Amentep

Why have I not tried to fix the problem? Because you have 5 posts and none of them seem to follow Obsidian's "How to Report an Issue" request. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/72439-must-read-how-to-report-an-issue/ Well without knowing what the issue is (see above) its kind of hard to determine how to fix the issue. It is. The technical support forum is here: http://forums.obsidian.net/forum/104-pillars-of-eternity-technical-support-spoiler-warning/ Posting the thread here with none of the "How to Report an Issue" stuff makes it seem like you don't really want to solve an issue.

Probably true...but honestly there's perpetually offended on both side, whether it offense over jokes or offense over the removal of jokes that people found offense in. Like I said, there's no positive outcome for Obsidian here; whoever perceives they "lost" with respect to what Obsidian does is going to take it personally and be further offended.

To be fair, someone iss going to be butthurt regardless of what choice they make. Face it, Obsidian's choice is which downside they want, not what choice has an upside.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, so understand I value your attempt to explain the position to me. Perhaps I need to clarify my question? I know what I'm trying to ask but I seem to be failing to ask it properly. Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? Immoral, destructive, sinful? Would the Christian who balks at gay marriage also balk at providing a man and a woman a wedding cake with a pair of devils on it? Would they object to providing a cake with an upside down cross? Why is marriage in general seen as "good"? If acceptance of Christ is a key to heaven as described in the New Testament, wouldn't a marriage between non-believers who would potentially create and raise more non-believers mean that the support of any non-Christian wedding was supporting (or at least furthering) the eternal damnation of those people?

Weirdly I listen to the text, then read the description ignoring the spoken lines I've heard already. Works for me, so no problems with the dialogue system.

If killing mobs is so fun, why do you need an external motivator to encourage you to kill mobs?

If a mod could be created to remove it, then certainly a mod could be created to add it back. So if mods are a solution, why is either option bad (the "put out" party would just have to apply the mod if they felt that strongly about it).

I admit it took me 5 or 6 goes before I started getting the handle of how to do combat. Luckily I'm an inveterate re-starter and so was planning on playing the opening several times in order to test out various character classes and concepts. I think I've finally got the hang of it. Two important things I learned - one you really need to not worry about using up your resources or else you'll TPK and two adding adventurers when you get to town really makes a big difference.

Actually, an "other" option would be lovely and appropriate. It is 2015, and we should be better by now. I'm really disappointed that so many people in this community are so gung-ho to mock people who aren't cis-gendered. If you want another compelling reason to remove the "joke" epitaph, its **** like this. I'd rather just have gender be removed as an option. How many times does someone read a post from a new member and think "I'd press "like this" on this post if only I knew what gender this person is..." In fact does gender even display anywhere? I've got mine set to "Not Telling" so I can't tell. Well I can tell, but just not through the boards. Quiet you.

I have to agree with Bruce on this, while there are many residents of the US who are almost Canadian in their self-depreciation, there are a not unsignificant group of residents of the US who wouldn't recognize humor if it testified in a court of law.

AFAIK no one actually knows. There's loads of theories, but little proof. It seems it was a less-than-flattering term that got adopted and changed to a point of pride. It might be related to Cumbrian dialetical word "hoozer" or to a black Methodist minister Rev. Hosier or a Louisville contractor named Samuel Hoosier whose work gangs became known as "Hoosier's Men" - later settling in the area as hoosiers. The folk etymology says its a bastardization of "Who's here" a question asked by travelers to find out if they were approaching friend or foe (ran together to come out "whoshere" or "hoos 'ere". Although my favorite tale involves a barroom brawl and the question "Whose ear?" personally.

I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. But if the particular sect of a Christian church doesn't recognize gay marriage, its not a marriage at all to them. So why is it important? And why is it sinful other over heretical marriages to the point that it is singled out as prohibited?

Yup there seems to be a problem with uploading a photo from desktop. I just lost mine trying it. EDIT: was able to upload a pic from a website, but couldn't from the desktop.

IMO, that could describe BG and BG2. Sarevok and Irenicus both are essentially "the dark lord who must be defeated". Being a Child of Bhaal is a special destiny (as a potential successor diety) that needs to be fulfilled/rejected. The whole thing is about the potential evil that could be unleashed by the Children of Bhaal needing to be eradicated (or embraced by the PC).

I haven't minded the backer NPCs. They're not terribly interactive, but neither are the people who speak in only floating text. Generally, if the first lines grab me I've enjoyed reading the rest. If the first lines didn't grab me I'll just not read it. I've read a few memorials now and I don't really have a problem with them. The ones that don't make any in game sense I'm pretending are in-game memorial vandalism that has led to obscure in-jokes and commentaries I don't get. Killroy was here. In respect to the limerick memorial, I (like many) don't get why the limerick which doesn't refer to trans anything is considered anti-trans. I've tried to see the argument, but there's so little there I just can't make that connection. That said I've actually experienced situations where something that was done with no malice took on a different context for others. In the end I actually think, upon reflection, that ultimately if the backer and Obsidian agree for alternative text I have no personal issue with it being replaced by alternate content from the backer. You can claim censorship all you like - and it'd be true, of course - but in the end it'd be self-censorship by the author making the change. There are sometimes you create something and your personal context misses the context that someone else might bring to it, and I've experienced - in essence - that very thing in real life. Its rather embarrassing and in the end, in my experience, I lost my own ability to enjoy what had been done previously (and with no malice intended) without changing it. And so I changed it.

I've taken to believing its an anti-jinx exclamation. "If I say it works great, it'll fail spectacularly. I shall fool fate by announcing 'ITS NOT WORKING' very loudly so that it shall always work."

I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective.

I'll try to do mine as a vocal impersonation of Pat Buttram.

The point is a high interrupt should mean the enemy isn't hitting you (as much), you're interrupting its attack. Probably wise to throw some points to constitution at any PC who wades into melee too. You could also switch weapons, shoot with arrow, engage with fighter, then go melee with rogue. Unless I'm totally wrong, which I could be.

I think the goal with a dual wield rogue might be to bump up speed and use single handed weapons with good interrupts to help keep the opponent from hitting you as much while allowing you to deal as much damage as quickly as you can. Could be wrong though, I'm terrible at builds.

I actually am totally, 100% okay with having a game that is not completely Voice Acted. EDIT: Misplaced "not"

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms).

Well there was also the bit about whether it could only be hate speech if it was against an historically oppressed group or not, which led to me pulling the thread further off-topic by using hate crime definitions of the US (since they tie into US hate speech definition) to try and illustrate that the US government (at least) doesn't feel hate speech has an historically oppressed requirement. My bad. He's posted in character 99% of the time for 15 years. Others have come and gone, but he's still got it. I think only Sargy has a similarly long lived posting patter, but he's MIA.

AFAIK that's what he's said here that he is. Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is. That's not really true based on the legal definition of it (as I understand it - not a lawyer) which don't require an institution of prejudice (in the US at least). I'd agree that it'd be very difficult to get a jury to go for it (over just treating it as a normal crime) because of the (lack of) historical oppression though. In fact the FBI indicates there could be anti-White bias, in the statistics on Hate Crimes in 2013 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/victims/victims_final) The tables give statistics on offenders and victims as well (Table 4 breaks down victims by crime). It appears that the US federal legal system considers it possible to have a hate crime against a non-historically oppressed groups. Your local laws may differ significantly (but Obsidian being a US company, perhaps the information is of use). Void where prohibited, do not operate heavy machinery after ingesting.

^They could just make it turnbased for consoles