Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat

[Inhabitants of Khorinis]

Can we, plaese, hunt down everyone involved in the convesation on the last few pages (except me of course) and publicly humiliate and execute them?

 

[LannTheStupid]

then she proceeds to kill the single most powerful creature in Sauron's army:

It was a lucky crit, though. On the other hand - she did it. To win a lottery one needs to buy a ticket first.

Also, AFAIR Joan of Arc is never shown on foot, only mounted. So is a mounted knight a footsoldier? Hmmm...

 

[Desiderius]

Seriously. Everyone knows that female warrior types are only the dreams of SJW cucks and have no place in proper fantasy.

Spoiler

I mean, this shit is only a recent development by basement dwelling virgins, not Chad real men that know biology and how it works.

Spoiler

I mean, you'd never find art like this in any based fantasy books that the SJWs are trying to shut down.

Spoiler

Etc.

tl;dr Some of you guys are really retarded. And pathetic.

Dorks and 15-year-olds jack off a lot. Who knew?

If you're getting the real thing don't need it in the gamez.

That said I don't mind it much as can be seen by my choice of portraits. I'm just not so retarded as to think it realistic, unlike the natural intimidation caused by manifest skill with a weapon, which is one of the most uncontroversial phenomena known to man.

Guess that explains why it goes over Grunker's head.

 

[LannTheStupid]

ASoIaF/GoT have their moments, but especially the former draws more on its worldbuilding that the quality of the writing. The show is generally better written than the books

Again - this person writes reviews on this site.

And someone complains about Kotalu...

 

[Desiderius]

then she proceeds to kill the single most powerful creature in Sauron's army:

It was a lucky crit, though. On the other hand - she did it. To win a lottery one needs to buy a ticket first.

Also, AFAIR Joan of Arc is never shown on foot, only mounted. So is a mounted knight a footsoldier? Hmmm...

Which he totally didn't expect because.... it wasn't, and isn't, a thing.

 

[Desiderius]

Im in the troll troubles chapter and can't find the goblin village. I've already scoured the appropriate area, visited bridge gudrun river etc. Do i have to progress further in the plot?

Should you be finding the Goblin Village? And if you should, what is your highest Perception score out of all those characters you're sporting?

He has to progress further, unless he's talking about Kobold camps.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Also, AFAIR Joan of Arc is never shown on foot, only mounted. So is a mounted knight a footsoldier? Hmmm...

Lol what a supercilious cowardly faggot you are, first you imply that Joan of Arc actually fought in battles as a soldier wielding melee weapons, then when you gradually realise that's retarded you cope by playing with unrelated semantics. KYS yourself!

 

[The_Mask]

He has to progress further, unless he's talking about Kobold camps.

Yeah. I know. I was hoping this way he'd look at his journal and figure out the lack of perception was on his side, not on the side of his characters. It was a friendly and witty way of opening up his eyes.

 

[Grunker]

I'm just not so retarded as to think it realistic, unlike the natural intimidation caused by manifest skill with a weapon, which is one of the most uncontroversial phenomena known to man.

The idea that someone who has googled enough ancient greek reading to quote Heraclitus is also silly enough to argue the realistic merit's of Pathfinder's non-magic combat reminds me of that old Prager-quote. "The foolishness of that comment is so deep, I can only ascribe it to higher education. You have to have gone to college to say something that stupid."

Whether you've gone to college or not is besides the point, what is amusing is the highbrow reference used to defend the realism of your cartoon toy

 

[NJClaw]

She disguises herself as a man to get to a battle where the enemy she kills is protected by a prophecy that no man can kill him. So how is that a problem for anything I've said?
While sure it's a woman fighting in a battle, it upholds the idea that woman aren't warriors; her utility is to loophole through a prophetic protection.

How is that a problem for anything you've said?

It's a problem because selected women being able to fight are a staple of the genre. We aren't arguing that medieval armies were split 50/50 between men and women, we're arguing that there's place in fantasy for women warriors. Since in the book that's basically the great-grandfather of the game we're discussing there's a woman strong enough to disguise herself as a man and kill the general of the opposing army, how is it out of place and inappropriate for P:K to have two warriors without dicks?

 

[Desiderius]

Google?

Prager?

My God, the shits just keep on coming.

Are you going for the self-beclowning world record or are you just trying to demonstrate the kind of Dazzling Display of Ignorance that truly could send everyone running?

 

[LannTheStupid]

Ah, and now we have Prager. Is this the full set or do you have a joker hidden somewhere?

 

[BING XI LAO]

She disguises herself as a man to get to a battle where the enemy she kills is protected by a prophecy that no man can kill him. So how is that a problem for anything I've said?
While sure it's a woman fighting in a battle, it upholds the idea that woman aren't warriors; her utility is to loophole through a prophetic protection.

How is that a problem for anything you've said?

It's a problem because selected women being able to fight are a staple of the genre. We aren't arguing that medieval armies were split 50/50 between men and women, we're arguing that there's place in fantasy for women warriors. Since in the book that's basically the great-grandfather of the game we're discussing there's a woman strong enough to disguise herself as a man and kill the general of the opposing army, how is it out of place and inappropriate for P:K to have two warriors without dicks?

P:K isn't the minimalist case though, it's the maximalist case where the woman warriors are ubiquitous and completely normalised.

 

[NJClaw]

Which he totally didn't expect because.... it wasn't, and isn't, a thing.

But the fact that warriors women aren't "a thing" doesn't mean much because in Pathfinder the protagonists (and, in this case, the companions) don't come from "the things".

 

[LannTheStupid]

Also, noone of anti-women crusaders dare to stop and think: why women were not (mostly) allowed to go and fight? Hint: it's not about physical strength. It's about some interesting monopoly most of them share.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Also, noone of anti-women crusaders dare to stop and think: why women were not (mostly) allowed to go and fight? Hinit: it's not about physical strength. It's about some interesting monopoly most of them share.

What planet do you people live on? On mine the women aren't just weaker they're also less aggressive and shorter.
It'd be interesting to consider to what extent women would've been excluded from fighting based purely on fertility and social position as opposed to competence.
But a lot of armies had women camp followers, and often got into the direst of straits, yet women were generally constrained to merely throwing roof tiles, you don't see army camps defended by the camp followers unless I'm really missing something.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Also, noone of anti-women crusaders dare to stop and think: why women were not (mostly) allowed to go and fight? Hinit: it's not about physical strength. It's about some interesting monopoly most of them share.

What planet do you people live on? On mine the women aren't just weaker they're also less aggressive

What's your address? I'd like to send my ex your way.

 

[Desiderius]

It’s both.

This is the problem. You fantasize about this shit for half a century and before you know it you’ve got a generation that doesn’t know it’s fantasy and women are out here crashing ships together and catching the ocean on fire.

Also record levels of female unhappiness not coincidentally. When the Han decide they really wouldn’t mind having a stranglehold on global semi-conductor production capacity you’ll wish you hadn’t indulged this horseshit.

The chick writers at Owlcat know this. They’re subtle but they know.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Which he totally didn't expect because.... it wasn't, and isn't, a thing.

But the fact that warriors women aren't "a thing" doesn't mean much because in Pathfinder the protagonists (and, in this case, the companions) don't come from "the things".

While it's true that the female barb and Valeria are oddities, you can start out the game with two such oddities in a party of six, having been given your first quest by a female Swordlord in armour.
The real clincher would be if generic soldiers/guardsmen include women, I don't recall.

 

[The_Mask]

While it's true that the female barb and Valeria are oddities, you can start out the game with two such oddities in a party of six, having been given your first quest by a female Swordlord in armour.
The real clincher would be if generic soldiers/guardsmen include women, I don't recall.

The ratio of characters that are noble and warriors is pretty equal, as it should be. Low level stuff, as far as you can see is mostly male. For example, when the Varnhold millitia is in that kerfuffle, you can see mostly males.

The only one(s) that stand out are the captains of your own guard, which one of them is female - that always struck me as odd.

 

[Desiderius]

Seriously. Everyone knows that female warrior types are only the dreams of SJW cucks and have no place in proper fantasy.

Spoiler

I mean, this shit is only a recent development by basement dwelling virgins, not Chad real men that know biology and how it works.

Spoiler

I mean, you'd never find art like this in any based fantasy books that the SJWs are trying to shut down.

Spoiler

Etc.

tl;dr Some of you guys are really retarded. And pathetic.

You're missing the point. The reason for having females in our thing has shifted. They were in there right from the beginning in nerd stuff, sure, but that's because nerds wanted to see tiddies. Also, females were conceived as possibly equal and companionable with the hero, but seldom superior (or if they were superior that was because they were on another level, like a goddess or something).

That has shifted to women being included to shore up a particular Narrative, which often means they have to be better than men even at men's things. Male heroes generally play a subordinate or comical role, or if they're allowed to be strong it's because they've seen the liberal light, or they're going to be the ones who sacrifice themselves to kill the Nazis.

This is why the "but they've always been in our thing" is water off a duck's back to SJWs. They know perfectly well that the reason for it was different back then.

The whole driving action of the ur-text of Western Lit is the wife back home with the kid not on the front lines with Ajax mixing it up with Hector.

Can you imagine even a subplot like that in contemporary fantasy? That’s how far afield things have gotten.

 

[NJClaw]

While it's true that the female barb and Valeria are oddities, you can start out the game with two such oddities in a party of six, having been given your first quest by a female Swordlord in armour.
The real clincher would be if generic soldiers/guardsmen include women, I don't recall.

Paizo is notoriously a feminist and LGBTQ-friendly company. Even before them, D&D 3.x stated very clearly the total absence of differences between male and female characters. Since the rules of the game state that males and females have the exact same modifiers to their physical abilities and that they can both be fighters in the same exact way, what happened in the history of our world and society means nothing.

Golarion doesn't obey our world's rules. Paizo wants to give to everyone the chance to imagine and play the character they want. If this completely breaks your immersion and is a deal-breaker to you, this isn't your game.

This is the problem. You fantasize about this shit for half a century and before you know it you’ve got a generation that doesn’t know it’s fantasy and women are out here crashing ships together and catching the ocean on fire.

I'm fairly sure they do know it's fantasy, excluding the usual (and mostly American) nutjobs. I know a lot (A LOT) of feminist women with very extreme positions on gender issues, and not a single one of them is unable to distinguish between what actually happened in the past and what they wish happened (or think should have happened). Regardless of that, they still want the right to imagine whatever they want in their fantasy games, and I don't have a problem with that.

I love games where you can experience two different stories depending on your sex and where your sex (with your other characteristics) has an impact on the gameplay, but Kingmaker is not one of them. I really hope Expeditions: Rome will follow in Arcanum's footsteps, but I'm setting my expectations fairly low. However, since this game never had the pretense to do anything like that and it's not its fault a game with that feature would be very hard to make in the current year, I don't see why we should bash Kingmaker or Owlcat for its portrayal of women.

 

[BING XI LAO]

While it's true that the female barb and Valeria are oddities, you can start out the game with two such oddities in a party of six, having been given your first quest by a female Swordlord in armour.
The real clincher would be if generic soldiers/guardsmen include women, I don't recall.

Paizo is notoriously a feminist and LGBTQ-friendly company. Even before them, D&D 3.x stated very clearly the total absence of differences between male and female characters. Since the rules of the game state that males and females have the exact same modifiers to their physical abilities and that they can both be fighters in the same exact way, what happened in the history of our world and society means nothing.

'Twas not I who first brought up Joan of Arc!

Golarion doesn't obey our world's rules. Paizo wants to give to everyone the chance to imagine and play the character they want. If this completely breaks your immersion and is a deal-breaker to you, this isn't your game.

People shouldn't like things I dislike!

 

[LannTheStupid]

I posted the photo of Алия Молдагулова somewhere here. She was single, childless, and the Soviet government decided at that time to survive for several years is more important, even with the cost of massive demographic drop later. Both of those things happened, by the way.

She died at the age of 18, and for sure never had any descendants.

Here is how she died:

During one of the attacks, Aliya Moldagulova, being wounded in the arm by a mine fragment, nevertheless participated in hand-to-hand combat, which began in a German trench. During the battle, Aliya was wounded again by a German officer. She managed to destroy him, but her wound was fatal.

So when a society puts short term survival ahead of creating the next generation, a girl who was recruited as a sniper can fight, win, and then die from wounds received in hand-to-hand combat. Obviously, her will was top-notch, but her fortitude - not so much. May be that is a good illustration of Paizo "die-hard mercenary" stats.

I guess a former paladin trained from childhood can destroy a pack of peasants or several common mercs. Especially in full armor. To win a duel with the equal she needs magic, that's for sure. Or drugs.

 

[Desiderius]

While it's true that the female barb and Valeria are oddities, you can start out the game with two such oddities in a party of six, having been given your first quest by a female Swordlord in armour.
The real clincher would be if generic soldiers/guardsmen include women, I don't recall.

Paizo is notoriously a feminist and LGBTQ-friendly company. Even before them, D&D 3.x stated very clearly the total absence of differences between male and female characters. Since the rules of the game state that males and females have the exact same modifiers to their physical abilities and that they can both be fighters in the same exact way, what happened in the history of our world and society means nothing.

Golarion doesn't obey our world's rules. Paizo wants to give to everyone the chance to imagine and play the character they want. If this completely breaks your immersion and is a deal-breaker to you, this isn't your game.

This is the problem. You fantasize about this shit for half a century and before you know it you’ve got a generation that doesn’t know it’s fantasy and women are out here crashing ships together and catching the ocean on fire.

I'm fairly sure they do know it's fantasy, excluding the usual (and mostly American) nutjobs. I know a lot (A LOT) of feminist women with very extreme positions on gender issues, and not a single one of them is unable to distinguish between what actually happened in the past and what they wish happened (or think should have happened). Regardless of that, they still want the right to imagine whatever they want in their fantasy games, and I don't have a problem with that.

I love games where you can experience two different stories depending on your sex and where your sex (with your other characteristics) has an impact on the gameplay, but Kingmaker is not one of them. I really hope Expeditions: Rome will follow in Arcanum's footsteps, but I'm setting my expectations fairly low. However, since this game never had the pretense to do anything like that and it's not its fault a game with that feature would be very hard to make in the current year, I don't see why we should bash Kingmaker or Owlcat for its portrayal of women.

I haven’t. It’s very subtle but they themselves (along with not a few feminists in RL) are undermining the foundations of the effort to turn women into men, which as you note is largely an American (and if you look closely even a “male” and “conservative” thing now). See MMA.

In any event there’s no such thing as a “right” to imagine whatever one wants if that “right” infringes on the same purported right of the rest of the players, let alone when said “right” damages the quality of the genre and eventually the world that fantasy collectively calls into being - which is what fantasy is for.