Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

[Stun]

Ugh....I love pointless system convolution as much as the next Grognard, but I'm betting this game's health and stamina system is going to take me to the cleaners.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

Tajerio: Very nice sum-up. I wish I had written it.

Very kind of you Indira.

 

And Gromnir, I would have been really excited if stamina were an action resource as well as a form of hit point. But as Stun accurately points out, in PoE we've just got a double health bar, which is kinda weird.

[Elerond]

It is quite similar with system that Darklands uses, which is currently $3 in gog.com.

[Zeckul]

Pros:

1. Josh Sawyer

2. Chris Avellone

3. George Ziets

4. It looks like Baldur's Gate

5. I'm already getting a copy

 

Cons:

1. They already got my money

2. Lots of it

3. When it actually releases they will also have my life

4. All of it

5. It won't help me escape death

[Lephys]

Gromnir, did you ever play Betrayal at Krondor? It worked very similarly to how you've described: your spellcasters' "mana" was simply their own stamina/health. Except, they were two subsets of the same "life bar." Everything that hit you only dealt damage to Stamina, until it was gone, after which Health took the damage. It was much easier to recover Stamina, though, than Health.

 

But, spellcasters could cast spells (turn-based combat, btw) at adjustable potencies, spending between the minimum and maximum amount of Stamina. And, if they were out of stamina (or spending enough on the spell to surpass their total remaining stamina), the spell would cost health instead.

 

It was essentially exertion, though still a little different.

 

I always liked it, at its core, though. Regular physical attacks cost Stamina, too, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think they cost Health once you were out of Stamina, but, you dealt less damage with your attacks when out of Stamina, I'm pretty sure... can't remember all the specifics off the top of my head.

[illathid]

 So, I think we agree? If there were romances, I would prefer it if there were non-romance ways of doing most of the companion related quests and presumably you would like to be able to complete most quests in a 'good' way rather than, say, not seeing half of them at all. Or, did you mean something else?

 

 

i realize there's been a few pages now, but I still want to respond. Would I prefer to still the see the content, but in a "good" way?  Maybe. Although I don't begrudge there being evil content that I won't experience either. For example, the evil end of the Skinners quest in BG2. While I know this isn't the best example as it's rather short, it could have been much larger piece of content and I wouldn't have minded it's inclusion. So if it makes sense to have experience it both ways is fine, but I don't particularly mind if It gets locked out either.

 

[Sarex]

Pro:

 

-Iso, RTwP game, from the maker of my favorite IE game (IWD2)

 

-Has Paladins (I don't care that they are supports)

 

-Stronghold. I know most people dislike or are on the fence about it, but  I really, really like these things in RPGs. I liked it in NWN2, I liked it in DA:Awakening, I liked it in so many other "RPGs" that featured them. The more complex and integrated in the main game it is, the better it will be for me. I really hope they make a feature out of it in PoE.

 

-I like that it's an Obsidian IP and that they have room to let it grow and learn from the mistakes they make (if they make any mistakes at all). I like that it doesn't have to sell impossible numbers for it to be considered a success. I also hope that Obsidian won't be stuck in their ways and that if things don't work in the first game (*see cons) they are willing to change them in the next (this has been the bane of Biowares game in the recent years).

 

-Did I say it has Paladins? Hmmm, I like that it won't hold punches and it will be hard, when so many games today try to hold your hand and are mind numbingly easy.

 

Cons:

 

-No combat XP, I can't for the life of me see why they would take it away. Their rationale was to make no combat solutions viable, by killing combat solutions. In a combat centric game this strikes me as very strange. While it doesn't kill the game for me, it will certainly take away from it. I hope I'm wrong and they make it work, but right now I'm skeptical.

 

-Stamina/Health?!? I don't get why they had to take a straight forward, foolproof system and complicate the **** out of it. I guess it had something to do with there being no resurrection in game, but I still think it was very unnecessary. Doesn't take away anything from the game for me, but I think it will just be a bother to get used to, for no benefit at all.

 

-Rogues as the main damage dealers while Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians just face tank in comparison. I think that they should at least rename the rogues to something else.

 

-Level/xp cap. No need for it. You should reward the completionist.

 

-Last and least, no multipass... I mean class. Adds so much variation to the game and so much to replayability.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Sarex

[Yonjuro]

 

 So, I think we agree? If there were romances, I would prefer it if there were non-romance ways of doing most of the companion related quests and presumably you would like to be able to complete most quests in a 'good' way rather than, say, not seeing half of them at all. Or, did you mean something else?

 

 

i realize there's been a few pages now, but I still want to respond. Would I prefer to still the see the content, but in a "good" way?  Maybe. Although I don't begrudge there being evil content that I won't experience either. For example, the evil end of the Skinners quest in BG2. While I know this isn't the best example as it's rather short, it could have been much larger piece of content and I wouldn't have minded it's inclusion. So if it makes sense to have experience it both ways is fine, but I don't particularly mind if It gets locked out either.

 

 

 That's a good example. The evil resolution to that story line has you doing some different things which you will never do as a good character. Sounds ok to me.

 

 If one were to take that to the (ridiculous) extreme, there would be two games BG2(good) and BG2(evil) which would have entirely different content (and great replay value for someone who would do both but not for players like you who would only do one of them). So, it seems like a better use of funds to have a lot of the material accessible for both play styles.

 

 Of course, there can be significant differences.

 

 An example of what I mean is siding with Bodhi vs. the Shadow Thieves. You get two different stories but it didn't cost the developers twice as much because they use the same areas/characters etc.  I'm fine with that.

 

 In a similar vein,  I would prefer if companion related quests that had a romance version also a friendship version (as opposed to a romance version vs. nothing at all) because, just as you will never side with Bodhi, I will  never see the non-friendship versions of the quests. That was the point I was trying to make originally.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Pros

1. Original IP rather than licenced. I like the idea of Obsidian creating a world from scratch rather than using FR or some other established fantasy world.

2. Quest XP. It seems cool that you won't receive less XP if you don't fight every monster, disable every trap, chose certain dialogue options, etc.

3. Mechanics designed for RTwP rather than a juryrigged PnP system. I don't think D&D works very well outside of PnP.

4. Striving for balance. The thought that Obsidian isn't just throwing in crap skills without much thought of how they will be effectively used in game is nice.

5. Reputation System. Loved it in NV, confident of it being awesome in PoE.

 

Cons

1. Classes. I prefer classless systems, even though they are harder to balance, as they can provide more player choice when creating a character.

2. No Kraken battle.

3. Level cap.

4. Godlike. I wish they would've gone with a different name, unless godlikes are actually made in the image of gods.

5. Legions of mods have not been made. I never play games vanilla.

Edited June 27, 2014 by KaineParker

[vv221]

I've not been following development closely these last months, so some of my points might not be valid.

 

Pros:

 

_objective-based XP

It was one of the features that made VtM: Bloodlines so great in my opinion, giving you full freedom as to how you want to play your character.

 

_3D characters in a 2D world

Hand painted backgrounds can be astonishingly beautiful, and it protects us from any case of camera hassle.

 

_team-based

I have much more fun micro-managing a full party than playing one character assisted with bots.

 

_low-level campaign

I've no fun playing godlike characters (not referring to the playable race). The best part for me is when you turn slowly from rookie to hero.

 

_text heavy

I like to have reading pauses in between my fight sessions. And I want them to be well written.

 

 

Cons:

 

_very light interface

I do love the heavy stone-like interface from Baldur's Gate, and will be missing it a bit.

 

_companions gaining XP even when you don't play them

Sounds artificial. But I'm going to stick with a defined team in each run, so I probably won't notice it.

 

_stronghold

Sounds disconnected. I just hope it is fully optional.

 

_Hall of Heroes

I prefer real NPC full of interactions with a good backstory. But nothing will force me to use it.

 

_too hard to find a fifth one, sorry

 

 

As you see, most of my cons are not real ones, but I tried hard to go further than the interface.

[Karkarov]

Wow this thread sure went insane fast.  Crazy number of posts....  Well may as well throw my hat in.

 

Pro's:

 

Lots of party customization options, you can definitely make exactly the team you want.
Awesome way of handling reputation and alignment, far superior to what most RPG's offer.
Advancement with the UI.  It will have all the function of the old IE ui's but is doing it in a modern and progressive way.  Kudo's!

Class balance seems excellent, every class has a role and a unique way of achieving it.  Nothing seems overpowered.

Scripted interactions with the storyboards and descriptive text seem really cool and a great way of covering these types of events while also cashing in on nostalgia.

 

Con's:

 

May not be enough companion depth to really support more than 1 or 2 playthrough's without having to repeat party make up unless you make your own characters.

It is smaller than BG2, I have no doubt it will be big and a long game but the part of the map it covers just seems sort of tiny.
Skill/Crafting systems seem to be a lot less robust than was initially implied.

Stronghold (at least the last we saw of it) does seem a little hodge podge and may not really "fit" in the game world in a logical way.

"Tanking" seems very reliant on engagement mechanics and I am worried certain classes may be able to simply render your tanks pointless with engagement breaks.

[Barothmuk]

Here's a contentious con I didn't mention.

 

Although I'm confident in Obsidian's world-crafting ability I fear they may feel the need to inject some unrealistic levels of social progressiveness to make the setting more palatable. By that I mean, it is quite a common trend in fantasy games to have near total gender equality (among other things) despite it being a feudal setting.

 

Personally I find it incredibly jarring having a system as inherently oppressive and bigoted feudalism, a system that thrives on gendered roles and patriarchy, somehow attaining levels of equality that the modern industrialised world is still fighting for.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Gromnir]

Here's a contentious con I didn't mention.

 

Although I'm confident in Obsidian's world-crafting ability I fear they may feel the need to inject some unrealistic levels of social progressiveness to make the setting more palatable. By that I mean, it is quite a common trend in fantasy games to have near total gender equality (among other things) despite it being a feudal setting.

 

Personally I find it incredibly jarring having a system as inherently oppressive and bigoted feudalism, a system that thrives on gendered roles and patriarchy, somehow attaining levels of equality that the modern industrialised world is still fighting for.

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting. we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers.

 

that being said, am agreeing that as this is a new setting, there will be an urge to do things different to set PoE apart. social progression is not bothersome to us, but different is not always better. do same old stuff the same old way will never be better, but different ain't inherent positive either.  with ps:t, for instance, the developers made a point o' doing things different, but the goal itself were to be different. that were foolish. ps:t were not made better because it didn't include swords or elves or whatever else the developers were thinking were cliché  in fantasy crpgs. we liked ps:t. in spite of its flaws it were/is our favorite crpg. nevertheless, we hope obsidian guys has matured and come to realize that doing different is having value only if you are believing that doing different will improve the game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Barothmuk]

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting.

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing.

 

we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers.

Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating.

 

Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Gromnir]

 

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting.

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing.

 

we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers.

Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating.

 

Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them.

 

there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes?  and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender.  seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. 

 

as for what PoE is doing, we suspect that if a race in PoE were having physical resemblance to sub-saharan africans, and that race were victimized by slavery in the PoE setting, obsidian might suffer some negative backlash. obvious? well, why do same thing to women?  to be more real? depict class conflict between nobles and bourgeois in PoE and who the hell is gonna possibly get offended? nobody. heck, obsidian can, if clever, do the metaphor shtick, but class conflict, particularly for north american purchasers o' PoE is hardly gonna be controversial. fantasy races suffering fantasy slavery? is not controversial unless obsidian tries to make slavery seem like a good thing. but treat women like dirt? why? 

 

it frequent sucks to be a woman in rl. is many situations wherein women get treated like second class citizens. am seeing no reason to subject women players to that in a game 'cause o' anachronistic notions that such stuff is required in a fantasy setting. 

 

am recalling alfa project. it were one o' the larger planned nwn projects. had literal thousands o' members at one point. d&d drow were a  popular race choice, particular for women players. we loathed drow and never hesitated to point out their shortcomings, but we can empathize with the women who wished to play as a member o' a matriarchal society. 

 

PoE is a game-- a fantasy game.  is not a novel or a movie, and is surely not a reality simulator. troika couldn't figure out that it was stoopid to give women a strength penalty in arcanum even after many women complained. why should obsidian be making a similar faux pas? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting.

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing.

 

we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers.

Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating.

 

Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them.

 

there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes?  and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender.  seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. 

 

as for what PoE is doing, we suspect that if a race in PoE were having physical resemblance to sub-saharan africans, and that race were victimized by slavery in the PoE setting, obsidian might suffer some negative backlash. obvious? well, why do same thing to women?  to be more real? depict class conflict between nobles and bourgeois in PoE and who the hell is gonna possibly get offended? nobody. heck, obsidian can, if clever, do the metaphor shtick, but class conflict, particularly for north american purchasers o' PoE is hardly gonna be controversial. fantasy races suffering fantasy slavery? is not controversial unless obsidian tries to make slavery seem like a good thing. but treat women like dirt? why? 

 

it frequent sucks to be a woman in rl. is many situations wherein women get treated like second class citizens. am seeing no reason to subject women players to that in a game 'cause o' anachronistic notions that such stuff is required in a fantasy setting. 

 

am recalling alfa project. it were one o' the larger planned nwn projects. had literal thousands o' members at one point. d&d drow were a  popular race choice, particular for women players. we loathed drow and never hesitated to point out their shortcomings, but we can empathize with the women who wished to play as a member o' a matriarchal society. 

 

PoE is a game-- a fantasy game.  is not a novel or a movie, and is surely not a reality simulator. troika couldn't figure out that it was stoopid to give women a strength penalty in arcanum even after many women complained. why should obsidian be making a similar faux pas? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Good post Gromnir, I agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying. Just because something existed in history or nowadays there is no reason it needs to exist in a game in the interests of realism. There will be more than enough controversial topics that people will criticize or be concerned about without bring undue attention to Obsidian and certain game design choices

[Barothmuk]

there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes?

In pre-feudal, pre-slave societies there may have been matriarchal societies, however what few references we have of such societies are almost entirely mythological and used to demonstrate the "horrors" of women being on top.

 

and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender.  seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. 

And here's where I think you're simply missing my point.

 

I'm not advocating stat penalties for female PCs, class limitations, ability limitations or what have you. Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. That does not mean the female PC is silenced or necessarily 'limited' mind you, rather they'd have a different experience where they are far more likely to discriminated by virtue of their sex but still obviously be able to fight against that.

 

The problem I have with most fantasy setting is that they will either ignore the suffering women felt under feudalism and simply sweep the inherent misogyny of such a system under the rug or they will show feudal societies as sexist but essentially silence the female sex under the guise of "well they didn't have a voice then".

 

What I advocate is showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Barothmuk

[ashtonw]

My impression is that different cultures will have different gender roles. Like in New Vegas things in the NPR seemed (on the surface) to be pretty equal but Caesar's Legion had strict roles for men and women- which, as an outsider, the courier was unaffected by (except the guy in charge of the arena wouldn't let women fight, because women are not fighters). I'm expecting more along those lines.

 

Gromnir brought up Arcanum and in that game I felt like I was being punished for playing a female character. So, yeah, no more of that please.

[BruceVC]

 

there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes?

In pre-feudal, pre-slave societies there may have been matriarchal societies, however what few references we have of such societies are almost entirely mythological and used to demonstrate the "horrors" of women being on top.

 

 

and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender.  seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. 

And here's where I think you're simply missing the point.

 

I'm not advocating stat penalties for female PCs, class limitations, ability limitations or what have you. Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. That does not mean the female PC is silenced or necessarily 'limited' mind you, rather they'd have a different experience where they are far more likely to discriminated by virtue of their sex but still obviously be able to fight against that.

 

The problem I have with most fantasy setting is that they will either ignore the suffering women felt under feudalism and simply sweep the inherent misogyny of such a system under the rug or they will show feudal societies as sexist but essentially silence the female sex under the guise of "well they didn't have a voice then".

 

What I advocate is showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.

 

 

I am not sure I understand your reasoning? So you are suggesting a society in PoE that practices misogyny so we are reminded how badly women were treated in history but in this example the women would fight against there oppressors demonstrating a voice that is often not portrayed. What would be the point of that?

[Gromnir]

the iroquois were a horror? or the hopi? benjamin franklin were extreme impressed by the iroquois federation and their constitution. is really worth exploring if you is unaware. 

 

"Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. "

 

and Gromnir says, why? to be real? is a fantasy setting. real is what the developers says it is. you ain't in favor o' stat penalties, but you cannot be seeing how  a woman might not want to have her character treated like crap in a game simply 'cause she is playing as a woman? 

 

...

 

women being treated better in fantasy feudal settings is Not the result o' ignorance o' how women fared in historical feudal settings. am suspecting is 'cause developers believe that women don't want to be treated in a game the way they were treated in feudal europe. show that women had it bad? why? we know they had it bad. women still have it bad in many places. why is there a need to treat 'em bad in a game, a fantasy game?

 

wanna show evils o' gender inequality in a feudal system, then your best bet is probable to reverse. have men victims. do all same evils and misfortunes. the dehumanizing aspects o' gender roles in feudal systems can be portrayed just as easy with male victims, and as is a fantasy setting, it is entirely plausible. if goal is to show the wrong, then why not reverse?  

 

no? why not?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Failion]

Pros:

 

Nice Graphics for a isometric.

Not DnD its nice to see something different.

Stronghold system, added fluff is always nice.

Stat system. Personally found dnds stat system to be fail in all editions.

game world and reputation system. Be interesting to see what obsidian can make.

 

Negative:

 

Its hard to say seeing we seen no gameplay yet. 

The soundtrack didn't wow me.

This section would be huge if I played the game because I like to critic.

 

[Barothmuk]

I am not sure I understand your reasoning? So you are suggesting a society in PoE that practices misogyny so we are reminded how badly women were treated in history

No.

 

I'm stating that institutionalized misogyny, patriarchy and gendered roles are all inherent to the feudal system and thus if Obsidian wishes to craft a realistically coherent feudal society it is only natural they reflect the misogyny inherent to feudalism.

 

Institutionalised discrimination doesn't simply "spring up" because individuals are ****, rather it is rooted in a long history of material forces.  

but in this example the women would fight against there oppressors demonstrating a voice that is often not portrayed.

Again, no.

 

Like I said before, patriarchy is inherent to any feudal society thus all of the societies would be misogynistic to varying degrees. Thus I'm not simply advocating one example of a "sexist society" wherein the females rebel because "sexism is bad yo" rather I advocate the depiction of the inherent misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring the thoughts, feelings and agency of those who live under it.

 

What would be the point of that?

To actually show how such sexism was inherent to the system, how it manifested itself, how it impacted people and so on (same reason they'd be exploring class conflict and institutionalised racism). Crass depictions of sexism that merely show "sexism is bad" without exploring how it actually manifests and what its material causes are is why many will wrongfully believe sexism has already ended.

 

the iroquois were a horror? or the hopi? benjamin franklin were extreme impressed by the iroquois federation and their constitution. is really worth exploring if you is unaware.

Matrilineal =/= Matriarchy. Edited June 28, 2014 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

wanna show evils o' gender inequality in a feudal system, then your best bet is probable to reverse. have men victims. do all same evils and misfortunes. the dehumanizing aspects o' gender roles in feudal systems can be portrayed just as easy with male victims, and as is a fantasy setting, it is entirely plausible. if goal is to show the wrong, then why not reverse?  

 

no? why not?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

How about a tribe of brutal lesbian, African American women who enslave and humiliate other racial groups but particularly white males  in PoE?

 

That would be an interesting dynamic if people want to be reminded of bigotry

[BruceVC]

 

What would be the point of that?

To actually show how such sexism was inherent to the system, how it manifested itself, how it impacted people and so on (same reason they'd be exploring class conflict and institutionalises racism). Crass depictions of sexism that merely show "sexism is bad" without exploring how it actually manifests and what its material causes are is why many will wrongfully believe sexism has already ended.

 

.

 

 

I want to focus on your primary objective with this type of game design. We know the feudal system was sexist and had an inimical impact to various groups. Most of us believe and recognise many modern social justice issues that are inherent in our society, like the fact that sexism and racism  is still relevant and prevalent and we understand the reasons

 

So I want you to give me an example in PoE of a society or town that would be designed that is going to educate or benefit the cause of understanding, for example, sexism that we don't already know or need to be presented with.

 

Because I just see this type of game design raising more negative attention than being informative. I am battling with seeing the benefit?

Edited June 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

oh geez, not another wikipedia link. freaking feels like a boot to the head every time we see these. there is 0 intellectual integrity in a wiki link. 

 

Iroquois were not simply matrilineal. political power with Iroquois rested primarily with women. is as many sources that argue matriarchy as gender-equal, but you can find many reputable experts who claimed matriarchy.

 

*shrug*

 

regardless, wikipedia will garner you zero respect from Gromnir... or any quotes we see lifted from wiki. if we never see another link to wikipedia it will be too soon.

 

HA! Good Fun!