RPGCodex Review #1 - Hŵrpa Dwrp

[Atheosis]

 

No it's not perfect,...

 

I always see this come up all the time. No one has ever asked for a perfect game.

 

 

No, they just wanted a game that completely and totally emulated BG2 in every way possible (even though BG2 was itself very flawed).

[Volourn]

"Very flawed."

 

Also, to quote the great philosopher Atheosis, ' Get over it and move.'

\

\I also bet that you have seen popular games/movies that you disliked and you didn't get over it so stop being so hypocritical with your double standards.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Volourn

[Hiro Protagonist II]

No, they just wanted a game that completely and totally emulated BG2 in every way possible (even though BG2 was itself very flawed).

 

Then why not say that instead of, no it's not perfect.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hey Sensuki, move the **** on already.  Most people enjoy this game.  You don't.  Get over it.

 

Hey Atheosis, move the **** on already. Everybody can state their opinion and some people don't enjoy this game.  Get over it.

[Sensuki]

If you think Brother None wanted to appease Bethesda, despite being vocally against the game and Bethesda probably not caring in the slightest what some dude on a website that sees 1/1000th of the traffic of their own boads thinks, be my guest but it kinda looks like you want to discredit him for something other than what he actually writes. Which strikes me as a bit dishonest.

Way to take a statement way out of proportion. I said it wouldn't have been in his best interest to write a seething review about a Fallout game (and didn't say that he would), like Roxor did with this game. But hey you're free to consider that review and reviewer the shining light of reviews and lack of bias all you like.

 

I already said I don't want nor expect 100% total, dry objectivity in reviews- even if only because a review with no opinion is impossible if you go into details. But there is a vast difference between this and the nerdrage-y drivel that was the Codex review. If you like it, more power to you, I have no interest in that sort of writing myself. I'd gladly take someone like Brother None, or to take a more popular example Totalbiscuit, who share their opinion, sometimes with passion, but don't back them up with falalcious arguments and gross hyperbole in the name of ''fun''. Lord knows we have more than enough of those sort of reviews on sites like Metacritic (to say nothing of forums), and being overly critical is in my mind just as bad as being an IGN writer who can't give AAA games a bad score for fear of losing his privileged access and marketing money.

Good for you. I don't really read any reviews outside of Codexian reviews and I don't follow any twitch/youtube personalities. I'm interested in the opinions of people from my home forum who do not write reviews for money, and can do it in any style they like.

 

I'm sure you'll find Vault Dweller and Grunker's review more to your tastes, which should be out in a few weeks (after VD finishes the game lol).

 

No, they just wanted a game that completely and totally emulated BG2 in every way possible (even though BG2 was itself very flawed).

Really? Please link me to where I said such a thing. Pretty sure I've re-iterated many times that I wanted reactive tactical combat (of which, this game doesn't have - it's mostly strategical and rote in nature) and I expressed disappointment about the plot & story which is a lot worse than most other Obsidian games I've played (save for perhaps the NWN2 OC, but even that didn't have such plot issues).

 

Also, to your above statement - I am posting in this thread because it's a thread about an RPG Codex review. I have not posted in any other thread recently, and don't plan to, so if you don't want to read my opinion - don't read this thread. Simple as that.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Sensuki

[Katarack21]

The narrative in this game is very good. The plot is solid, the setting is fantastic, the characters have depth and complexity and the entire story is engaging. The fact that this is my subjective opinion just proves how truthful these statements are.

[luzarius]

I prefer Obsidian's new system over the D&D system. This new system Obsidian made makes far more sense, which enhances immersion.  Still, if a game comes out using D&D, I would still play it if it had a great story that captured the imagination.

Edited April 26, 2015 by luzarius

[rheingold]

Oi vay, seriously, people are entitled to their own opinions, it would be a boring world if everyone liked the same things...

I do find it strange though, that people hang around a forum to make posts about a game they don't like.

I, oddly enough did it with DAI, mainly because I was disappointed in the game. But after a couple of rather obnoxious posts I came to the conclusion that why should I spoil it for other people. If they like the game more power to them, why should I hang around and be miserable. Frankly dosn't suit them or me.

Edited April 26, 2015 by rheingold

[Luckmann]

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do. Also, you can do some other really despicable things in the game. Taking away player agency makes all other options moot. When everyone is forced to do the "right" thing, it doesn't matter that you did.

 

I think that was even the argument used by Urquhart, Cain or Fargo when it came to killing children in Fallout. If you can kill the children, it's a choice to not kill them, and therefore meaningful. If the killing of children is functionally impossible, it's not a choice. If you are forced to do good things, doing those good things feel meaningless.

 

 

Compare it to siding with Lord Raedric. Yes, doing so feels unpolished and unfinished, but you can do it, even though he killed his wife and many, many others. Why did one of my characters side with him? Because he's an aristocrat with principles, and Raedric is the rightful heir, and Raedric is right to judge his wife the same as any other, even when it pains him, and for all we know, this is a punishment from the gods and what he is doing is right!

 

I should be able to drag the niece back to Lord Harond, largely by the same medieval logic.

 

 

The narrative in this game is very good. The plot is solid, the setting is fantastic, the characters have depth and complexity and the entire story is engaging. The fact that this is my subjective opinion just proves how truthful these statements are.

The narrative is.. not all that solid. The plot is, and the setting is good, and at least some of the characters have depth and complexity - and for once it's not just the CNPC:s, there's other characters that feel real and special without becoming absolute snowflakes.

 

But the narrative itself, the storytelling, could definitely have been much better. Just look at the "Why hate being a Watcher"-thread for examples.

 

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

Is it actually clear that he raped her? Might have been consensual - I don't think she'd necessarily mind being the mother of the next-in-line in the dynasty.

As the reviewer said, it's not so uncommon among nobles, and this is actually one of the points where I agree with him the most.

 

Actually, this had not occurred to me, and it would actually be a fantastic, fantastic twist to the whole thing if you chose to side with him. Because it's an assumption that many make. I'm not saying that it's wrong to make that assumption, but it would be a fantastic twist at the end of a confrontation if it turned out not to be true.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Luckmann

[Katarack21]

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do.

What could possibly make you say that. Everybody who found out about it was disgusted, the man was going out of his way to hide it, and he bribes you to keep it quiet. The whole point of the speech about it is saying that he's using his power and nobility to *hide his crime*. I'd say odds are, it's not something the Dyrwood approves of.

[Jasta11]

 

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do.

What could possibly make you say that. Everybody who found out about it was disgusted, the man was going out of his way to hide it, and he bribes you to keep it quiet. The whole point of the speech about it is saying that he's using his power and nobility to *hide his crime*. I'd say odds are, it's not something the Dyrwood approves of.

 

 

Well obviously the peasants of Dyrford are going to hate it, but even before the reveal happens they already resent him for being a noble who parades in their town and bosses them around. The noble's colleagues are probably going to act shocked publically, but not care much. At least, that is the probable reaction in a close-to-real-life medieval setting; we don't really know how such things are viewed by the Dyrwood's authorities. But obviously his blue blood alone means the guy most likely gets away with it, even if it is not his right to rape his niece.

 

I also agree with Luckmann that the narrative is not Obsidian's best. The player lacks motivation until Act 3, and that's when they slap a big ultimatum on you and make it so going around doing side-quests makes no sense story wise. They could have handled this better by adding some urgency in Act 2 and taking some off Act 3.

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do.

 

What could possibly make you say that. Everybody who found out about it was disgusted, the man was going out of his way to hide it, and he bribes you to keep it quiet. The whole point of the speech about it is saying that he's using his power and nobility to *hide his crime*. I'd say odds are, it's not something the Dyrwood approves of.

 

Something can be your right, legal, or legitimate, without it being considered permissible in the eyes of the public or your peers.

 

For example, incest is legal in Portugal and China (I just grabbed two countries out of a list). But you bet that a politician wouldn't want you to know about his S&M dungeon where he practices his incestuous foot-fetish. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, but you'd still not want to advertise it.

 

 

If you are playing an Aristocrat or any character that could be called Lawful by any other name (Lawful Neutral especially, but Good or Evil depending on how you look at it) you could very much consider it his right to do what he will. Raedric kills his wife, because she supposedly broke the law, and killed his hollowborn child, as well as summarily executed at least 15 people, and ordered the destruction of a church and at the very least the banishment and beating of it's clergy.

 

 

Noble rights obviously go a long way in the Dyrwoods. Saying "It's his right to do what he wills with his subjects, and it's their duty to serve" is an extremely fitting thing to the setting as presented.

 

Also, it's about player agency. Taking away the choices of the player means that the choices do not matter. When everyone is forced to be good, no-one is. My main character is an Aristocratic Bleak Walker. He's mostly Benevolent, often Rational, and very Aggressive, but he's got some very firm principles that would not be considered very popular by modernist, 21st-century morality squads.

 

Finally, I love the possibility that Rumpelstilskin posited.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do.

 

What could possibly make you say that. Everybody who found out about it was disgusted, the man was going out of his way to hide it, and he bribes you to keep it quiet. The whole point of the speech about it is saying that he's using his power and nobility to *hide his crime*. I'd say odds are, it's not something the Dyrwood approves of.

 

Well obviously the peasants of Dyrford are going to hate it, but even before the reveal happens they already resent him for being a noble who parades in their town and bosses them around. The noble's colleagues are probably going to act shocked publically, but not care much. At least, that is the probable reaction in a close-to-real-life medieval setting; we don't really know how such things are viewed by the Dyrwood's authorities. But obviously his blue blood alone means the guy most likely gets away with it, even if it is not his right to rape his niece.

 

I also agree with Luckmann that the narrative is not Obsidian's best. The player lacks motivation until Act 3, and that's when they slap a big ultimatum on you and make it so going around doing side-quests makes no sense story wise. They could have handled this better by adding some urgency in Act 2 and taking some off Act 3.

 

I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate ultimatum-based urgency as the end of main quests. They're half the reason I can never enjoy Oblivion, Skyrim or FO3. You'd think that they'd learned by now, and it's also odd that it's Obsidian that did it this time, because I don't remember any of the other games having this.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Luckmann

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

I agree with reviewer that Blood Legacy quest resolution felt ideologically forced. I'd kindly ask devs to add ability to side with Lord Harond completely.

Dude. The guy

raped his niece to impregnate her and get himself an heir, and then effectively held her hostage and dragged her through the countryside under false pretenses waiting for the child to be born.

 

 

You can already choose to kill either, neither or both of them. Is that not enough choice?

Why would you need an option to pat the guy on the back for what he did.

 

 

Because, in the world of PoE, that was all his right and a legitimate thing to do.

 

What could possibly make you say that. Everybody who found out about it was disgusted, the man was going out of his way to hide it, and he bribes you to keep it quiet. The whole point of the speech about it is saying that he's using his power and nobility to *hide his crime*. I'd say odds are, it's not something the Dyrwood approves of.

 

Something can be your right, legal, or legitimate, without it being considered permissible in the eyes of the public or your peers.

 

For example, incest is legal in Portugal and China (I just grabbed two countries out of a list). But you bet that a politician wouldn't want you to know about his S&M dungeon where he practices his incestuous foot-fetish. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, but you'd still not want to advertise it.

 

 

If you are playing an Aristocrat or any character that could be called Lawful by any other name (Lawful Neutral especially, but Good or Evil depending on how you look at it) you could very much consider it his right to do what he will. Raedric kills his wife, because she supposedly broke the law, and killed his hollowborn child, as well as summarily executed at least 15 people, and ordered the destruction of a church and at the very least the banishment and beating of it's clergy.

 

 

Noble rights obviously go a long way in the Dyrwoods. Saying "It's his right to do what he wills with his subjects, and it's their duty to serve" is an extremely fitting thing to the setting as presented.

 

Also, it's about player agency. Taking away the choices of the player means that the choices do not matter. When everyone is forced to be good, no-one is. My main character is an Aristocratic Bleak Walker. He's mostly Benevolent, often Rational, and very Aggressive, but he's got some very firm principles that would not be considered very popular by modernist, 21st-century morality squads.

 

Finally, I love the possibility that Rumpelstilskin posited.

 

Right, I don't care about all of that. My point is that nowhere in the game is ever stated or implied that anything Halrond did was accepted or legal. There's no implication, anywhere, at any point, that nobles have the right to continue their line by impregnating blood relatives or that this is any sort of law or regulation anywhere in the Dyrwood. Clearly Raedric had the right to execute his wife for breaking the law; not because he's a noble, but because he's the Thayn of Yenwood. That's a specific title with specific rights and responsibilities; not all nobles are Thayns, for example Lord Halrond doesn't appear to be, nor is Lord Doemenal. As a Thayn it is his job to police the area over which he has authority and convict/punish those who break the law. He's crazy, and the law in question is crazy because he's crazy, but he was abusing his legal authority to do it.

 

At no point does anything in PoE ever say that Lord Halrond was doing something that he had a legal right to do. In fact it's strongly implied that he wasn't. Player agency be damned; if you can show one point anywhere in the entire game that states or implies that Lord Halrond had the legal right to impregnate his niece, I'll shut up. But you are the second person I've seen make that claim--that it was a legitimate action for him to take--and that's a load of horse ****.

[Volourn]

"This new system Obsidian made makes far more sense, which enhances immersion."

 

No. Want proof? Might. Might isn't about physical strength it's about spiritual strength... yet, coincidentally, the physically biggest race gets +2  might and the samllest gets a minus. Coincidence? I think not. So much illogicy it's not even funny. I like the system but there is so much illogical. Hiow is it logical that magic can't heal wounds but resting in your bed (or on a cavern floor) for 8 hours will heal broken bones? LMAO

[Atheosis]

 

No, they just wanted a game that completely and totally emulated BG2 in every way possible (even though BG2 was itself very flawed).

 

Then why not say that instead of, no it's not perfect.

 

 

Because I think from their perspective BG2 was a perfect game.  Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.

[Atheosis]

Really? Please link me to where I said such a thing. Pretty sure I've re-iterated many times that I wanted reactive tactical combat (of which, this game doesn't have - it's mostly strategical and rote in nature) and I expressed disappointment about the plot & story which is a lot worse than most other Obsidian games I've played (save for perhaps the NWN2 OC, but even that didn't have such plot issues).

Also, to your above statement - I am posting in this thread because it's a thread about an RPG Codex review. I have not posted in any other thread recently, and don't plan to, so if you don't want to read my opinion - don't read this thread. Simple as that.

 

 

I don't really pay much attention to the things you post because all you do is gripe and whine, so I really have no idea if you specifically have made lots of references to BG2 and how this game should be more like that one.  Others have made such posts though.  A lot of them in fact.  As far as you go, I think you should just go find a game that you actually like, play that, and stop trying to ruin PoE for everyone else.  It's not healthy man.

[Atheosis]

 

Hey Sensuki, move the **** on already.  Most people enjoy this game.  You don't.  Get over it.

 

Hey Atheosis, move the **** on already. Everybody can state their opinion and some people don't enjoy this game.  Get over it.

 

 

Sure, and Sensuki has stated his negative enough times already.  I sure wouldn't be posting constantly on the forums of a game I hate, but then I guess I'm just not that messed up in the head...

[Luckmann]

Spoiler-marking most of this post because people have trouble avoiding spoilers and I don't want to go through the hassle of doing it for them.

 

Right, I don't care about all of that.

Alright, but then why would you ask? You seem to care a great deal about all of that.

 

 

 

My point is that nowhere in the game is [...] implied that anything Halrond did was accepted or legal.

There's a lot of implications regarding noblemen and their rights, and they're pretty damn wide.

 

There's no implication, anywhere, at any point, that nobles have the right to continue their line by impregnating blood relatives or that this is any sort of law or regulation anywhere in the Dyrwood.

That's a hell of a specific implication to ask for, though. The right in inferred based on implications relating to nobles and law in general, and analogues in our own world, not specific legal wrangling, and you know it.

 

Furthermore, our characters are not from the Palatinate of Dyrwood, they're universally foreigners. It is by no means unreasonable to assume that noblemen may or may not have the right. But more importantly, you are arguing over what amounts to legal platitudes rather than a moral foundation. The actual legality may not even need to matter for the choice to be valid or considered legitimate or legal by the characters.

 

If the Palatinate have chosen to restrict this good nobleman's right to do as he will with his property, it is obviously due to the sorry state of the government. Apparently they elect some of their rulers, so what you can expect, now honestly? They don't even have a King, let alone an Emperor. Order is beyond them.

 

Clearly Raedric had the right to execute his wife for breaking the law; not because he's a noble, but because he's the Thayn of Yenwood. That's a specific title with specific rights and responsibilities; not all nobles are Thayns, for example Lord Halrond doesn't appear to be, nor is Lord Doemenal. As a Thayn it is his job to police the area over which he has authority and convict/punish those who break the law. He's crazy, and the law in question is crazy because he's crazy, but he was abusing his legal authority to do it.

I resent that Lord Raedric be considered "crazy" simply because he is a man of principle that performs his duties as the Thayn of Yenwood and Lord of Gilded Vale. He is right to root out heresy and seek the forgiveness of the Gods, by the Blessing of Berath.

 

Also, going back to the silly legal wrangling you've got going on here, saying "it's not even my place to judge", assume that the nobleman is in his right, and then consider it up to the concerned Thayn to judge is just as legitimate anything else. In fact, I'd love the opportunity to drag the neice back to him, only to tell him that his Thayn will hear of this, because you don't feel that this is appropriate for a man of his station.

 

In fact, that's probably the option that would fit my Bleak Walker Aristocrat the absolute best, but I hate to run around going "Mould the game to my exact character, durrr!".

 

[...] Player agency be damned [...]

Well, eh, no. I consider player agency one of the most fundamental building blocks of a roleplaying game. You don't have to agree, but that's the basis on which I argue, the making of a good RPG. If all the other nuts and bolts fits in well, I'm ecstatic, but that is still what I'd consider the most important thing of all. Player agency and character reactivity, really.

 

Keep the enforced modernist morality out of my roleplaying games.

 

[...] and that's a load of horse ****.

Except it's not. There's a lot of implications in the game about nobles both good and bad, but more importantly, there's nothing that says he's not allowed to do it, either. There might be some law somewhere in a an study in Defiance Bay - I don't know - and our characters certainly do not know, and I still prefer this to be a roleplaying game, not Ace Attorney: Paralegal Archivist Edition.

 

Edited April 26, 2015 by Luckmann

[gogocactus]

 

 

Really? Please link me to where I said such a thing. Pretty sure I've re-iterated many times that I wanted reactive tactical combat (of which, this game doesn't have - it's mostly strategical and rote in nature) and I expressed disappointment about the plot & story which is a lot worse than most other Obsidian games I've played (save for perhaps the NWN2 OC, but even that didn't have such plot issues).

Also, to your above statement - I am posting in this thread because it's a thread about an RPG Codex review. I have not posted in any other thread recently, and don't plan to, so if you don't want to read my opinion - don't read this thread. Simple as that.

 

I don't really pay much attention to the things you post because all you do is gripe and whine, so I really have no idea if you specifically have made lots of references to BG2 and how this game should be more like that one. Others have made such posts though. A lot of them in fact. As far as you go, I think you should just go find a game that you actually like, play that, and stop trying to ruin PoE for everyone else. It's not healthy man.

Man, Sensuki has made countless contributions to the development of this game throughout the past two years. You should give him more respect than you do now. That said, looking at the overall tone of your posts in these and other sub forums you're not here to make a positive contribution. If you are, you might want to adjust your tone of speech in order for other people to take your message seriously.

[Luckmann]

Also, incessant double- or triple-posting to boost post count.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Because I think from their perspective BG2 was a perfect game.  Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.

 

You 'think'? So you really have no idea. And who is 'their'? I've never seen anyone say BG2 is a perfect game. Time to stop making stuff up because all it does is hurt your argument.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Sure, and Sensuki has stated his negative enough times already.  I sure wouldn't be posting constantly on the forums of a game I hate, but then I guess I'm just not that messed up in the head...

 

Sure and you've stated your opinion enough times already about other people. You might not post constantly on the forums of a game you hate, but then you do post about other people who don't like the game. Perhaps you are messed up in the head...

[Ashen Rohk]

"Maybe I should play IWD again".

 

Ladies and gents, the RPG Codex in a nutshell. Kinda obvious that the reviewer set out to hate the game, regardless of how legitimate some of his criticisms are.

[Katarack21]

Spoiler-marking most of this post because people have trouble avoiding spoilers and I don't want to go through the hassle of doing it for them.

 

Right, I don't care about all of that.

Alright, but then why would you ask? You seem to care a great deal about all of that.

 

 

 

My point is that nowhere in the game is [...] implied that anything Halrond did was accepted or legal.

There's a lot of implications regarding noblemen and their rights, and they're pretty damn wide.

 

There's no implication, anywhere, at any point, that nobles have the right to continue their line by impregnating blood relatives or that this is any sort of law or regulation anywhere in the Dyrwood.

That's a hell of a specific implication to ask for, though.

Of course it is, because it's a *specific act that he took*. We're not discussing the broad implications of what rights nobelemen are granted as part of their socioeconomic position. We're discussing his impregnating his niece in order to continue his line; that's what the quest is about, that's the "crime" that he committed, that's the action you said was legitimate. You can wax blue in the face all day about the rights of nobelemen in our world and the historical context; it doesn't apply. Eora isn't our world. You can't apply our worlds medieval gender roles to it, you can't apply our worlds medieval ethnic rules to it, you can't apply our worlds medieval homosexuality rules to it, and you can't apply our worlds nobles rights to it.

 

What you're doing is searching desperately to find some way to justify your claim that raping his niece was a legitimate right of his within the game world, and you're not finding it because it's not there. You don't like the fact that the quest is set up with the moral judging of the act as evil already being done; that's a legitimate complaint. However, the fact is that within the game world, the morality of Halrond's action's isn't questioned--everybody who finds about them, regardless of foreigner (PC) or local (Eder) or religion (Hiravias) or anything, they *all* react as if it is wrong and he needs to be punished.

 

Again, if you can just point out one single place where Halronds actions are stated or even implied to be legal or legitimate within the world of Eora in any way, I'll admit I"m wrong. But I'm pretty sure you won't find it, because as has already been said the quest is a railroad. The judging of Halrond as evil and his actions as non-legitimate has already been done by the developers; your job as the PC is just to decide the punishment (or lack there of in exchange for money).

Edited April 26, 2015 by Katarack21

[Happybday33]

I guess everyone handles things differently but playing the beta, playing the game, making youtube videos and guides, modding the game and posting constantly about it
 just seems really really sad when its a game you dont even like. Just move on?