Amentep

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.

There's a difference, though, between enjoying looking at the opposite sex (or even enjoying being looked at by the opposite sex) and being required to dress a character in a game in skimpy clothes because that's the only option you've been given. Note I'd say the same about ridiculously spiky armor that would have you spiking yourself in the head if you tried to raise your arm slightly; given that there is a limit to how much they can design I'd rather them look at the stuff that's the most utilitarian, which would be reasonable looking clothes and armor. For the PC yeah...have options(including bulky and skimpy and in-between), but for NPCs there should be a mixture of styles from across all levels. I am really not into the whole "ban skimpy battle dresses from the game". I'd agree; that's where Obsidian's world building takes over and they decide what the societal norms are and so on. The best of both worlds would be to design all sorts of armor for all sorts of taste and clothing as well. But limitations being what they are, I'd start with the relatively neutral and work out from there than start at either extreme and work towards the middle.

The Dryads were nymphs; they were in essence tree spirits. Does PE's world support the existence of a soul of a tree? If so what does it mean? Do other natural features have souls like the other nymphs, Naiads, Anthousai, Oceanaids, etc? Do objects get souls (similar to the Tsukumogami - objects that come to life after they reach 100 years)? What would a "harpy" or "satyr" mean in context of PE's mythology? Creatures with warped fragmented souls who turned to dark magic to complete their soul via bonding with animal souls? Will animals have souls?

There's a difference, though, between enjoying looking at the opposite sex (or even enjoying being looked at by the opposite sex) and being required to dress a character in a game in skimpy clothes because that's the only option you've been given. Note I'd say the same about ridiculously spiky armor that would have you spiking yourself in the head if you tried to raise your arm slightly; given that there is a limit to how much they can design I'd rather them look at the stuff that's the most utilitarian, which would be reasonable looking clothes and armor.

How do Dragons fit with the soul concepts? Are they soulless? Are they souled? Are they intelligent or just giant animals (frankly if their just giant animals, give us Dinosaurs instead, IMO)? If a character could "be" a dragon, what does that mean about them? About their souls? Could the mythology of PE even have this make sense? To me these are the questions that would need to be examined.

I'm a bit neutral on the subject. If they're there, they're there, if not *shrug*. But a few thoughts: If Vampires were adapted to PE's setting mythology, my thinking is that for them to be the horror for PE that they should be for us (literary created sympathies aside) perhaps the idea would be that they leech the actual souls of people (rather than blood)? This would probably make them one of the most reviled creatures in PE mythology and one which would be seen as a bane on existence. Perhaps the victim becomes a souless shell instead of dying? (a zombie? A vessel for a an animal soul to inhabit?) If Werewolves were adapted to PE's setting mythology, the idea for werewolves is usually the idea of a man who is possessed of an animal like nature (willingly or through a curse) which may include transformation into said animal. Perhaps there is dark magic that allows for some kind of "soul transference" between man and beast? A curse on a human "soul" ripping it from its shell and placing in an animal body (and if the mythology says animals have souls, that animals soul in a human body?) The curse givers - like the Vampire above - would be seen as an affront to nature and the cycle of souls; the werecreature(s) may be both pitied and feared... Or something. I think there are ways to put these types of creatures in PE, but they really must be filtered through PE's reality and mythology and not just dropping Dracula or the Camarilla or Larry Talbot down in PE and just moving on.

I would have no problem with it provided it works within the context of the story and the characters involved. And/or the unrequited relationship mentioned in the Avellone text. Or no romance. Or the ability to spend your time pursuing a character only to have them ultimately decide not to want a romance with the character. Or a romance where the characters never get past the earliest stages of the romance. I don't think the game has to provide a happy or a fullfilled romance or a sex scene to be interesting and work within the context of the game.

If they decide on this I can live with it. But I didn't like the board in the witcher games because you had no motivation to read the text and get into the story why you had to fetch that things. You knew it was just about fetching X of Y right away when you searched something on the board anyway. I think that is much better done if told in person by an NPC imho, where u can tell a story and "disguise" the fetch-quest with something interesting. For me the problem is that fetch quests are often so minor that you wonder why someone would bother a complete stranger walking down the street with them. To me the Job Board leaves room for the player to choose to accept/ignore the quests that are "I want 3 apples" and if the devs have a more involved fetch quests can add them to the job board or have an NPC give them in a way that makes sense.

Raise your hand, everyone who wants angsty teen conceptions of love. C'mon, show of hands. *waits with hand firmly not raised* Well, see it kind of depends on the story. If the characters were modern teens, it'd be fitting to have angsty teen luv. For this game, it doesn't seem to involve traditional modern conceptions of teens or teen life as its story focus (from what little we know) so wouldn't fit the story being told. Again the story being told should dictate the elements in the story.

For me I'd think Dual Wielding would be best served as non-long weapon in primary hand, small weapon (dagger equiv) in the off-hand and that's it. I don't need to dual weild flails(*) or halberds...That said, I'd be happy to not have dual weilding at all too. *I'd imagine that would be quite the feat, to be honest.

I'm not crazy about the idea of the character being unkickable. Be nice if you could kick them out BUT if you did so without giving the NPC their due they show up later in a random encounter with an adventuring band or something. I'm terrible at this sort of thing, but I'm all for things that make the NPCs a little more than an appendage of the player (which ironically is some of the problems with romances). If I wanted a non-descript character for me to invest my own imagination in, might as well let me create all my party to begin with, IMO.

Ah, so you're along the lines of 'relationships' Avellone was mentioning being interested in exploring, a lot more interesting than NPCs being a) your buddy b) love interest, heh. Seems bizarre how dogged the interest in this is, with this Steven Segal-esque topic in the forum. Maybe we should just make a thread saying "Interpersonal relationships" where we can all....essentially say "Obsidian shouldn't screw up!" together. I get the feeling - perhaps wrongly - that there are those at the polar extremes of "no relationships with NPCs just fighting, stealing or spell slinging" to those who think that "romance should always be an option with every NPC", though. That's not really my feeling since I think the games and characters should dictate what relationships make sense.

Can't speak for others, but I want the main NPCs (usually joinable NPCs, but may not be exclusive to that) to be well realized. Full characters who are developed in interest and goals as much as a computer NPC can be (given time / resources / character and game scope). I want the PC to be able to interact with them and build some kind of relationship - if appropriate for the character this could include friendship, rivalry, indifference, romance, and/or many other types of relationships.

Can't speak for others (well I could, but I'd probably be wrong) but I don't see anything "productive" in being angry over inclusion/lack of romances in the game. Sure I'm probably squarely in the pro-romance crowd, but ultimately while there are probably a few with strongly held beliefs on both sides who might feel vindicated/"butthurt" if romances are/are not included to their preference, I imagine most of the people here will be talking about the quality of the game (which would only involve romances if there ends up being any in the game).

Yeah, the official BIS IRC channel didn't actually work all that well, and I think there were issues in oversight of it. Not against it, just saying that I'd imagine Feargus, Josh and others at Obsidian remember BIS IRC and may not be keen to restart such a thing. Or they could not care either. Still haven't developed much as a mind reader.

Um...can't really agree with that; while you can argue the movie version was made to appeal to men and women both (the idea was that men would want to be him and women would want to be with him) I think that's simply because the movies need broader appeal than the books. And even with that they had to change with the time due to societies changing values on women and their contributions (compare Tatiana Romonov, SMERSH spy recruit in the 60s with - say - Wai Lin of the CPESF in the 1990s) The book version is probably more so a male fantasy than the movies; Bond lives alone and has plenty of money to do what he wants when not on a mission, doesn't believe in long term relationships (because usually one or the other of the two end up getting on the nerves of the other) but still gets women to go for him at the drop of a hat. The only permanent female characters are Moneypenny (the boss' secretary) and Bond's housekeeper, an older lady. Seems like the intent is to present kind of ideal life for a man of the period (of writing) action, adventure, sex and no strings attached. Very few of the women characters got much consideration (although I don't find Bond to be as reprehensible as a lot of other people either; I've known some others who've described the literary Bond as a vile character (to be fair, I haven't read all the books)).

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again? They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience... so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources. That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it. There are no limited writing resources. They could have had both romances and low intelligence dialogue at 1.1 million. The entire idea is a myth. Or they could have neither. It takes time to do anything in a game, so by the nature of game development, time is a limited resource. Therefore there is a limited resource - time - allotted for the writing of all dialogues, I'd think. Thus comes the "if they had time to do low int dialogue or romance dialogue but not both, what would you want them to do?" question.