Baldur's Gate 3

[Xenich]

but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you

Why do you attack @Humbaba so?

Explain.

[Anon]

I guess, but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you, so I guess I don't see the need for socialization if that is the conditions (not that being liked is required, but a common ground of basic moral conditions is preferred).

I tried reading the Codex years ago, but it was too infested with homosexual worship and the like (as well as rampant childish temper tantrums). Here so far, most people have been reasonable even in complete opposite opinions without resorting to retarded tactics). There I think it was completely free, but since I didn't find common ground in basic moral conditions, It just isn't something I would care to be (much like steam forums). Gaming alone isn't enough in my opinion as conversations never stay just about gaming.

I can say for myself I don't have anything against any of the gays in this site, and I know many others also don't. Yeah there'll be people hating you or trying to pick fights with you for being gay here but then it's up to you how much of a problem you consider that is. I personally don't think it's an issue that makes the site unbrowseable if you have some backbone.

My problem would only be the injection of their ideology into the conversations through means that refuse to accept reality (like those in the steam forums that think there isn't an agenda, that a gay hitting on you in a game isn't a big deal, etc... and that they need to be represented in games) or the refusal to accept it as a mental illness or defend the behavior to any healthy societal norm.

Personally, I prefer them to stay in the closet about it and do not want to hear about it regardless. I don't discuss it past the factual issues of its occurrence in games (ie the promotion of it, defense, etc...) and I am not interested in their position on the issue in support of it (I personally don't believe in compromise with them on the issue, just as I wouldn't believe compromise with any other mental illness as a legitimate argument for inclusion into societal representation).

Past that, I don't attack personally (or I try to avoid such contests), seek them out (outside of relevant discussion), or try to pick fights. I speak the facts on the subjects, condemn the behavior to what it is, and operate accordingly.

I'm not interested in friendship or developing any such level of bond. I wouldn't hang with them in the outside world or interact with them in a way other than required by basic public encounters.

If they are ok with that, so be it. In the end, it is a form of toleration (not in the presence, but in the acceptance of it and what I noticed on the Codex was a lot of people becoming open to them as a friend, which led to slow acceptance through toleration of their behavior whether those people wanted to admit it or not).

Well as much as they have to accept and tolerate people speaking up against them, you'll also have to tolerate their fag shit, there's no alternative that I can think of. The alternative would be putting them on ignore.

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

[Xenich]

I can say for myself I don't have anything against any of the gays in this site, and I know many others also don't. Yeah there'll be people hating you or trying to pick fights with you for being gay here but then it's up to you how much of a problem you consider that is. I personally don't think it's an issue that makes the site unbrowseable if you have some backbone.

My problem would only be the injection of their ideology into the conversations through means that refuse to accept reality (like those in the steam forums that think there isn't an agenda, that a gay hitting on you in a game isn't a big deal, etc... and that they need to be represented in games) or the refusal to accept it as a mental illness or defend the behavior to any healthy societal norm.

Personally, I prefer them to stay in the closet about it and do not want to hear about it regardless. I don't discuss it past the factual issues of its occurrence in games (ie the promotion of it, defense, etc...) and I am not interested in their position on the issue in support of it (I personally don't believe in compromise with them on the issue, just as I wouldn't believe compromise with any other mental illness as a legitimate argument for inclusion into societal representation).

Past that, I don't attack personally (or I try to avoid such contests), seek them out (outside of relevant discussion), or try to pick fights. I speak the facts on the subjects, condemn the behavior to what it is, and operate accordingly.

I'm not interested in friendship or developing any such level of bond. I wouldn't hang with them in the outside world or interact with them in a way other than required by basic public encounters.

If they are ok with that, so be it. In the end, it is a form of toleration (not in the presence, but in the acceptance of it and what I noticed on the Codex was a lot of people becoming open to them as a friend, which led to slow acceptance through toleration of their behavior whether those people wanted to admit it or not).

Well as much as they have to accept and tolerate people speaking up against them, you'll also have to tolerate their fag shit, there's no alternative that I can think of. The alternative would be putting them on ignore.

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

I don't have to tolerate anything. If they don't like the fact that they take part in a disgusting mentally ill habit, I don't care what they think and I have no issues telling them they are such in their habits. Ignore is also a fair alternative in such re-occurring cases.


If I find this site lacks basic moral conditions that are required by me (as it did with the codex), I won't subject myself to it. Unlike the mentally ill, I don't crave attention for others who do not share my view. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom goes both ways when it concerns a private entity and one doesn't have to be subjected to such attitudes if they do not want it . There is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexual views in the discussions in any positive lite (understanding, compromise, respecting their inclusion of content, etc...) and that is all up to the site owner. This doesn't have to be done at the authoritative level to achieve it either which is why like circles by their general behavior will through such practice discourage such integrations into a community.

I do however find it odd the disassociation that people have by thinking they can ascribe to Christian principals that have standards on sexual displays and then take alternative tolerating stances on such issues with support for the behavior in any way that would encourage its promotion of view. It is that sort of tolerance that has led to the position we are currently in and eventually allows for groups that do not generally ascribe to such to be slowly infiltrated and conditioned to the same levels of basic societal norms.

Regardless, I am not demanding anything, merely stating an observation and point concerning the issue. I don't see how anyone would take issue with my position while at the same time trying to defend the inclusion of such woke behavior. In fact, I have far more respect for the wild and crazy positions of some who do not wavier in their acceptance than those who would openly embrace conformity to a standard so as to appear civilized in their stature.

[Anon]

My problem would only be the injection of their ideology into the conversations through means that refuse to accept reality (like those in the steam forums that think there isn't an agenda, that a gay hitting on you in a game isn't a big deal, etc... and that they need to be represented in games) or the refusal to accept it as a mental illness or defend the behavior to any healthy societal norm.

Personally, I prefer them to stay in the closet about it and do not want to hear about it regardless. I don't discuss it past the factual issues of its occurrence in games (ie the promotion of it, defense, etc...) and I am not interested in their position on the issue in support of it (I personally don't believe in compromise with them on the issue, just as I wouldn't believe compromise with any other mental illness as a legitimate argument for inclusion into societal representation).

Past that, I don't attack personally (or I try to avoid such contests), seek them out (outside of relevant discussion), or try to pick fights. I speak the facts on the subjects, condemn the behavior to what it is, and operate accordingly.

I'm not interested in friendship or developing any such level of bond. I wouldn't hang with them in the outside world or interact with them in a way other than required by basic public encounters.

If they are ok with that, so be it. In the end, it is a form of toleration (not in the presence, but in the acceptance of it and what I noticed on the Codex was a lot of people becoming open to them as a friend, which led to slow acceptance through toleration of their behavior whether those people wanted to admit it or not).

Well as much as they have to accept and tolerate people speaking up against them, you'll also have to tolerate their fag shit, there's no alternative that I can think of. The alternative would be putting them on ignore.

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

I don't have to tolerate anything. If they don't like the fact that they take part in a disgusting mentally ill habit, I don't care what they think and I have no issues telling them they are such in their habits. Ignore is also a fair alternative in such re-occurring cases.


If I find this site lacks basic moral conditions that are required by me (as it did with the codex), I won't subject myself to it. Unlike the mentally ill, I don't crave attention for others who do not share my view. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom goes both ways when it concerns a private entity and one doesn't have to be subjected to such attitudes if they do not want it . There is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexual views in the discussions in any positive lite (understanding, compromise, respecting their inclusion of content, etc...) and that is all up to the site owner. This doesn't have to be done at the authoritative level to achieve it either which is why like circles by their general behavior will through such practice discourage such integrations into a community.

I do however find it odd the disassociation that people have by thinking they can ascribe to Christian principals that have standards on sexual displays and then take alternative tolerating stances on such issues with support the behavior in any way that would encourage its promotion of view. It is that sort of tolerance that has led to the position we are currently in and eventually allows for groups that do not generally ascribe to such to be slowly infiltrated and conditioned to the same levels of basic societal norms.

Regardless, I am not demanding anything, merely stating an observation and point concerning the issue. I don't see how anyone would take issue with my position while at the same time trying to defend the inclusion of such woke behavior. In fact, I have far more respect for the wild and crazy positions of some who do not wavier in their acceptance than those who would openly embrace conformity to a standard so as to appear civilized in their stature.

I mean you have to tolerate more in the sense that you can't force them to change their behavior much less demand any kind of disciplinary action against them for speaking fag shit, obviously you're free to openly talk against them as many other people in this forum do.

Other than that, yeah good luck convincing Rusty of any of that, other people (including me) extensively tried arguing for something similar in the last few days for no tangible results.

[OnTilt]

there's no alternative that I can think of

You're not very imaginative.

[Xenich]

Well as much as they have to accept and tolerate people speaking up against them, you'll also have to tolerate their fag shit, there's no alternative that I can think of. The alternative would be putting them on ignore.

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

I don't have to tolerate anything. If they don't like the fact that they take part in a disgusting mentally ill habit, I don't care what they think and I have no issues telling them they are such in their habits. Ignore is also a fair alternative in such re-occurring cases.


If I find this site lacks basic moral conditions that are required by me (as it did with the codex), I won't subject myself to it. Unlike the mentally ill, I don't crave attention for others who do not share my view. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom goes both ways when it concerns a private entity and one doesn't have to be subjected to such attitudes if they do not want it . There is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexual views in the discussions in any positive lite (understanding, compromise, respecting their inclusion of content, etc...) and that is all up to the site owner. This doesn't have to be done at the authoritative level to achieve it either which is why like circles by their general behavior will through such practice discourage such integrations into a community.

I do however find it odd the disassociation that people have by thinking they can ascribe to Christian principals that have standards on sexual displays and then take alternative tolerating stances on such issues with support the behavior in any way that would encourage its promotion of view. It is that sort of tolerance that has led to the position we are currently in and eventually allows for groups that do not generally ascribe to such to be slowly infiltrated and conditioned to the same levels of basic societal norms.

Regardless, I am not demanding anything, merely stating an observation and point concerning the issue. I don't see how anyone would take issue with my position while at the same time trying to defend the inclusion of such woke behavior. In fact, I have far more respect for the wild and crazy positions of some who do not wavier in their acceptance than those who would openly embrace conformity to a standard so as to appear civilized in their stature.

I mean you have to tolerate more in the sense that you can't force them to change their behavior much less demand any kind of disciplinary action against them for speaking fag shit, obviously you're free to openly talk against them as many other people in this forum do.

Other than that, yeah good luck convincing Rusty of any of that, other people (including me) extensively tried arguing for something similar in the last few days for no tangible results.

I never would, but as I said, I never suggested such. In most cases, the easiest way to deal with these inclusions is to reject their influence to the point where it does not allow infiltration and conditioning. Gays have a tendency to over share their personal natures (as is obvious by our new arrival), which is why they tend to out themselves quite frequently, but if you were to for instance take a gauge of most here, many you would not only know for sure their actual sex, but anything about their family lives, sexual orientation, etc... You might be able to guess, but that is besides the point, as most don't tend to over share such information for obvious reasons.

So those who do, are looking for attention, recognition, or have ulterior motives. A group of people who share a common moral ground will traditionally shun that which challenges it. So in a circle where such is not openly accepted, it would be natural for arguments to center around that concept. It is through public responsibility and influence where real change occurs, which is why this is the first target for those who are trying to corrupt it. What you see today is due to a campaign that has been decades in motion and you can't turn around and combat it through authoritative means, it has to be borne of the foundations of a groups shared principals that reject its inclusion.

This is done by simply arguing against the concept at all appearances of it (being intolerant of its views and positions), where it is obvious that those who advocate for it are either part of it, or shown to be supportive and that produces a position that is generally either mocked, argued as invalid, or dismissed (much like how @Red7 is with the crazy rants to which nobody takes seriously. If this "inclusion" reaches that level of status, then the public at large will keep its influences at bay. No site owner can achieve this through artificial means (censorship), it takes the people within it and if the people aren't willing, then it means they are accepting through inaction and the inevitable result is eventual corruption of the groups think as it becomes accustomed to its involvement.

This is pure psyop manipulation and why all of media has been manipulated to this end. They have taught that tolerating is good and civil (even convincing churches to accept this false ideology) and then through such openness, bring in the behaviors/ideals that will slowly change the existing moral structures to tolerate even more as people are either afraid to speak out (being called a bigot, intolerant, etc...) or they keep quiet and let the cancer grow.

I have seen it numerous times throughout the years and if the group refuses to stand for their moral positions, then eventually it decays and as I said, I move on not wishing to be a part of the society that claims it has morals, but accepts that which defy them.

[Anon]

there's no alternative that I can think of

You're not very imaginative.

I said one right after that. If you have more I'm willing to hear.

[OnTilt]

there's no alternative that I can think of

You're not very imaginative.

I said one right after that. If you have more I'm willing to hear.

Well, the Muslims do this thing with rooftops. But I think its more Christian to use a millstone.

[Anon]

You're not very imaginative.

I said one right after that. If you have more I'm willing to hear.

Well, the Muslims do this thing with rooftops. But I think its more Christian to use a millstone.

Obviously I say that in the context of us being in an internet forum.

[Anon]

I don't have to tolerate anything. If they don't like the fact that they take part in a disgusting mentally ill habit, I don't care what they think and I have no issues telling them they are such in their habits. Ignore is also a fair alternative in such re-occurring cases.


If I find this site lacks basic moral conditions that are required by me (as it did with the codex), I won't subject myself to it. Unlike the mentally ill, I don't crave attention for others who do not share my view. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom goes both ways when it concerns a private entity and one doesn't have to be subjected to such attitudes if they do not want it . There is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexual views in the discussions in any positive lite (understanding, compromise, respecting their inclusion of content, etc...) and that is all up to the site owner. This doesn't have to be done at the authoritative level to achieve it either which is why like circles by their general behavior will through such practice discourage such integrations into a community.

I do however find it odd the disassociation that people have by thinking they can ascribe to Christian principals that have standards on sexual displays and then take alternative tolerating stances on such issues with support the behavior in any way that would encourage its promotion of view. It is that sort of tolerance that has led to the position we are currently in and eventually allows for groups that do not generally ascribe to such to be slowly infiltrated and conditioned to the same levels of basic societal norms.

Regardless, I am not demanding anything, merely stating an observation and point concerning the issue. I don't see how anyone would take issue with my position while at the same time trying to defend the inclusion of such woke behavior. In fact, I have far more respect for the wild and crazy positions of some who do not wavier in their acceptance than those who would openly embrace conformity to a standard so as to appear civilized in their stature.

I mean you have to tolerate more in the sense that you can't force them to change their behavior much less demand any kind of disciplinary action against them for speaking fag shit, obviously you're free to openly talk against them as many other people in this forum do.

Other than that, yeah good luck convincing Rusty of any of that, other people (including me) extensively tried arguing for something similar in the last few days for no tangible results.

I never would, but as I said, I never suggested such. In most cases, the easiest way to deal with these inclusions is to reject their influence to the point where it does not allow infiltration and conditioning. Gays have a tendency to over share their personal natures (as is obvious by our new arrival), which is why they tend to out themselves quite frequently, but if you were to for instance take a gauge of most here, many you would not only know for sure their actual sex, but anything about their family lives, sexual orientation, etc... You might be able to guess, but that is besides the point, as most don't tend to over share such information for obvious reasons.

So those who do, are looking for attention, recognition, or have ulterior motives. A group of people who share a common moral ground will traditionally shun that which challenges it. So in a circle where such is not openly accepted, it would be natural for arguments to center around that concept. It is through public responsibility and influence where real change occurs, which is why this is the first target for those who are trying to corrupt it. What you see today is due to a campaign that has been decades in motion and you can't turn around and combat it through authoritative means, it has to be borne of the foundations of a groups shared principals that reject its inclusion.

This is done by simply arguing against the concept at all appearances of it (being intolerant of its views and positions), where it is obvious that those who advocate for it are either part of it, or shown to be supportive and that produces a position that is generally either mocked, argued as invalid, or dismissed (much like how @Red7 is with the crazy rants to which nobody takes seriously. If this "inclusion" reaches that level of status, then the public at large will keep its influences at bay. No site owner can achieve this through artificial means (censorship), it takes the people within it and if the people aren't willing, then it means they are accepting through inaction and the inevitable result is eventual corruption of the groups think as it becomes accustomed to its involvement.

This is pure psyop manipulation and why all of media has been manipulated to this end. They have taught that tolerating is good and civil (even convincing churches to accept this false ideology) and then through such openness, bring in the behaviors/ideals that will slowly change the existing moral structures to tolerate even more as people are either afraid to speak out (being called a bigot, intolerant, etc...) or they keep quiet and let the cancer grow.

I have seen it numerous times throughout the years and if the group refuses to stand for their moral positions, then eventually it decays and as I said, I move on not wishing to be a part of the society that claims it has morals, but accepts that which defy them.

So what's your suggestion?

[OnTilt]

I said one right after that. If you have more I'm willing to hear.

Well, the Muslims do this thing with rooftops. But I think its more Christian to use a millstone.

Obviously I say that in the context of us being in an internet forum.

I was being facetious. I would ask if you have autism, but I understand that tone doesn't translate well over text.

[Xenich]

I mean you have to tolerate more in the sense that you can't force them to change their behavior much less demand any kind of disciplinary action against them for speaking fag shit, obviously you're free to openly talk against them as many other people in this forum do.

Other than that, yeah good luck convincing Rusty of any of that, other people (including me) extensively tried arguing for something similar in the last few days for no tangible results.

I never would, but as I said, I never suggested such. In most cases, the easiest way to deal with these inclusions is to reject their influence to the point where it does not allow infiltration and conditioning. Gays have a tendency to over share their personal natures (as is obvious by our new arrival), which is why they tend to out themselves quite frequently, but if you were to for instance take a gauge of most here, many you would not only know for sure their actual sex, but anything about their family lives, sexual orientation, etc... You might be able to guess, but that is besides the point, as most don't tend to over share such information for obvious reasons.

So those who do, are looking for attention, recognition, or have ulterior motives. A group of people who share a common moral ground will traditionally shun that which challenges it. So in a circle where such is not openly accepted, it would be natural for arguments to center around that concept. It is through public responsibility and influence where real change occurs, which is why this is the first target for those who are trying to corrupt it. What you see today is due to a campaign that has been decades in motion and you can't turn around and combat it through authoritative means, it has to be borne of the foundations of a groups shared principals that reject its inclusion.

This is done by simply arguing against the concept at all appearances of it (being intolerant of its views and positions), where it is obvious that those who advocate for it are either part of it, or shown to be supportive and that produces a position that is generally either mocked, argued as invalid, or dismissed (much like how @Red7 is with the crazy rants to which nobody takes seriously. If this "inclusion" reaches that level of status, then the public at large will keep its influences at bay. No site owner can achieve this through artificial means (censorship), it takes the people within it and if the people aren't willing, then it means they are accepting through inaction and the inevitable result is eventual corruption of the groups think as it becomes accustomed to its involvement.

This is pure psyop manipulation and why all of media has been manipulated to this end. They have taught that tolerating is good and civil (even convincing churches to accept this false ideology) and then through such openness, bring in the behaviors/ideals that will slowly change the existing moral structures to tolerate even more as people are either afraid to speak out (being called a bigot, intolerant, etc...) or they keep quiet and let the cancer grow.

I have seen it numerous times throughout the years and if the group refuses to stand for their moral positions, then eventually it decays and as I said, I move on not wishing to be a part of the society that claims it has morals, but accepts that which defy them.

So what's your suggestion?

I already made it above.

[Anon]

Well, the Muslims do this thing with rooftops. But I think its more Christian to use a millstone.

Obviously I say that in the context of us being in an internet forum.

I was being facetious. I would ask if you have autism, but I understand that tone doesn't translate well over text.

I was thinking you could've been facetious but you gotta understand online text sometimes don't translate sarcasm well and I don't know you well enough to be sure of that, and at least in my understanding you didn't leave it obvious enough. Could've been perfectly that you were only skimming through text and didn't get the context.

[rusty_shackleford]

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic, but RPGHQ is not some trad-religious site that censors positions in opposition to the specific version of the specific holy book you happen to follow. Attempting to browbeat or manipulate me — or the staff, including the member who is openly very religious — will and already has failed prior.

We've had members presumably leave over this before, and I'm sure more will in the future.

[Xenich]

Obviously I say that in the context of us being in an internet forum.

I was being facetious. I would ask if you have autism, but I understand that tone doesn't translate well over text.

I was thinking you could've been facetious but you gotta understand online text sometimes don't translate sarcasm well and I don't know you well enough to be sure of that, and at least in my understanding you didn't leave it obvious enough. Could've been perfectly that you were only skimming through text and didn't get the context.

That level of action is what I would expect to see called for in a alphabet forum to purge all those who they call bigot, and in fact I have even seen such hinted at in a steam forum while never being touched by a moderator. This isn't an issue that is defeated by acting as they do, it requires a general public support founded on an honest principal that is just, not a violent narrative that most reasonable people would object to even if they shared a base moral position on the issue.

[Xenich]

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic, but RPGHQ is not some trad-religious site that censors positions in opposition to the specific version of the specific holy book you happen to follow. Attempting to browbeat or manipulate me — or the staff, including the member who is openly very religious — will and already has failed prior.

We've had members presumably leave over this before, and I'm sure more will in the future.

Which is why I pointed out that these types of positions have to manifest themselves naturally among the group and result in the tendency of behavior that is based on their general acceptance of a given issue. A site owner can not take a position as such as it would violate the basis of of their goal of allowing open discussion.

[Anon]

I never would, but as I said, I never suggested such. In most cases, the easiest way to deal with these inclusions is to reject their influence to the point where it does not allow infiltration and conditioning. Gays have a tendency to over share their personal natures (as is obvious by our new arrival), which is why they tend to out themselves quite frequently, but if you were to for instance take a gauge of most here, many you would not only know for sure their actual sex, but anything about their family lives, sexual orientation, etc... You might be able to guess, but that is besides the point, as most don't tend to over share such information for obvious reasons.

So those who do, are looking for attention, recognition, or have ulterior motives. A group of people who share a common moral ground will traditionally shun that which challenges it. So in a circle where such is not openly accepted, it would be natural for arguments to center around that concept. It is through public responsibility and influence where real change occurs, which is why this is the first target for those who are trying to corrupt it. What you see today is due to a campaign that has been decades in motion and you can't turn around and combat it through authoritative means, it has to be borne of the foundations of a groups shared principals that reject its inclusion.

This is done by simply arguing against the concept at all appearances of it (being intolerant of its views and positions), where it is obvious that those who advocate for it are either part of it, or shown to be supportive and that produces a position that is generally either mocked, argued as invalid, or dismissed (much like how @Red7 is with the crazy rants to which nobody takes seriously. If this "inclusion" reaches that level of status, then the public at large will keep its influences at bay. No site owner can achieve this through artificial means (censorship), it takes the people within it and if the people aren't willing, then it means they are accepting through inaction and the inevitable result is eventual corruption of the groups think as it becomes accustomed to its involvement.

This is pure psyop manipulation and why all of media has been manipulated to this end. They have taught that tolerating is good and civil (even convincing churches to accept this false ideology) and then through such openness, bring in the behaviors/ideals that will slowly change the existing moral structures to tolerate even more as people are either afraid to speak out (being called a bigot, intolerant, etc...) or they keep quiet and let the cancer grow.

I have seen it numerous times throughout the years and if the group refuses to stand for their moral positions, then eventually it decays and as I said, I move on not wishing to be a part of the society that claims it has morals, but accepts that which defy them.

So what's your suggestion?

I already made it above.

I've already pointed that fact previously

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

That's why it's left me confused I guess (and you didn't convey it as a suggestion btw)

[Xenich]

So what's your suggestion?

I already made it above.

I've already pointed that fact previously

Btw the normal behavior I've seen is the community backlashing against people trying to defend wokeism, then they either quit the site or conform themselves to the site's average behavior.

That's why it's left me confused I guess (and you didn't convey it as a suggestion btw)

Yeah, that was my bad. I missed that as I was juggling multiple tasks at the time. Yes, you are correct.

[AliciaDurge]

Gladly

I'm glad we both agree.

If I speak to you, assume it is because I'm trying to assess something about your character and why you insist on being here.

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

My intention is not to infect anyone. I don't care if you're gay or not.

[AliciaDurge]

Some gays also value a gaming community with freedom of expression.

I guess, but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you, so I guess I don't see the need for socialization if that is the conditions (not that being liked is required, but a common ground of basic moral conditions is preferred).

I tried reading the Codex years ago, but it was too infested with homosexual worship and the like (as well as rampant childish temper tantrums). Here so far, most people have been reasonable even in complete opposite opinions without resorting to retarded tactics). There I think it was completely free, but since I didn't find common ground in basic moral conditions, It just isn't something I would care to be (much like steam forums). Gaming alone isn't enough in my opinion as conversations never stay just about gaming.

I can say for myself I don't have anything against any of the gays in this site, and I know many others also don't. Yeah there'll be people hating you or trying to pick fights with you for being gay here but then it's up to you how much of a problem you consider that is. I personally don't think it's an issue that makes the site unbrowseable if you have some backbone.

I agree.

[Red7]

(much like how @Red7 is with the crazy rants to which nobody takes seriously

and this what will make my "fuck u i was right" thread that much more enjoyable after all my predictions will materialize and claims are confirmed.

[Red7]

I'm glad we both agree.

If I speak to you, assume it is because I'm trying to assess something about your character and why you insist on being here.

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

My intention is not to infect anyone. I don't care if you're gay or not.

if u r tranny/fag whatever just your existance has negative affect on my aura. and this planet noosphere

[Anon]

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic, but RPGHQ is not some trad-religious site that censors positions in opposition to the specific version of the specific holy book you happen to follow. Attempting to browbeat or manipulate me — or the staff, including the member who is openly very religious — will and already has failed prior.

We've had members presumably leave over this before, and I'm sure more will in the future.

This forum would be shit if you guys weren't like this btw

[AliciaDurge]

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

My intention is not to infect anyone. I don't care if you're gay or not.

if u r tranny/fag whatever just your existance has negative affect on my aura. and this planet noosphere

And I didn't ask or care.

[Acrux]

RPGHQ is not some trad-religious site that censors positions in opposition to the specific version of the specific holy book you happen to follow

how dare you

[aweigh]

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-gate-3-rep ... pg-closer/

[rusty_shackleford]

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-gate-3-rep ... pg-closer/

This is actually relevant to what we were discussing earlier:

It's almost double DOS 2 now, so it's really doing really, really well.

DOS2 sold significantly better than people seem to realize. BG3 did better, yes, but Larian also wasn't giving a split of their profits in licensing fees. Who knows if they actually end up making more money off of BG3 or not.
DOS2 was still a major seller and a breakout performance for what was considered a niche subgenre.

also, re:

It's hard to guess what Vincke has in mind specifically, though

Swen has been writing about his dream game for like 15 years, it's really not. Game journos just don't know shit about the topics they write about. He obviously wants to make a modern, full-featured Ultima VII.

[TKVNC]

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-gate-3-rep ... pg-closer/

This is actually relevant to what we were discussing earlier:

It's almost double DOS 2 now, so it's really doing really, really well.

DOS2 sold significantly better than people seem to realize. BG3 did better, yes, but Larian also wasn't giving a split of their profits in licensing fees. Who knows if they actually end up making more money off of BG3 or not.
DOS2 was still a major seller and a breakout performance for what was considered a niche subgenre.

Let's hope his willingness to distance himself from Trannies of the Coast is in order to make a non-woke game. I have my doubts though. Although DDOS2 wasn't that woke.

[Vergil]

Let's hope his willingness to distance himself from Trannies of the Coast is in order to make a non-woke game. I have my doubts though. Although DDOS2 wasn't that woke.

Has there been any evidence that the poz was mandated by Wizards of the Coast and at all not the direction the writers of the game always wanted to go?

[TKVNC]

Let's hope his willingness to distance himself from Trannies of the Coast is in order to make a non-woke game. I have my doubts though. Although DDOS2 wasn't that woke.

Has there been any evidence that the poz was mandated by Wizards of the Coast and at all not the direction the writers of the game always wanted to go?

Absolutely none, so far as I know. But it's a Copium-hypothesis since DDOS and DDOS2 were not woke, or were not particularly woke, as far as I know, I didn't play them exhaustively however, so I can't say.