors and still find themselves being accused o' developer malfeasance and/or failure to live up to promises. predictable? sure, but is funny in a sad kinda way. leave vague actual makes it possible for any beloved feature to be essential. how do you argue against the essential nature o' feature X if is only essential 'cause o' subjective feel? HA! Good Fun!

Sorry but no, I won't stop doing that. that's fine... we didn't expect you to. doesn't change how ridiculous it is to argue over what does and doesn't qualify as features essential to replicating the feel o' an spiritual ie successor. HA! Good Fun!

" half of what is occurring in battles is functional a "mystary." am knowing that the obsidians think the "mystary" bit is funny, but is Gromnir's opinion that squad-based, tactical combat should be a bit more transparent. " ok, we stated what we think is a problem. we gave specific example o' enemy buffs to as further illustration o' what we intend. ... even so, we don't see an ez fix. bugs is relative speaking, ez fixes once identified. how do we fix the lack o' transparency for even one issue such as enemy buffs? is there a fix? then again, perhaps is a gestalt thing. as we noted earlier, bg2 didn't have similar transparency, but it didn't have same functional complexity due to PoE adding o' multiple new mechanics. we would be quite happy if obsidian did come up with a solution, but we cannot offer anything constructive. as such we is cynical that fixing what appears to be a design issue would be largely beyond the capacity to fix before 2014 ends. 'course, some solutions is gordian knot kinda things. folks not wanna admit that quest/task/objective xp is one such solution, but it is. nevertheless, perhaps the transparency issue is one such case that the solution is so simple and Gromnir still ain't seeing it "Turn-based combat." am suspecting that this is too obvious o' a solution. we prefer tb, but from the start this game were being sold as real-time with pause. the minutiae folks is railing 'bout as violating the spiritual successorship o' PoE to the ie games would be as nothing compared to the rage tb would inspire from some folks... though we thinks we would be amused by how many peoples would be on inexplicably opposite polarities regarding tb v. other essential ie qualities. HA! Good Fun! edit: had to edit out our cant quote... board software didn't like something about what cant said, but just assume we is directly responding to cant's post.

which don't mean anything. seriously. define what qualities make for a spiritual successor? we sure as hell can't define what amounts to feel o' a spiritual successor. sorry. is arguing over nonsense. obsidian no doubt thought they were making easy on themselves by using inherent ambiguous terms, but somehow folks is doing the opposite and using vague to bludgeon the developers. like or don't like. have a serious argument over what does and doesn't qualify o' successor stuff is... silly. HA! Good Fun!

initial thread query is silly. get 100 ie game fans together and have them list what they thinks is essential to be making an ie game successor. raise your hand if you expect genuine uniformity from those 100 fans. *shrug* the fact that obsidian has slight difference o' opinion than Gromnir is probable a good thing. for example, we wouldn't have made a class-based system integral. recognizing that PoE couldn't be ad&d or iwd2 d20, we woulda' dumped classes to actual better achieve obsidian stated goal o' allowing greater player character development freedom and choice. people keep saying "spiritual successor to the ie games" as if that gots a meaning. it don't. as much as obsidian aimed to be recreating the feel o' ie games, there is no definitive list o' essentials 75% o' us could agree 'pon, and we were never offered anything but feel anyways. two point that should be obvious, but isn't: 1) is not d&d... couldn't be d&d, so much o' things some folks would think o' as essential to the feel o' the ie games is not possible in PoE... or at least, not practical. 2) anything a person thought were busted in the ie games is not gonna be something they believe is essential to replicating the feel of the ie games. duh. point two seems to be getting lost. we thought ranged combat were busted in bg, so when the iwd developers changed ranged combat, we didn't mind. other folks wailed that bis were destroying their essential character builds... ruining the ie games. as we noted earlier, we thinks the d&d class systems is broken-down and busted, particularly kits. so, guess what, we don't wouldn't miss classes and we don't miss kits. kits were busted, so they clear ain't essential to feel o' a game replicating the feel o' the ie games. people is having this insane debate over whether PoE replicates ie without recognizing you don't have any functional definition as to what is or ain'ty esential to an ie game, and you sure as hell can't define a feel. is PoE features you like. is stuff you dislike. is stuff you thinks will make PoE better. is stuff you think obsidian has done that is not making PoE a good game. whatever. quit using the ie successor feel crap as an excuse. man-up... or woman-up, as the case may be. HA! Good Fun! edit: added 1 word

we can see valid reasons for eliminating pre-buffing. am recalling more than a few dragon or lich battles in bg2 wherein the prebuffing took longer than the battles themselves. the thing is, the lack o' pre-buffing does add a level o' complexity and distraction that makes combat all the more chaotic. am having a difficult time keeping straight who and is not buffed or debuffed. half of what is occurring in battles is functional a "mystary." am knowing that the obsidians think the "mystary" bit is funny, but is Gromnir's opinion that squad-based, tactical combat should be a bit more transparent. HA! Good Fun!

am not thinking we need discuss this much. we noted when crafting were first detailed that we didn't see a genuine point to plants if we already got animal viscera involved in recipe making. we observed that we didn't see a compelling reason to add hunting 'shrooms if all it were from a gameplay perspective were using tab or, lord forbid, pixel hunting. if finding PoE plants were a repetitive and mindless mechanic, we couldn't fathom a purpose. well, we got pixel hunting for plants. is this 'posed to be our motivation for map explorations? am admitting that this is a minor issue with all the other problems PoE current faces, but... why? HA! Good Fun!

am not having an issue with pacing, but combat feedback is a particular shortcoming in our estimation. we can assume that stuff such as DoT can be balanced rather easily in a patch as they weren't such a big deal previous to the recent patch. likewise, encounter abilities not resetting 'cause we never leave combat is also annoying but fixable... we hope. we can't see debuffs on foes. now, for some games this ain't a problem 'cause o' fewer mob attacks, differences in ai or (*groan*) pacing or whatever. regardless, keeping track o' foes in PoE presents seeming unique difficulties. is the Scrum mentality o' foes causing issues unique to this game? with all foes stacked on top of each other, how does we distinguish two beetles, spiders or guards that otherwise looks the same? perhaps the lack o' meaningful visual contrast is handicapping the ability to discriminate? dunno. what we do know is that either some single fixable issue or a gestalt o' issues is making it exceeding difficult to keep track of enemies such that we may not intelligently utilize debuffs. as a side issue to combat feedback, we will once again note that the combat log, complete extended, is effectively making so that we may only see one action by each party member at one time. given that we can't tell which foes is affected by debuffs, this makes the combat log a bit too brief for us to be getting genuine useful feedback. it would be extreme helpful to makes savable text versions o' combat logs. fight a single foe in bg2 such as a dragon and you not need help to follow debuffs layered 'pon it. in bg2 you could also buff your own party before combat, so one/many steps were removed to make actual combat less frenetic. per encounter PoE abilities for virtual all characters also tends to increase the number o' debuffs we have available. we got stuff such as grass and additional foes stacking or interfering such that even if there is subtle visual cues for debuffs, we ain't seeing what to look for in PoE. ... the thing is, we don't have a single fix for our debuff complaint. we can't think o' an obvious fix, and am doubting there is time to address complex or subtle fixes. discouraging. HA! Good Fun!

another one o' these? *groan* but there is either a disconnect or somesuch. you further pulling up old posts to support your position would be an amusing approach in the present case. am thinking it were perhaps a mistake to pm you. in the pm we were arguably more condescending and less fair as we assumed (in)action on your part that would lead to you repeated making claims that were unsupported or unsupportable, we suggested a different approach. in our board posts, we do not make assumptions or hinder you with failures you have not earned-- we take your posts as you write them. that very well could be, ironically, an inability to express yourself. it could also be transparency o' you promoting agenda rather than seeking truth. is it perhaps the case you have such an agenda and refuse to accept that you could be wrong? am not genuinely concerned. we don't make such assumptions, especially when actions is more significant. personally, we would suggest that your persona is more fraudulent than ours. Gromnir is consistent, but we has, on numerous occasions found common ground with developers. you, on the other hand... well, you is kinda a dog with a bone on some issues. is kinda funny that you remind us a bit o' karzak, the difference being that he didn't have the fake facade. now, am thinking it would benefit us all if you kept actual discussion of issues to the issues rather than having this become a little whimper fest where you or Gromnir discuss where we see flaws in the other's posting style. we noted that PoE, for instance, did have degenerating weapons and that feature were dropped, but you would rather discuss what you see as Gromnir personality faults? perhaps 'cause you cannot make valid arguments on issues. grow up. if you can't make an argument, don't. is no shame in being wrong. turning these into nothing more than a complaint that Gromnir is mean and unfair 'cause he exposed you and were not nice about it diminishes you, not Gromnir. again, replay o' bgee don't tell us much other than that you ain't really wedded to companions, not even new bgee companions. most randomn "oops" kinda crap sucks in a crpg, but is not the least bit random when such stuff as bg breakable weapons is an example. as others mentioned, bg weapons broke for a limited and explicable plot reason, which as a person replaying the game you is both aware of and is knowing how to minimize the potential handicap. you know the simple ways to circumvent the illusory problem right from the start. horrible example. current play through reveals nothing that you wish it to... but it does reveal some o' what you do not. now, you gonna grow up and stay on-topic, or no? HA! Good Fun! ps apologies for not responding timely as we were working on a bit o a deadline this weekend. we will attempt to chastise you with more immediacy in the future. whack puppy who piddled on the floor needs be contemporaneous with the poor behavior for the correction to be creating a genuine learning experience.

am not sure what proof you is offering. example: in another thread, you mentioned how much you loved the bg companions and how even though you played mp with a created party, you left open-slots to add bg companions. hell, bgee even has three new companions with full bg2 style quests and you still didn't leave open slots. am not sure what proof we can get from your anecdotal play o' bgee. heck, three possible companions have been available to you thus far and you has spurned them all. 'course now that we made this point we suspect somewhere along the way you will adopt a companion... that will show Gromnir, eh? *shrug* also, is kinda funny, but weapon degradation actual were planned as an initial feature. is not same as bg breaking (which as noted already were a bg plot point and complete irrelevant once you got magic weapons early in the game) nevertheless, josh thought it were a good credit sink. *shrug* fans didn't like the feature, and more important, it appears that the other PoE team members didn't like it neither. removing weapon degradation were, it seems, a very easy change as it were only affected by a single skill. HA! Good Fun! Heh! You missed the context by a mile. That playthrough of mine is all about them six characters I rolled up myself (I have played the game dozens of times, I don't need to hear from those companions yet again. It's my prerogative to play BG the way I want to. However, some quest-xp-only people seem hell-bent on policing how it should be played. Also, for this crowd, companions > carefully roleplayed party of six you rolled up yourself. Why is this? I don't know. they are slaves under the laudatory quotes on the box.) My proof is that I keep on playing even if my party nearly got wiped out or if a weapon broke. I didn't re-roll, instead I roll with the punches. That's my way to RP combat in that playthrough. Obviously, if they all die I need to reload. So far, it hasn't happened. we got context. we saw what you wrote before... want us to quote? even when doing mp style you left slots open 'cause you says you liked companion banter. you liked bg companions. clearly you didn't like'em that much. well, as usual, is best to ignore what people say and look instead at what they do. you didn't get wiped, so no issue there. is always easy to have backup weapons 'cause you has played the game previous and already know weapons will break and will be easy for you to get easily found magic versions... because you know where the magic versions is too. *shrug* regardless, just as developers is likely to put more stock in actual feedback by watching folks play, so does Gromnir. we hear what you says, but then we see what you do. is illuminating. thanks. HA! Good Fun!

the amusing thing is that some o' the folks who are complaining is aware we have been doing this for fifteen years and that the bioware developers actual put the Gromnir character into one o' their games. what possible motivation could a handful o' schmucks on the PoE boards come up with that 1) we hasn't already heard many times-- is cute they all think they is unique and clever and 2) they genuine believe is likely to alter a fifteen year pattern ? anywho. alignment were kinda a funny quirk o' d&d. PoE cannot use d&d. therefore, is no reason to use alignment. proviso: if this were an elric of melnibone game, then alignment (although not d&d alignment) would be appropriate. anybody know who has digital elric rights? HA! Good Fun!