Amentep

Lo Pan Style...lol that's kinda awesome.

TSR specifically does not give the Lady of Pain stats in the Planescape Campaign setting (or in later materials) to address the first point; they also specifically point out to DMs that the Lady of Pain should be treated as unchallengeable to address the second point and players doing so should be killed. That does solve that for the setting, yep. I've never read Planescape stuff so I didn't know that. And yet... doesn't that just confirm my defending Cultist's point that BIS couldn't allow the PC to kill LoP due to, you know, fiat by TSR/WotC? Well I never disputed that argument (that BIS would need WotC permission to alter the Planescape setting / kill LoP), just that it didn't (to my mind) relate to talking about PE or my suggestion (since my argument was doing something similar to another game, not why that other game did it that way) or at the very least was a side point. Nothing but theology and theological concepts...AND THE ABILITY TO PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE!!!!!111111one* *and possibly die when doing so. How sad.

....eg, I love exploration, but there is such a thing as too much pointless, empty, "exploration potential." And on the other side, there's also such a thing as too much focus on density. I don't want to encounter stuff every 20 feet. When I want that, I'll play an action-rpg. imo. Pretty much this sums up the situation for me; locations didn't seem to exist in BG2 unless something happened (or was going to happen) there. I'd like something in between, something with open areas to encounter but more general focus than BG1. I mean I enjoyed BG1 exploration, but really that was partially "fog of war removal OCD" than anything else.

Definitely picking up a "Dear God - how is this going to all work?" vibe from this video And in the back of the minds of everyone at Obsidian creeps in an ugly thought: "Did gamers really pledge 4 million dollars and make the game as big as it could possibly be...simply because they secretly hate us and want to see us suffer?"

I liked the backgrounds in Arcanum.

I didn't know who Malukah was, and I don't know what Dubstep is either. You crazy kids and your new fangled fads! Now get off my lawn!

I think this ties a bit into the TABULA RASA thread; while I like to define a lot of the major parts of the PC - well they had to have a childhood somewhere, so I don't mind the idea of presenting a character who is a childhood friend provided the game allows us to not be forced to be friends with them as adults. They also have to be careful if they add the ability to define character backgrounds to the PC like Arcanum. It wouldn't make sense to have a childhood friend if I have a "feral child" background and grew up in the wilderness, or if I was playing a female PC with a "Tomboy" background but was treated as if the character wasn't a tomboy when establishing the "childhood" material. Someday games will have that kind of reactivity to play out the details between the character background and establishing a less vague (or utterly irrelevant beyond stats) but effective PC past that the game can react to, but I don't think we're there yet.

I figure they know what they're doing and will put the resources where they need them to come close to their expected target date. There may be some date slipping, but I don't see it as being drastic; so I figure sometime in the 4-7 month of 2014.

I dunno, player families might work in a game where the scope was started with the idea of being a multi-generational saga. But I don't get that impression of intention for this game and fear it'll turn into baby-as-inventory-item ala Aerie / PC relationship in BG2.

Two fields for first name last name. If a player only wants one name, they should be able to enter it as the last name. No real point in symbols since its a single player game and it doesn't matter how many "1337Dudes" are on the server. Spaces, hyphens and extended characters (so you can have diacritics) though should be included. Not really sure the best way to handle players who might want a name like "Hoagrin the Grim" or something though...

Just when I think I'm out, the thread pulls me back in again. TSR specifically does not give the Lady of Pain stats in the Planescape Campaign setting (or in later materials) to address the first point; they also specifically point out to DMs that the Lady of Pain should be treated as unchallengeable to address the second point and players doing so should be killed.

no problem with it so long as it fits game, character, etc. Some of the jRPGs have dealt with this idea - Namco's TALES OF GRACES f for example; more or less with 4 main characters Asbel, Sophie, Cheria and Hubert all as kids where they have an adventure (that goes wrong) and then later as adults who end up coming together to deal with some further issues that tie into that original ill-fated adventure. Great...jRPGs... next thing you know folks will demanding that we be able to make heros that look like effiminant teenage girlish boys (with bare midriffs and low cut pants) with blue/pink/yellow spikey hair and carry swordguns. They can have a romance in game with their childhood friend. You will have to deal with an evil imperialistic power. In the end, the government of said power will be ruled by an evil church or a cabal of rich jerks or both. You will travel about till you get a boat and finally an AIRSHIP! You will use the airship to go to a large flyng castle where you will rescue your childhood friend/hopefully future wife from the big bad evil guy with long hair. He will kill her but your righteous rage will fuel our powerful revenge in righting all wrongs before you awake and realize it was all a dream... or was it? Ya... I love where this thread is going.... Obsidian... ignore these people. Romances are a very bad idea. Most of the relationship ideas have been abyssmal. Wow, I gotta admire your knee-jerk reaction. I also like how you bring it back to romance when neither of us were talking about romance. We were talking about stories where childhood friends meet up later in life like in Stephen King's It. I brought up the "Graces f" game because, shockingly, its about a group of childhood friends who years later end up meeting again later in life and have to deal with the things that they couldn't as kids - similar to Stephen King's It.

Actually whether BIS could/would/should kill Lady of Pain or Elminster is irrelevant because it (a) wasn't suggested in the thread and (b) has nothing to do with the idea of making the gods of PE unkill-able since there is nothing preventing Obsidian from doing what they want with their own setting. But rather than derail the thread further, I'll just bow out.

Actually it isn't the point, because I wasn't talking about the Lady of Pain or the Planescape setting. What I specifically talked about was "if its the direction they want to go - the gods [of PE] being treated like the Lady of Pain in Planescape - you can challenge her but its End-of-Game & reload to do so." It was a comparison to how that character was treated but contextualizing it within the gods of PE framework. In short I was suggesting making the gods of PE (if the Obsidian devs so choose) beings who the PC could never kill but that the foolhardy could try to (and die). Which is exactly like LoP in both PST and the Planescape Campaign setting. What you're arguing is that Cultist was responding to my argument about how to treat the gods in PE (as "unkillable") arguing that the LoP was "unkillable" solely because BIS would have needed permission from WotC to kill her since Black Isle didn't own the setting and presumably that Obsidian could kill its gods because they owned them. This is irrelevant to what I was arguing since I never made my argument under the idea that Obsidian could do what they wanted with the Planescape setting or even that the couldn't do what they wanted with Project Eternity. Note that I do agree that BIS would have needed WotC permission to make the Lady of Pain "kill-able". Also note that I'd think WotC would rethink their license granting if the first thing somebody did when starting work on a Planescape based game was suggest violating one of the major elements of the setting. Certainly WotC could change that setting aspect if they so chose (some thought they might with Die Vecna, Die! but that didn't pan out) since they own the characters and setting. Just like Obsidian owns Project Eternity. So if Obsidian wants to make the gods unkill-able...they can. And they can also let the PC and party challenge the unkill-able gods and get killed. Just like getting the Lady of Pain's attention was a death sentence in PST. Which was my point all along and I'm vaguely confused as to why we're here.

Some of the jRPGs have dealt with this idea - Namco's TALES OF GRACES f for example; more or less with 4 main characters Asbel, Sophie, Cheria and Hubert all as kids where they have an adventure (that goes wrong) and then later as adults who end up coming together to deal with some further issues that tie into that original ill-fated adventure. I was hoping for a western style cRPG. But, yeah, jRPG's like this concept. Cloud and Tifa, childhood friends. I don't remember character names, but Golden Sun I think did very similar things, too. Oh I think its fertile ground to play with. I suppose Fallout 3 toys with it - by giving you the ability to "play" parts of your childhood and bringing you back as an adult. But it ultimately is a minor part of that game. I could see a game in a less hard defined plot (like most jRPGs) having a lot of room to do some early choice / consequences to really give your character a more defined (yet still creator defined) background.

no problem with it so long as it fits game, character, etc. Some of the jRPGs have dealt with this idea - Namco's TALES OF GRACES f for example; more or less with 4 main characters Asbel, Sophie, Cheria and Hubert all as kids where they have an adventure (that goes wrong) and then later as adults who end up coming together to deal with some further issues that tie into that original ill-fated adventure.

As I mentioned, I'm bugged by the fact that even if I wanted to pay for DLC, I actually have no way of getting it downloaded to my system. I would buy this set just to get the ME2 & ME3 DLC that I was never able to play (including the supposedly improved endings).

I never got very far in Divine Divinity; some day I should go back and try to finish it. Divinity II I stopped playing after a bug ruined my save game.

Unless Gods are somehow central to the plot, like your adversary is a God, I think this sort of thing is more suited to a MMORPG. I don't think this is even going to be a game like Skyrim, this is going to be a game in the IE tradition, not one where you can just go anywhere and challenge anything to a fight. I am okay with the gods not being even personified in the game; not really sure that was a position I was presenting. I was responding specifically to if you cam across a god (or, as in PST, if you do something to cross a power).

Oddly enough, I didn't suggest Obsidian had the rights to the Lady of Pain, or that Obsidian should change her. What I did suggest is that I wouldn't mind Obsidian allowing the player to challenge the gods in PE - and it be an insta-lose for the PC/player. Just like LoP in PST. I think, maybe, what was being suggested was that since the Lady of Pain is property of TSR / WotC (weird 1999 release means I'm not sure exactly who was giving the marching orders as the game was being developed, probably WotC) that Black Isle was told they couldn't allow players to kill LoP. As in it wasn't necessarily a choice on Black Isle's part, but an instruction. Doesn't nullify your point, Amentep. But I don't think your take away from what Cultist said was quite right, either. But...its part of the Planescape game that the LoP can't be killed. She has no stats. The game setting manual explicitly talks about this when explaining why she has no stats and how to handle her. So...why would BIS *want* to change that or think it was an option? I suppose he could have not known the LoP was unkillible and think that WotC asked for her not to be killed so as not to effect the setting...? And really my point is, if the PE gods are gods, I'm all for making them unkillable - but still allowing the player to try and fight them. And die. Horribly.

I'm for the character being allowed to pick a fight with a god. I'm also for - if its the direction they want to go - the gods being treated like the Lady of Pain in Planescape - you can challenge her but its End-of-Game & reload to do so. I bit different here, Obsidian have no rights to change Lady of Pain, as it's WoC prerogative to change lore. Now, it's Obsidian's universe and they are free to do anything they want with their own creation) Oddly enough, I didn't suggest Obsidian had the rights to the Lady of Pain, or that Obsidian should change her. What I did suggest is that I wouldn't mind Obsidian allowing the player to challenge the gods in PE - and it be an insta-lose for the PC/player. Just like LoP in PST.

Just because souls are a central theme of PE, the game shouldn't revolve entirely around souls. I didn't say it should, what I asked is What do these things being asked for mean in context of the setting? And for PE part of that is going to be whether all the soul stuff matters or doesn't.

I'm for the character being allowed to pick a fight with a god. I'm also for - if its the direction they want to go - the gods being treated like the Lady of Pain in Planescape - you can challenge her but its End-of-Game & reload to do so.

It'd take time to implement properly, but if they did revealing outfits the player should get bonuses and negatives from it, based on how society feels about the clothes. Perhaps its easier to get information in a bar where people are horny and drunk (but you might just get propositioned as well) but you might not be taken seriously when talking to the captain of the guards who you find yourself completely unable to pursuade. The problem with this route is that then everyone is carrying around a dozen armors / clothes articles and changing everytime they want a bonus. So now back to "neutral is better"...

The Khat (body) contained the Ka (vital energy, life force, spirit double of the body) the Ba (wisdom, soul) and the Swt (shadow of the physical body). The Ren (true name) is essentially the definition of who the person is (as Ptah defined the universe by defining its names). As a person lived their Ab (heart) collected the good and bad (the moral awareness of Ma'at). When they died the Ka left the body; the funeral preparers would open the mouth to allow the Ba to leave. The Khat and Swt were entombed with items (and known collectively as the Khaibit); food offerings were made to keep this form of the person happy. The Ab went to be judged in the afterlife and if found to have a heart lighter than the feather of Ma'at would cause the Ka and Ba to be joined (Akh) in the immortal spiritual body (Sahu). Note that all of these things could be happening at the same time for the person; their Khaibit could be pestering the family over a lack of offerings while the Sahu gazed out from the heavens and so forth and the Ba might also be hanging out with Ra in his barge. Since it was brought up, Egyptian Kings claimed to have a "royal Ka" which was different from a normal Ka but I don't believe they had two Kas, just a different one.* But as others point out, these aspects or souls were all parts of a singular individual and not two people in one body. Some native american tribes have a concept of "two-spirit" which is how people who wear clothes and do work of the opposite gender are defined. They're often seen as innately mystical but I'm not sure that's really what they're going for here either. So we'll probably have to wait for more information. *I'm not an expert, so this is stuff filtered through my readings and understandings. I wouldn't cite me for an academic article on this.