Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Rhobar121]

I'm no expert, but cracking someone's skull should definitely count as blood spill.

 

[Spectral Pontifex]

I may or may not torrent this travesty of a game.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

Art is rooted in life.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D.

You've proved my point. No I don't remember the exact inspirations for every single thing in D&D. But wether Gygax and co based their decisions on Conan or Robin Hood, then the decision was not arbitrary. It was reasoned. And it was based on the designer's lives. Basing clerics off of Friar Tuck, a character they read about in childhood, is as far away from arbitrary as you can go.

Imagine engineer from car engines. Some ofengineer are good, some of them are bad. It's all depends on what kind of people they are. But how that fact change another fact, that there are rules how you projecting engines? Non. These rules come from nature and cultural regularities. So, as an engineer you are a person with particular personality who make arbitral choices, keeping in mind all rules connected with your subject.

Games works in similar games. There are less fully objective limitations, you can do even more than engender, but way remain same.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Never really understood this dumb restriction on the weapons a Cleric can use.
Bashing someone's skull in or bludgeoning their heads to death is a-ok, but Pelor forbid you use a sword to slash your enemies with...

It's biblical, but same way it works on East. Cub is a compromise between religious rules and life needs (world is a dangerous place).

 

[NecroLord]

Art is rooted in life.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D.

You've proved my point. No I don't remember the exact inspirations for every single thing in D&D. But wether Gygax and co based their decisions on Conan or Robin Hood, then the decision was not arbitrary. It was reasoned. And it was based on the designer's lives. Basing clerics off of Friar Tuck, a character they read about in childhood, is as far away from arbitrary as you can go.

Imagine engineer from car engines. Some ofengineer are good, some of them are bad. It's all depends on what kind of people they are. But how that fact change another fact, that there are rules how you projecting engines? Non. These rules come from nature and cultural regularities. So, as an engineer you are a person with particular personality who make arbitral choices, keeping in mind all rules connected with your subject.

Games works in similar games. There are less fully objective limitations, you can do even more than engender, but way remain same.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Never really understood this dumb restriction on the weapons a Cleric can use.
Bashing someone's skull in or bludgeoning their heads to death is a-ok, but Pelor forbid you use a sword to slash your enemies with...

It's biblical, but same way it works on East. Cub is a compromise between religious rules and life needs (world is a dangerous place).

Ummm....
Can you into english, s'il vous plait?
Anyway, yeah, the club is one of the most primitive weapons, fashioned by our forebears when they would still OOGA BOOGA their way through Earth, so it was a "life need", not a religious one.

 

[Fedora Master]

It's based on the - apocryphal - ruling that real life clergy aren't allowed to spill blood.

so they should be allowed to use a sponge on a stick and not much else

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0431/_PI.HTM

"No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting."

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/15358/why-cant-clerics-use-sharp-weapons
"As the rough specs were drawn up, comments about the need for healing and for curing disease came up.
Ta da, the "priest" was born. Changed later to 'cleric'.
The bit about edged weapons was from Gary's reading the old stories about Archbishop Turpin [ed: later clarified to be Bishop Odo], who wielded a mace because he didn't want to shed blood ("who lives by the sword dies by the sword").
In other words, it came about the same way that 90% of the D&D rules came about :
WE MADE UP SOME [STUFF] THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE FUN."

 

[NecroLord]

What's a solo Cleric gonna do against a monster who is only injured by slashing/piercing weapons?

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

What's a solo Cleric gonna do against a monster who is only injured by slashing/piercing weapons?

pray

 

[Fedora Master]

Flameblade

 

[Delterius]

So, as an engineer you are a person with particular personality who make arbitral choices

No you don't? If it was down to the engineer's personality then the car engine would explode. The chassis would be considered unappealing. The costs would go through the roof. You proved my point again. These decisions are reasoned, not arbitrary.

 

[MerchantKing]

What's a solo Cleric gonna do against a monster who is only injured by slashing/piercing weapons?

Probably pay it off or use cleric damage spells

 

[whydoibother]

So maybe I am overthinking this but in the animation Shadowheart casts Healing Hands, a racial ability of the Aasimar race. And according to the forgotten realms wiki: " Shar and Sseth in particular took pleasure in corrupting aasimar and turning them from the ways of their celestial forebears, nursing grudges fueled by the prejudice of others. "

So Shadowheart might be an Aasimar? or Larian is just trolling

 

[Rhobar121]

I wouldn't go any deeper. Most likely someone just made a mistake.
It's not that hard to do, especially if you're not interested in dnd. Most likely, some random studio is responsible for the animation itself.

 

[Larianshill]

I don't know, Shadowheart does have a storyline where she (against her will) exhibits light powers. And she is connected to Selune in some way. I wouldn't discount it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Never really understood this dumb restriction on the weapons a Cleric can use.
Bashing someone's skull in or bludgeoning their heads to death is a-ok, but Pelor forbid you use a sword to slash your enemies with...

It's based on the - apocryphal - ruling that real life clergy aren't allowed to spill blood.

so they should be allowed to use a sponge on a stick and not much else

Cartoon appearing in Dragon Magazine #22, February 1979

 

[NecroLord]

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Never really understood this dumb restriction on the weapons a Cleric can use.
Bashing someone's skull in or bludgeoning their heads to death is a-ok, but Pelor forbid you use a sword to slash your enemies with...

It's based on the - apocryphal - ruling that real life clergy aren't allowed to spill blood.

so they should be allowed to use a sponge on a stick and not much else

Cartoon appearing in Dragon Magazine #22, February 1979

Nice!
Back when D&D had charm and humor...

 

[La vie sexuelle]

So, as an engineer you are a person with particular personality who make arbitral choices

No you don't? If it was down to the engineer's personality then the car engine would explode. The chassis would be considered unappealing. The costs would go through the roof. You proved my point again. These decisions are reasoned, not arbitrary.

So why there are many types of engines? Same reason why is so many RPG mechaniques - arbitrary decisions are make between objective boundaries. And in RPG these boundaries are much more distanced than in engineering.

 

[Delterius]

So why there are many types of engines?

Precisely because the decisions involved are not arbitrary. You make a new engine to conform to new specifications, or to create new efficiencies, or to fit a new body. You make a new body to conform to new fashions, new specifications, and so on. Nothing involved here, except for copyright law, is arbitrary at all.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

So why there are many types of engines?

Precisely because the decisions involved are not arbitrary. You make a new engine to conform to new specifications, or to create new efficiencies, or to fit a new body. You make a new body to conform to new fashions, new specifications, and so on. Nothing involved here, except for copyright law, is arbitrary at all.

There is no such a thing like "pure arbitrary" or "pure imagination". All forms of arbitrary decisions we make between boundaries. We are free, but as long asworld let us. It's true for engines, it's true for RPG.

 

[FreeKaner]

So why there are many types of engines?

Precisely because the decisions involved are not arbitrary. You make a new engine to conform to new specifications, or to create new efficiencies, or to fit a new body. You make a new body to conform to new fashions, new specifications, and so on. Nothing involved here, except for copyright law, is arbitrary at all.

There is no such a thing like "pure arbitrary" or "pure imagination". All forms of arbitrary decisions we make between boundaries. We are free, but as long asworld let us. It's true for engines, it's true for RPG.

French were never good at philosophy I suppose.

Arbitrary is used generally to mean something that has no logical or reasonable basis. Someone making a subjective decision isn't necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary does not mean personal preference which you are using it as. Also engines were a really bad example to use. What you mean is there is a lot of personal preference, taste and life experience that go into these decisions, someone with more befitting personal experience will make more reasonable decision. It isn't related to being arbitrary.

I agree with your argument broadly, it is important that someone who constructs a setting to have personal experiences that are conductive to making encompassing settings.

 

[whydoibother]

Arbitrary is used generally to mean something that has no logical or reasonable basis. ... . Arbitrary does not mean personal preference which you are using it as.

The old meaning of "arbitrary" was "determined by an arbiter's whim". Like if a judge makes a decision everyone thinks is bad. Its not the result of reason, or logic, or law, but the whim of the arbiter.
Obviously not how the word is used today, but might be relevant to the disagreement.

 

[FreeKaner]

Arbitrary is used generally to mean something that has no logical or reasonable basis. ... . Arbitrary does not mean personal preference which you are using it as.

The old meaning of "arbitrary" was "determined by an arbiter's whim". Like if a judge makes a decision everyone thinks is bad. Its not the result of reason, or logic, or law, but the whim of the arbiter.
Obviously not how the word is used today, but might be relevant to the disagreement.

Arbitration and arbiter are still used of course in law terms and sometimes in idioms but yes it is how it is used when someone calls something arbitrary.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

So why there are many types of engines?

Precisely because the decisions involved are not arbitrary. You make a new engine to conform to new specifications, or to create new efficiencies, or to fit a new body. You make a new body to conform to new fashions, new specifications, and so on. Nothing involved here, except for copyright law, is arbitrary at all.

There is no such a thing like "pure arbitrary" or "pure imagination". All forms of arbitrary decisions we make between boundaries. We are free, but as long asworld let us. It's true for engines, it's true for RPG.

French were never good at philosophy I suppose.

Arbitrary is used generally to mean something that has no logical or reasonable basis. Someone making a subjective decision isn't necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary does not mean personal preference which you are using it as. Also engines were a really bad example to use. What you mean is there is a lot of personal preference, taste and life experience that go into these decisions, someone with more befitting personal experience will make more reasonable decision. It isn't related to being arbitrary.

I agree with your argument broadly, it is important that someone who constructs a setting to have personal experiences that are conductive to making encompassing settings.

Arbitrary is used generally to mean something that has no logical or reasonable basis. ... . Arbitrary does not mean personal preference which you are using it as.

The old meaning of "arbitrary" was "determined by an arbiter's whim". Like if a judge makes a decision everyone thinks is bad. Its not the result of reason, or logic, or law, but the whim of the arbiter.
Obviously not how the word is used today, but might be relevant to the disagreement.

I will clarify what I meant by arbitrary - having freedom to choose whatever you want in the world that is limiting potential choices. An engine example is good to present this concept at basic level, when we have objective physical limitations. Projecting of RPG has less boundaries and that fact could took as too pure idealistic statement that "everything is possible in projecting RPG" which I disagree. But we're getting possibility to reshape many things in abstract reality of gaming mechanics as long we understand how this abstraction works on its internals rules.
In simpler words - We are forced to live a life and this life is forming our shape as people and creators.

So maybe I am overthinking this but in the animation Shadowheart casts Healing Hands, a racial ability of the Aasimar race. And according to the forgotten realms wiki: " Shar and Sseth in particular took pleasure in corrupting aasimar and turning them from the ways of their celestial forebears, nursing grudges fueled by the prejudice of others. "

So Shadowheart might be an Aasimar? or Larian is just trolling

View attachment 37550

View attachment 37551

Returning to Baldur's Gate - I thing that is one of this Dark Justiciars. Background is definitely Underdark.

 

[FreeKaner]

I will clarify what I meant by arbitrary - having freedom to choose whatever you want in the world that is limiting potential choices. An engine example is good to present this concept at basic level, when we have objective physical limitations. Projecting of RPG has less boundaries and that fact could took as too pure idealistic statement that "everything is possible in projecting RPG" which I disagree. But we're getting possibility to reshape many things in abstract reality of gaming mechanics as long we understand how this abstraction works on its internals rules.
In simpler words - We are forced to live a life and this life is forming our shape as people and creators.

I understood what you meant but there is obviously a language barrier.

People's experiences are also not necessarily good, because a game works best when its mechanics and setting work together as well, those are also often made by different sets of people when video games are involved. Gameplay is also a vehicle to deliver the narrative and setting. Gamedevs of course have to make sure their game fits to the ruleset when they adopt the ruleset from somewhere else.

Good settings will be consistent, and indeed the concept you are talking about is called internal consistency. However that is not enough, great settings will not only be internally consistent, they will also process themselves befitting the philosophy of the setting.

That's why Lord of the Rings is a good setting for example, Tolkien being a Catholic in England and someone interested in linguistics, mythology and history of Anglo-Saxons had the right personal experiences to create a fantasy setting but also created a very consistent setting that has central philosophies that are worked throughout the series.

Another setting I like is Warhammer, one of the reasons why I like that setting is because the creators of that setting obviously read primary source material from the era they parody. A lot of the fluff in their setting is written with the language and mannerisms of how people wrote things in 12th-17th centuries with additions from 19th-20th for 40k. It is a setting that is meant to be absurd, but takes what it does seriously at the same time.

Engine comparison doesn't work, because engines are generally not made with personal preferences of engineers, they are made with what's available. Still it is true that limitations, and even arbitrary ones are actually good. Making things within constraints actually stokes creativity, absolute freedom is not a good quality in any creative endeavor. Consistency is constraint in itself.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

I will clarify what I meant by arbitrary - having freedom to choose whatever you want in the world that is limiting potential choices. An engine example is good to present this concept at basic level, when we have objective physical limitations. Projecting of RPG has less boundaries and that fact could took as too pure idealistic statement that "everything is possible in projecting RPG" which I disagree. But we're getting possibility to reshape many things in abstract reality of gaming mechanics as long we understand how this abstraction works on its internals rules.
In simpler words - We are forced to live a life and this life is forming our shape as people and creators.

I understood what you meant but there is obviously a language barrier.

People's experiences are also not necessarily good, because a game works best when its mechanics and setting work together as well, those are also often made by different sets of people when video games are involved. Gameplay is also a vehicle to deliver the narrative and setting. Gamedevs of course have to make sure their game fits to the ruleset when they adopt the ruleset from somewhere else.

Good settings will be consistent, and indeed the concept you are talking about is called internal consistency. However that is not enough, great settings will not only be internally consistent, they will also process themselves befitting the philosophy of the setting.

That's why Lord of the Rings is a good setting for example, Tolkien being a Catholic in England and someone interested in linguistics, mythology and history of Anglo-Saxons had the right personal experiences to create a fantasy setting but also created a very consistent setting that has central philosophies that are worked throughout the series.

Another setting I like is Warhammer, one of the reasons why I like that setting is because the creators of that setting obviously read primary source material from the era they parody. A lot of the fluff in their setting is written with the language and mannerisms of how people wrote things in 12th-17th centuries with additions from 19th-20th for 40k. It is a setting that is meant to be absurd, but takes what it does seriously at the same time.

Engine comparison doesn't work, because engines are generally not made with personal preferences of engineers, they are made with what's available. Still it is true that limitations, and even arbitrary ones are actually good. Making things within constraints actually stokes creativity, absolute freedom is not a good quality in any creative endeavor. Consistency is constraint in itself.

Let's compromise that with statement, that arbitrary in engine engineeringis strongly limited by never changing law of physics and long-termed social rules like law and crafting traditions, when in RPG when have much more possibilities, also room on arbitrary, because existing rules of creation are much more fluent, but fluently itself doesn't eliminate importance of limitations in creative process.

 

[Delterius]

when in RPG when have much more possibilities, also room on arbitrary, because existing rules of creation are much more fluent

No. Because fashion, sociology, culture, religion, linguistics, anthropology, history and historical circumstance, media and all the things that led to the creation of these settings are no less constraining than the laws of physics. Which are also not absent from these settings either. You can create a world where magic or technology or metaphysics are such that the laws of physics do not apply such as we would expect them to. But there are obvious limitations to that, as creators will not entertain every nook and cranny of the implications of their toying with universal constants.

As always these decisions are not arbitrary, at all - just as no art comes from a void creators are permanently inspired by each other and their predecessors. If one's creation is fluent at all to anyone but their own neurons, then it was a product of reasoned decisions that interact with the rest of humanity. They are by definition not a product of unmitigated freedom and arbitrariety. But of cooperation, plagiarism, and inspiration. Creators are not absolute monarchs of their own minds, they are not lights which shines no further than their personal room in the ivory tower. They lead human lives and are in conversation with the rest of the world.