Amentep

I think that if the NPC is going to be a fully-fledged character, they have to have their own interests and attractions - including those of sex and romance. That's not to say that an NPC can't exist who is up for anything, but that has to be part of their character from the begining of their creation, not something tacked on at the end to ensure that every player choice gets a romance (the validation of player choice is just as strong in being denied something due to your choices as it is by achieving something, a thing that often times is forgotten by creators and players all the time).

To be fair, I wonder how much of it really comes from a desire (even if passed down through the family) to eliminate parasites from meat rather than any real concern regarding taste.

Since I view respec as a game aspect and not a game-world aspect, I don't really need an in-game explanation for it. However the plot of Deadfire itself - that Eothas somehow soul sucks your skills away so that you're a level one newbie pretty much establishes that even the physical skills that are grown through training are still somehow filtered through the soul in the gameworld, so the argument that animancy might be a way to game-world respec still seems to fit to my mind. That said, given that animancy is such a dicey proposition, it seems like there should be an element of risk if you're applying a real game-world condition to respec.

Whether you felt the answer you received was the answer you sought or not, it is still a fair point that one shouldn't spam the forum with the same question in multiple places.

I think the idea is that all the skill and powers and stuff is driven by a character's soul, therefore respec in a gameworld sense could/would require a tweak of the soul to accomplish.

Should have been a barn door anyhow. Then when people using ranged weapons missed you, you could have taunted them that their aim was so bad they couldn't even hit a barn door. ... I'll get my coat.

Schultz isn't retired, he's working on a new 60 page Xenozoic Tales story - https://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/12/14/a-new-60-page-xenezoic-tales-comic-from-mark-schultz-to-pick-up-its-20-year-cliffhanger-in-2016/

TO CATCH A THIEF (1955) - Its been awhile since I last watched this film; Grant, Kelly are great as leads, Landis, Auber and Williams all do well as support. But while it works as a fun breezy film, there's some sloppy elements that seem to be fairly unusual for one of Hitch's films. The bit where Grant is attacked towards the end is a mess. Still you watch this kind of film for the fun and breezy dialogue and that is totally nailed.

Are you pulling them down to the left most open circle? If not they will not be added, the circles are there to show where you'd place them generally, but you have to drag them to the left most open circle.

Probably rather go for a meteor hammer, as it could possibly still be useful against an armored opponent for more than just disarming and tripping, but animating it would be a pain.

Alien Covenant Prologue short:

The Criterion Collection is certainly an embarrassment of riches in many ways. There is so much there to try and work through.

Yeah the CGI complaint about Crimson Peak was hilarious. Not that the film isn't without its problems, but CGI...not it.

93 is a good age, but you can't help but wonder what he could have done if his dismissal from Nikkatsu in '67 and the subsequent lawsuit he won hadn't led to his blacklisting for a decade. Although with Nikkatsu's content change in 1974, there's no telling really what his career would have been like during that period, I guess. I'm pretty sure I know his films primarily from reputation, though, as I haven't delved too deeply into the Nikkatsu catalogue.

And Ivan Koloff And long-time TV actor Warren Frost, (Doc Hayward in TWIN PEAKS amid many credits) also passed away. He was also the father of Twin Peaks co-creator Mark Frost. And Time Magazine's film critic Richard Schieckel has also passed away. He was also an extensive documentarian with 5 emmy nominations for his documentaries on film (like THE MEN WHO MADE THE MOVIES (1973)).

I've heard good things about Jane Doe, will see it eventually.

I frequent a forum on certain classic films that has a complete forum dedicated to memorializing those of artistic talent who have passed away (...and its been going on so long, memorializing some of the posters of the board). Given that we've had individual threads on various people here before, I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning people of distinction - actors, directors, scientists, musicians, writers, artists, etc. And with that in mind, Bruce Lansbury, producer of Mission: Impossible, Wild, Wild West, Knight Rider and - working with his older sister - Murder She Wrote passed away - http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/bruce-lansbury-angela-brother-tv-producer-dead-87-article-1.2973846

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/arts/music/al-jarreau-singer-who-spanned-jazz-pop-and-rb-worlds-dies-at-76.html Al Jarreau, Jazz, R&B & pop singer passed away Sunday.

And in the case of the unknown, there's only a legal requirement that a person is innocent until proven guilty. There is no requirement that people can't rightly/wrongly believe in guilt before a legal (or even HR, as in this case) determination is made. That doesn't follow from what I said. People had a right to be offended. If offended they had a right to complain about the offense. At that point it goes to ESPN's ball field for action/inaction. I'm not an HR person, so I could only speculate on things. I imagine that HR has to take a neutral stance when investigating for fairness, but I suspect that the burden of proof is closer to civil law (where the proof standard is, as I understand it, 'more likely than not' than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'). And whether he was treated fairly by ESPN per their HR policies, the terms of his contract and applicable law seems to be the root of the lawsuit.

Actually no one has to give him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise everyone can do anything they want so long as they say it wasn't intentional afterwards. People have a right to be offended whether he wittingly or unwittingly made offense. He has a right to say he was misunderstood and try to prove it. ESPN has an obligation to do due diligence and accord sanctions according to their policy and relevant laws. . Now that there's a suit, ESPN has to prove he violated some terms of his working agreement since they took correct and legal action. He has to prove that the firing was either (a) not following the organizations policies or applicable law, or (b) applied to him incorrectly as he used a homophone of a racial slur, not an actual racial slur.

No, but a human being should care. And how does that theoretical human know if the theoretical 'minefield stepper' did it by accident or not, in a verifiable, independent sort of way?

Do you really think he would've intentionally used a racial slur knowing he would be fired immediately? "There's a small chance he meant this in a racist way, we better destroy his career and reputation just to be safe." As I've said, I think he said gorilla not intending it to be a racial remark. He might even have been unaware of the words historical racist context. Is ignorance a defense? Did he have other disciplinary actions against him we don't know about? Is there more context that can explain his guerilla defense? I don't know. I do know if you step into a minefield, the mine doesn't care if you did so by accident or not. Some sort of disciplinary action was going to come forth on this; is the firing justified? I guess we'll find out in the court case - if it happens.

Perhaps it could act similar to Stevenson's Black Spot in TREASURE ISLAND? That said, if I was making an item with an Obsidian theme, I'd be hard pressed not to make a shield and call it the Black Shield of Falworth...

The difference with the Gorilla/Guerilla thing is that there actually is a history of using the term gorilla to portray/present those of African descent as sub-human. So it does have a historically racist connotation. The real question is whether he said "gorilla" or "guerilla" and what he possibly meant by either use.

I don't see discussing romance and its implementation in games as a side track in the romance thread. Anyhow, I dislike the term 'wish fulfillment' precisely because it has a connotation of lacking in the player actually having to work at or towards a goal. The player wants it, so they're going to get it; this is true whether the wish is fulfilled in their wildest fashions or in a 'monkey's paw' sort of way to create drama. "You would never say that the action segments of a game being boring is the fault of the player not being able to put themselves in the character's shoes, so by that same argument, you should never say that romantic characters being unattractive is the fault of the player putting too much of themselves & their own standards into their character." Not finding a romantic character attractive or viable for the player character is inevitable, as its a function of character and no character can appeal to everyone. If I say I don't like Durance its either because (a) he's non-optimal for my party build from a functional standpoint or (b) I dislike him as a character. In the case of (b), should games not include a non-player character I don't like? If your answer is yes, then I disagree with the concept that NPCs have to be universally likeable (I'd also argue that it would be fundamentally impossible to create); if your answer is no, then I disagree that a distinction needs to be made in the subset of character that is romance. To me, if you're building non-player characters with the idea that any one (or all) has to be attractive to the player you're losing sight of the NPC as a character and as such, the NPC has lost any agency they might have had in the narrative. IMO, YMMV.