Amentep

It is true, people do resist new ideas (because people resist change). Personally, I like to imagine that the Ice Age came out to much applause, but Global Warming came out of the back locker room, and they're now having a best 3 out of 5 falls, no holds barred wrestling match over which will destroy life as we know it.

Funnily, if I could keep rolling dice I didn't restart as much. I find it very hard to get the character I want with point buy (because ironically point buy makes the points more important and thus ultimately less forgiving to accidentally gimping your character when you're distracted.)

Well, first I look at a string of text and try to parse words and punctuations. Then I try to relate the words to each other so that they create a context within a sentence. Then using that context I try to further extrapolate sentence context into paragraph context. Later, I review the content in my mind to determine rising and falling action, foreshadowing, character development, setting and mood. Occasionally graphs are involved.

I've always re-rolled my characters (even if Bioware games with full voice-acting ). I've never minded replaying the opening; really its a matter of finding a character that feels right. Hoping my current Paladin is that character...

Its the new PoE (Pillars of Eternity) Law of the internet - discussion of limerick removals will be transformed to be about scientific dishonesty, scientific theory and conspiracy theory in 24-26 pages. EDIT: About Climate Change - I think part of the reason people are reluctant to accept it is because those of us alive in the 1970s remember how the earth was due for an Ice Age that would destroy civilization as we know it. Then 30 years on we're told that the world is heating up and it'll destroy civilization as we know it. Since most people wouldn't be able to parse a scientific journal (reputable or not) all they hear is talking heads going "You're going to freeze to death...no wait, you're going to drown due to rising tides because the world is heating up...or if not in coastal areas starve because food production will cease to exist because everything will become arid desert".

I can't really pick an option in the poll. So far I've enjoyed the game. I'm not done with it, though. That said, like Stun I like the concept of party-based, isometric class based games. And so I'm happy to have supported this games existance and to have supported my favorite game developer in the process. Since I was really keeping my expectations low (ie I wasn't expecting Baldur's Gate III) I find a lot to like in PoE. Is it perfect? No. But I've been playing it for some time and enjoying it, so perfection is kind of irrelevant. There are good and bad things and I'd support another PoE style game (or sequel) from Obsidian in the hopes that the good stuff will continue and the bad stuff be fixed.

I think - even in a situation where deadly force might be justified - the tool is important. They didn't train the cop in , they trained him to use guns, rifles, tactical rifles, shotguns, pepper spray, batons and/or tasers.

You know why we have false dichotomies? Because if you added a third choice, they'd be false tracheotomies. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitresses. ... Seriously though, I think I'd rather Obsidian use any money they raise from licensing to invest back into the company in some way, instead of using that money to add full VO to a game that was never planned to have full VO. EDIT: I know the topic has also broached fan-made full VO which I also think won't work, but hey if someone wants to do it and gets enough fans...why would I care?

This. It's painfully clear that the developers were playing favorites with the classes. Cipher got all the love cause they invented it. Wizard and Paladin clearly received quite a bit of neglect, comparatively. Not sure I can buy this; Ciphers were part of the 2.5 Million Stretch goal with Barbarians. They reflected the Psionisist in D&D (as each of the classes correspond to a D&D class) and had every chance to not be in the game at all. I think an easier (and most likely true) argument would be made that Obsidian had trouble finding places for all the D&D classes in their setting. Chanters and Ciphers are really good lore related classes. But finding a role that distinguishes Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter seemed to be a harder task (since Fighter seems to tank as good or better than Paladin and the extra abilities of the Barbarian don't really improve its damage potential heavily over the Fighter, in my experience). I mean it could be true, but to me the problem was being beholden to the D&D class distinctions because they choose to D&D-mirroring classes.

This is a good point. However, to play Devils advocate 2 and 3 wouldn't be an issue for a hypothetical VO DLC. Everything in the game is already written, so adding VO to it wouldn't effect the writing at all. But it raises a problem you wouldn't have if total VO was "in" from the begining - Obs opted for a description & dialogue written presentation. So do you continue only voicing the things being said (thus meaning the game isn't really completely voice acted) or do you add a narrator to have complete narration (which means it now has to be done in a way that meshes with each individual voice performance)

There's not a mention of how the moons travel (other than both are faster than our moon). If moonrise and set are at the same time (ie synchronous with the day) with respect to the visible moon, Beläfa, then the day could be split into threes and fives rather easily (sunrise (sunset), moonrise (moonset), (no sun, no moon (Cawldha Dev rise/set)), I'd think.

After CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK didn't work well, they didn't have the budget to continue the Necromonger storyline directly, so went back to a "Pitch Black" type of story. I liked it a lot, and hope they get to do the last two films.

Being able to recognize a physical difference (skin color, eye color and type, hair type) is not logically followed by hating/oppressing those things that are other to yourself by necessity. There has to be an intervention to create the idea that that which is other to me is inferior/hated/evil/whatever.

Its on cassette tape, just like we used to have for the C64. 144 of them.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? I think he means celebrity images being co-opted into memes is so common, the fact that one was made and a celebrity didn't like it wouldn't make the news.

But that's the thing; racism is taught. While oppression (in general) can lead to a class system that class system isn't inherently racist (it is inherently "otherist", making marginalising people by race, gender or anything obviously observable very easy though, hence why it goes hand-in-hand so often).

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it. Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant perspective Just because its understandible doesn't make it excusable. Sure its easy to shrug off for the majority powerbase, but... ...IMO the reason why "reverse -ism" is a thing (it crops up everytime racism, sexism or similar get debated) is because there is a perception - right or wrong - that the people who talk about ending racism don't really care about solving the problem of racism, they only care about moving their group out of the oppressed position. And in its way, that's fair - no one wants to be on the short end of the stick. But doing that doesn't really solve the problem. The worry I have is that fixing a symptom here and there doesn't address the root cause. If you've grown up being taught to hate Group X, odds are you're going to teach your kids to hate Group X. And it doesn't matter if you have power in the society or not; what it means is that when you have the power though, you have an opportunity to exercise something you've been taught to be right all your life - that Group X isn't worthy of the same human rights as you. Edit: Fixed a missplaced "T".

Was their a race poll that I was supposed to take before I started posting? If so I didn't take it. Seriously, I'm not sure why a posters race, gender or sexual orientation should matter anyhow. I'm fine with arguing points rather than people. We've always seemed like a pretty good group of people attracted to Obsidian games and in the end I'd like to think we can all agree to disagree if we can't find common ground. Anyhow, I've never argued that "black on white" racism was on the same level as "white on black" racism; I have argued that racism - all of it - is bad for society and needs to be eradicated, in its entirety. And I don't think you do that piecemeal. I think our past history shows that improving bits and pieces at a time doesn't, ultimately, work the way it should. EDIT: And being kicked in the groin isn't the same as being shot in the back. I'm not sure I'd want any of it to happen to me.

Pretty sure it does. There are currently post count restrictions. You can also restrict by class. These are things administrators - not moderators - can do. There is, I believe, one administrator on the Obs side. Or they started online in BBSes or UseNet which couldn't even recall messages properly, much less really allow them to be edited. Or they were around in BIS when people would make a troll post, then edit the post to be innoculous for laughs because not everyone is going to quote a message and understand why the limits were created in the first place. On a privately owned message board you only have as much freedom as the owner of the board extends to you. A message board isn't a public space.

^The typical tradeoff is magic is more powerful but has limited uses (ie I can swing my sword more times than you can lob your fireball)

And then when we invaded Mars, we'd be the ones killed by the common cold, not the Martians.

IMO, you can't fix the system unless you fix why the system exists. Racism is perpetuated through generations; you can improve the lives of the oppressed but they can still pass on the mindset that oppression has created (regardless of which side they're on) to further generations. If you don't strike down the ideology the only thing you've done is given both sides equal hand in hating one another (ie both can use the system to oppress one another in continuing cycles of oppression). EDIT: Also, if you allow the racism to continue to exist, fixing the oppressive system is only going to lead to the racists creating a better (or at least more subtle) oppressive system. The only way to end an oppressive system is to end the root of the oppression, ie the basic concept of race as anything other than an arbitrary construct.

I don't disagree with that statement. But I don't think you solve racism by letting it slide because of historical oppression. The solution to racism is for everyone to realize that race doesn't matter, and you just can't get there without addressing racism of all types - no matter how ultimately ineffectual the racism itself may be. I reject the assertion that I brought up different types of racism - because I don't believe there are different types of racism. To use "reverse racism" or "reactionary racism" as an example, what you say is quite true - it is often borne of systematic discrimination. But you don't create equality by continuing to allow the idea that the groups are unequal to persist even if there's a sympathetic reason for it to exist in the oppressed population; its a flawed approach. You can't fix the system until you fix the perception. To eradicate racism (IMO), the idea that the races are fundamentally different must be challenged as a very notion at all levels.

The proper analogy to my point with respect to vaccinations would actually be "I do not feel that measles vaccination will work if you only vaccinate the (rich/poor/men/women/white/black/whatever-subset-of-the-population-you-want)"

But - and this is the point that confuses me, if the goal is to rid the world of racism (or sexism) then how is this achievable if you only try to eliminate one form of it allowing others to continue to exist? If racism is bad - in general - then surely the way to eliminate it is to eliminate all of it? Not some of it here and there, a little at a time? No problems from my standpoint, I really do try to understand these sides of the debate as best I can, but sometimes I can't follow the logic (which may be hindered by language barriars).