DiabloFans

Quote from Deventh

Mephisto said in D2 that the sky shall rain fire ? Did he mean the fallen star ? We didn't see any "fire" in Diablo 2 as far as i remember ?

In all likelihood that was written way before the meteor in D3 was ever conceptualized. And the whole rain fire part was most likely in reference to whenever Hell invaded Sanctuary, which never took place.

Quote from Deventh

Also when we fight Diablo in Diablo 2 he is saying this in one of his quotes:
"Not even death can save you from me."
What does that mean ? If the hero dies he goes to hell and not heaven ? Does that mean people don't actually go to heaven or maybe only the ones who fight against evil ? I'm so confused right now.

People don't go to either Heaven or Hell normally. No people seem to have ever gone to Heaven after death, and the only people who go to Hell are those who dabble with demons and end up getting pulled down when they start messing with forces way beyond their own power.

Remember, this isn't the Heaven and Hell of Judeo-Christian tradition.

As for Diablo's quote, I always interpreted it like this:
"You cannot escape from me, not even if I kill you."

It seems reasonable to assume that if the hero was to die facing Diablo, that would not give him respite from the pain the Lord of Terror would inflict upon him. He could just raise him as an undead, thus not allowing for any form of escape. Of course Diablo didn't expect to die when he said that.

Of course the quote could, I now realize, be interpreted as "Even if you kill me you can't escape me" and while that interpretation fits well with the lore in D3, I don't think that was the intetion of the original story.

Category:Diablo III Items
Category:Diablo III NPCs
Category:Diablo III Skills
Category:Diablo III Recipes
Category:Diablo III Affixes

All character class pages

Knock yourself out

We're currently working on expanding all of this information as well as making it more presentable.

We've redesigned the main page and many of the portal pages in the wiki to give them a cleaner and more spcaious look as well as make navigating easier for you. It's been in the works for a while, but with the imminent approach of the beta this was the perfect time to launch it.

Here's a list of all pages (currently) changed:

• Main Page
• Main Page (Diablo II)
• Main Page (Diablo I)
• Portal:Classes
• Portal:Lore
• Portal:Bestiary
• Portal:Zones

Some, like lore, have a lot of articles and content present on them, while others (particularly zones) have less. This is mostly because there's just not a whole lot of Diablo III information available at this time, but once the beta launches we'll add more and update these pages for easy navigation of the wiki. In the meantime I hope you all enjoy the new layout

Man, could you all get more bland? You need to be specific. Here are my five wishes, or things I really hope won't show up in Diablo:

1. Leah is not possessed by Diablo.
2. The Three do not merge into one power-rangers-Prime Evil.
3. Diablo is not skinny.
4. Tyrael is not corrupt.
5. A solid piece of story that doesn't involve cheesy tropes, redundant comic relief where it isn't necessary or bland endings.

Whatever the damn reason it's freakishly ugly and I'd probably trade in the entire rune system if I could get Dino Diablo from D2 back. Keep the head but the rest has got to go.

Yes you can copy the save file and it will back up your characters.

1.10 Patch: http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/diablo2exp/patches/PC/LODPatch_110.exe

The recent flood of information we had has left many of you shocked. Skill points removed, traits reworked, new pvp mechanics, banners, shared stashes etc. etc. But many of you are probably most interested, or hesitant, regarding the auction house (abbreviated AH) system that will allow players to trade their items in exchange for real money.

Actually, I'll go out on a limb here and say that many of you are really pissed at Blizzard right now. But before you condemnd Blizzard of sacrilege, we should take a closer look at what this system will really mean for the players.

The Basics First
Buying
Selling
Example
You can use the cash AH without spending a dime
It doesn't matter which AH you end up using anyway
Added bonus: It eliminates third-party selling
I don't want this crap in Diablo
Potential Hazards
Farmers
Hacking
Conclusion

The Basics First
Blizzard has revealed that there will be two auction houses available to players through the Battle.net interface: one which uses in-game gold as a currency (just as the WoW auction house does) and one which uses real world money such as dollars, euros or similar depending on which region you play in.

Buying
In order to buy items, all you have to do is transfer over money to your B.net account from your credit card, which will convert it into e-balance. You can then go right ahead and bid on items with your e-balance. If you win the auction, your bid is automatically subtracted from your e-balance and you get the item. If you bid on an item but someone else outbids you, it will cost you nothing. This is true for both the gold and cash AH systems, the only difference between them is that in one you will use actual money.

Selling
In order to sell items, it's a little more tricky. If you want to put up an item for sale, you have to pay a fee. This fee will be subtracted from your money whether you succeed in selling it or not and given to Blizzard. In the gold AH, this fee is a gold sum (again exactly like WoW), and in the cash AH it's your e-balance. This fee is set at a fixed nominal value (the exact amount we do not know at this time). If you don't manage to sell the item, it will remain in your stash and you can try to sell it again, but the fee will already have been removed from your e-balance. If you do sell it however, an additional selling fee is also applied and given to Blizzard, and afterwards one of two things can happen.
By default, money that people buy items for will be added to the sellers e-balance (or gold total, if they sell in gold). However, it will also be possible to set up your account so that it will be added your credit card. This will require adding a third party payment service to the account to handle the actual transaction. Blizzard is currently negotiating with potential companies at this point in regards to who will handle this service, so at this point we don't know who it will be or in what regions they will operate. However, it will be possible to make money selling items in Diablo III. What will not be possible, however, is to convert your e-balance back into cash. So if you sell an item and haven't set up your account to give you cash, it will increase your e-balance instead. That e-balance cannot later be withdrawn as cash, but it can be used to buy other items and anything in the Blizzard store, including games and WoW subscription time.

Blizzard has also stated that every player gets a number of auctions which allows them to put up cash auctions without paying the nominal fee. It's unclear whether this is a fixed amount for each account (x free auctions in a lifetime), a fixed amount concurrently (x free auctions at any one time) or a recharging value (x free auctions every week), but Bashiok has hinted we might be talking about a set number each week. In any case, using such a free waiver will provide you with the possibility of making money without risking a single cent. We'll get back to that further down.

Example
(NOTE: CONTAINS ENTIRELY FICTIONAL NUMBERS I MADE UP FOR THIS EXAMPLE.)

Here we have three people: Sixen, Scyber and Nektu.

Sixen has put up a leather cap for auction for 10$. In order to do this, he had to pay a nominal listing fee of $1 to Blizzard. Scyber sees this leather cap and decides to bid $10 on it. A couple of minutes later, Nektu sees the same item. He thinks it's worth more than $10, and bids $12. Scyber thinks anything over $10 is too expensive, and does not bid any more. The auction runs out a few hours later with no bids more bids being placed, and Nektu wins the item.

At this point, $12 are subtracted from Nektu's e-balance while nothing happens to Scyber's e-balance. The selling fee, in this example also $1, is subtracted from Sixen's $12, which means he has made $10 total on his auction (-$1 listing fee, -$1 selling fee)

Under normal circumstances this would be added to his e-balance, but if Sixen has also set up his account to forward him cash, the third party payment service will at this point extract a fee from those $11, say $1, in order to administer the transaction and give Sixen the rest, in this case a total of $9.

So Nektu pays $12, Scyber pays nothing, Sixen gets $9, Blizzard gets $2 and the third party gets $1.

You can use the cash AH without spending a dime
Using the cash AH is entirely optional. Players aren't forced by Blizzard to use it to trade for items. However, many of you fear that having a cash AH will make it so all the best items only sell for real money, thus in reality forcing people to spend money in order to get the best stuff. And while that's appears to be true on the surface, it isn't really. Here's why:
If you sell an item using one of your free weekly waivers, you can put up an item in the cash AH, sell it, and generate a positive e-balance without spending a single $. With that e-balance, you can then continue to put up items for sale and, using your initial e-balance, pay for the listing fees. Once you accumulate enough e-balance, you can then buy items for real money without having put in a single cent yourself. So you sell that legendary axe and legendary armor you found and use the generated e-balance to buy an awesome staff instead. The system doesn't lock anyone outside of acquiring the best items, what it does is allow people to spend money to get items faster. But it's still perfectly possible for anyone to use the cash AH.

And you won't even have to exchange legendaries for legandaries. If Blizzard has done its job properly and accomplished what was intended, which is to make gold a valuable resource, then people will want huge amounts of gold for their crafting, repair and vendor needs even if they only use the cash AH. And since gold can be traded on the AH, anyone will be able to sell gold for cash. Of course, the exchange rate between gold and cash is impossible to predict as of now, but in theory anyone will be able to make e-balance without spending any money. Provided there are some individuals out there who actually do put money into the system, some original e-balance has to be generated with actual money. But they will not have to be a majority.

In fact, the cash system will establish an exchange rate between gold and real money. The exchange rate will be an approximation since there won't be any mods available to track all auctions, but the market will probably reach a rough value. At that point, every piece of gold you make in the game will be worth an amount of $ equal to the exchange rate. This money cannot be taken from your e-balance (can't make e-balance into cash) but it can be used to buy items and blizzard products.

It doesn't matter which AH you end up using anyway
What did you say? Each piece of gold dropped will be worth a certain amount of real money? Not only does this mean that you are tecnically making money as you play, it also means that whether you use the gold AH or the cash AH will be irrelevant. The concept is called Arbitrage, and for those of you not accustomed to economics I'll explain how it works.
Let's say that I find a legendary axe that I don't need and thus want to sell. I can either sell it for gold or e-balance. Looking in the AH, I see that there are incidentally ten axes, five in each AH, currently up for sale: five go for 2000g and the other five for $20. But I decide to see what gold sells for, and I quickly see that 200g costs $1 in the cash AH. Afterwards I proceed to sell my legendary axe for $19, which the sold for gold will be 19*200=3,800g

That's arbitrage, the possibility to profit due to price imbalances in different markets. Even if I didn't want cash, it's still a better option for me to use the cash AH under these circumstances, since it gives me more gold. The next thing I do is naturaly to buy the other five legendary axes for 2,000g each, sell them for $19 again, essentially giving me 5*(3,800-2,000)=9,000g profit without having killed a single monster.

This will of course not last, since eventually other people will figure out that the legendary axe is underpriced in the gold AH and correctly adjust their prices. I probably couldn't even have sold those five axes for $19 again, since I essentially bombed the market by doubling the supply of those axes. But that is exactly the point. This kind of equilization will happen continuously across all different items for sale in the two markets, and will work to create a stable exchange rate between gold and $. And when that has happened, it won't really matter which of them you decide to trade in. Even if you consider yourself a purist and never so much as look at the cash AH, the prices you see for items there should be same as those seen in the cash AH.

Perfect equilibrium is generally upset by various factors such as transportation costs, taxes, varying legislations between markets, expiration dates on products etc. In the future Diablo economy many of these are removed: the the flat fees applied to purchases are a transaction cost and will generate some imbalances between the markets, but that's about it. In the end, it will matter little which one you actually use.

Added bonus: It eliminates third-party selling
But that's not everything the AH will accomplish. The purpose of the AH is to eliminate third-party selling of items and the inherent uncertainty that follows from using such sites. I will quote Don here:

Quote from "Don_guillotine" »

Well in D2 the market essentially worked just the way this real money AH will. Every serious player used D2JSP for trading because of the sheer effectiveness of it. And you could either buy forum gold for real money or sell items for forum gold. There was no way to convert forum gold back to real currency however.

D2JSP was really easy to scam in (since you had to do the trade in-game and giving the currency in the forums) if you weren't careful. The site was also corrupt (they gave gold to their friends who didn't pay for them) and so forth.

Most Diablo II veterans are familiar with D2JSP and the immense use it had in facilitating trade in Diablo II. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than what Diablo II offered and allowed buyers and sellers to find and trade with each other using a (relatively) stable currency.

With Blizzard now running a cash AH, they've established a low-risk market. Blizzard will in this case act as the insurance of every transaction: if you sell an item and the buyer for some reason has no money, you will still get your money and Blizzard takes that financial hit. All transactions will be guaranteed by Blizzard, which will facilitate a safe and secure trading environment. In addition to that, since Blizzard will not be selling any items and since the exchange rate between gold and $ will be determined solely by the players in a region, Blizzard will have no way to influence it and purposefully generate a corrupt environment. In addition, the cash AH is a much more convenient method of trade, meaning any competing sites will have a hart time, well, competing.

I don't want this crap in Diablo
So far I've explained why you won't be left out of the system and why you won't have to spend real money. But these are all technical arguments. A fundamentally different argument people raise is that bigger wallet = better character. Most comments seem to counter this with "dis would happuned aniway, deal with eet" but that's not entirely true. Yes some people would have bought items for money, but you could at least feel that Blizzard did not support such actions and that an environment where no monetary benefits in RL would ever affect your own gaming experience existed. But "legalizing" it so to speak will with certainly cause a larger percentage of the total gaming population to at least consider engaging in these activities.

And to that, there's really nothing I can say. Because it is true that this will happen and that it will most likely affect how you view the game. Perhaps try to ignore other people's items? Kick their ass in PvP regardless? Secretly gloat that they're giving you money for your items? I don't know. Every change to a game is bound to be unappealing to some players unfortunately.

Potential Hazards
Finally we have the issue of the various kinds of potential risks this system faces: "chinese" farmers and hacks (particularly bots).

Farmers
The first fear is that loosing the restraints of the system will invite countless gold farmers in China and similar to pour into Diablo now that this is allowed. And at face value, we can say that there's no reason for such farmers to reduce in number because of this system, and there's also no reason Blizzard can ban them for. After all, all they've done is buy the game and play it according to the rules (working conditions and such aside, but there's no way for Blizzard to control that).
How will this affect Diablo III? Well, under normal circumstances such farmers operate in a black market outside of the general trade system. They are competing against each other in this environment, but still away from the main body of trade occuring in the general game.

Now however, every Diablo player will become a potential customer, and since the AH will be anonymous it will be impossible for you to tell whether you're buying items from a Chinese farmer or not. Of course, whatever items they generate will have to compete with the prices of every single item that every single player puts up, and the people who previously had to go to them for gold or items can now instead trade with the real players, thus hopefully pushing down prices and making it less profitable for them. Still, it will probably lead to a greater amount of items being generated, but so long as the problem of duping doesn't reappear, it shouldn't be a problem.

Bots
Botting is a second potential problem, one that doesn't really involve any running labor cost other than your electrical bill. Unlike farming however, this is actively prevented by Blizzard and we can only hope that their experience dealing with botting in WoW and SC2 has paid off and will allow them to contain this potential problem well enough. Has this cash AH given botters a bigger incentive? Undoubtedly. Do I think Blizzard can handle it? Yes, otherwise they've done some really terrible estimates prior to announcing this system.

Conclusion
Will this new cash AH force you to spend real money? No.
Is it certain to work/flop? No, neither is certain.

No one has done this before, and so it seems unlikely anyone can guarantee an outcome here. Individual future situations are not that easily prognosticated. But I don't think the outset is all that bad either. What it will do is to hopefully lead all trades to be handled through Battle.net, which will generate a more stable economy, a larger economy of more buyers and sellers, a more liquid market and an opportunity for people who want to spend money on items to do so freely while at the same time allowing people who do not want to spend money to still generate a net profit, and more importantly, still interact with the entire trading community regardless of financial situation. The problem will be accepting that people with more money can buy better gear, but if you can do that you should not be worried about what this system can bring.

Quote from Umpa

Why don't you try actually finishing them before critiquing them?

If you've read half of Birthright and don't like the writing style, there is almost zero chance of your opinion changing later on because all of the books are identical in structure and presentation. The only difference is in the content of the story, and as kdt05b pointed out even that is sometimes doubtful with the constant regurgitation of:

"I am so weak, my enemy is so powerful, I can never win, I've failed... No wait, I'm not beaten. He's is in fact really weak and I'm super strong, even though I just used up all of my energy. RAAAARGHH! Victory!"

I guess that's fine every now and then, but the problem with these novels is that theyr suspense is largely based around these encounters, and there are so many of them. Normally a book could throw this free card at a reader without much notice, because suspense is generated elsewhere and it only happened once anyway. But in the fights against Malic, Gulag, Lilith, Lucion, Inarius, Tyrael, even Gamuel.

As a work of fiction in and of itself I think the books are mediocre, but it's probably due to the strange nature of how video game novels are created. I've never read anything else by Knaak so I can't really make any sort of judgement on his skill as a writer in general, but the author isn't really given creative freedom, and the people coming up with the story (or what has to be in it at least) aren't writing the book, so it's probably not that easy to coordinate. Besides, I don't think it was ever the intention for the Sin War novels to become works of fiction of the level of Lord of the Rings and similar series.

Are there others? Hoho, there are. And when the eventual uprising takes place and we overthrow our american oppressors, we'll remove these foreigners for good!

Quote from youwillneverknow

So what's wrong with having a toggle option? No one can seem to answer this with logical justification.

There is a downside and it can lead to a reduction in the rate new builds are created, established builds are countered and the general inventiveness of the entire diablo community. Here's why:

If there is an option to toggle whether your gear and skills show or not, then we can assume most good players will choose this option for the very reasons you stated: if they don't show their build, people aren't sure of what to expect and it will be harder and take longer to counter it, leading to good win records for those with the best builds. The best can form their own enclaves amongst themselves, and whatever knowledge is generated there will only trickle down to the general fanbase if said people choose to post any of their findings in public forums. There will of course be guides posted online, but much information will also be withheld.

With no toggle option, even the best players will be forced to reveal what skill and gear setup they use to every player. This will facilitate a faster response time in builds, as a dominant build can quickly be laid out and analyzed, by an opponent or anyone, and thus a build adapted to it can more quickly be developed, or the playstyle can be adjusted accordingly.

This does not equalize matches between evenly specced character however, as knowing the composition of a build does not tell you how to play it effectively. The best players will have to excel in execution as well as planning to win and not have to depend on build surprise to win.

I'd say your poker analogy doesn't work here, as poker is a game focused around chance and the gambling mechanic, aspects which are severely downplayed in D3 gameplay. A more apt comparison is that of a market. Each player represents a CEO, their characters are their companies and the build their respective products. Disallowing a toggle option brings the entire market closer to perfect competition while allowing toggling is akin to patent protection or another form of guarding product specifications from competitors. More public information will in this case create a more open and fair playing environment.

Will a toggle feature single-handedly make or break an interesting PvP scene? I don't know, but there is no doubt that it will have an impact.

Quote from evilenginen9

Oh hey guys! Just dropping by to say this is a cool thread, but I guess the thread purpose is unachievable, because the whole concept of gods is they exist, watch upon us and all, but can't be seen or anything, and that "evidence" stuff doesn't even prove anything, so have fun talking

Hi. Thanks for the complements, but I disagree we're just talking. The concepts we are discussing are obvious, yes, but it seem to me a lot of people don't consider where they draw the line between the world where we demand empirical evidence and the belief system where we do not. I want people to think about this and I don't think we have to "prove," anything about "god," in order to do so.

Quote from Pit Stains

Believers don't need "proof" they need "faith"

Don't need proof.

Guess you missed this!

Quote from proletaria

And you cannot prove that there are not faries. It is impossible to prove a negative in general.

Should we also then have faith in faries? What is unique about this non-evidential entity "god," that commands our illogical respect and faith instead of faries?

I would assume you are an atheist in regard to faries. Why then, are you willing to extend faith to god when it is equally lacking in evidence? What is it about this myth that makes it more valuable than the equally grandios myths of the egyptian pantheon, the greek pantheon, the myriad other works of unverifiable fiction that we enjoy in literature today?

Why can we not simply accept that there is not a plausible reason to view any of these things outside of their literary value?

We don't need proof for faries either.

Quote from Sabvre

FFS Proletaria... stop being so hostile. I understand you are on your quest to make yourself look like the genius that refuted religion but you need to calm down. I did not say hell exists because of people like Hitler. You weren't even part of the last 2 replies... those were both to Necrodrac in continuation of a conversation that was occuring on like page 6.

I gave you the facts, sorry if that is upsetting to you, but I have no resorted to ad hominem at any point. So your assertion that I am being hostile is not valid either. You're attempting to position me in some kind of intellecual ivory tower I guess, but that doesn't further your argument. You most certainly did beg that question and I, rightly, pointed out it was unfounded.

Quote from maela

Anyway... Altruism - looking after people who are not related to you in a way that benefits them but does nothing for you or reduces your survival in some way.

Not really. Early on in our evolution, i'm willing to bet altruism was applied at the tribal level (at best) to ensure the transmission of our genes (because our genese are passed on not just by ourselves, but our biologically similar family/ethnicity members). The reason it is now extended to people who do not benefit your genes' survival is the gradual extension of the tribe concept in our culture. We're no longer fiercely loyal to just our immidiate or extended family, but to our cities, our countries, or our regions (some people are even the entire human race). These aren't altruistic traits that demand an divine intervention, they are a cultural evolution of altruism which was an evolutionary (socially expressed) trait in and of itself.

The point being: there is a strictly evolutionary manner to describing the occurence of altruism and it does not force the question of gods existence on it's own terms.

After some reflection to my invitation for a thread about the merits of religious supersitions (thank you Umpa!), it occured to me that a catchy title would do me no good if it set about from the wrong side of the coin. This is a mistake many debating atheists and anti-theists make and one that almost always sees them waste undue time explaining his own position. With that in mind, I spout not the renunciation of Yaweh or Allah (or Zeus, Ra, Seth, Zaroaster, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Ananzi, etc.) from my title, but request that those living in the certitude of such a being explain why they suppose their God(s) to exist. As an atheist, I make no such claim to knowledge.

I freely admit that my knowledge has limits in the physical world as well as to the realm of what scientists can currently experiment and observe. I fully acknowledge that there will be new ideas, new postulaions, and even new religions long after my life has ended. I expect many would argue that science is dispensed with, having admitted these limitations, but to that I must push the question: what makes anything else more plausible? What makes a many-millenia old work of creative non-fiction (or historical fiction, take your pick) any more a useful tool to seek truth?

I must be careful to caveat on several points, again, in the hopes that we will have as little grandstanding and unnecessary derailing from the central issue:

1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.

2. Atheists do not (all) contend that religious texts are entirely useless, morally bankrupt, or request their destruction. Many of us, myself included, oblige the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, etc. as works of literature worth reading. They may be windows into iron/bronze age society, common literary experiences that enrich the reader just as much as The Illiad, works of Shakespear, or (perhaps more modern context) a classic film series like The Godfather.

3. What then, seperates the agnostic from the Atheist? Good question. There is some debate on this, but my take is this: Agnostics just don't care about the question and Atheists have pursued the question and found all answers wanting. If you are a professed agnostic and find a problem with my diffirentiation, please let me know how you see yourself. I am quite interested in this dichotomy.

4. "The universe," is not proof of the existence of a god or gods. Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either. Appeals to authority on the matter of quantum physics proving a deist position would be interesting to hear (though i've yet to hear a good one).

---------------------------

With that out of the way I would like to make the small request that posters identify (at least in their first post) themselves as Theist, Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. This is not to typecast or mock anyone I view as holding an indefensible position, but rather to help me (and anyone else who wants to contribute) understand the context of what is being said by way of position.

---------------------------

In deference to our gracious moderation team I will also request that ad hominem and useless trolling be kept at a cordial level. I'm well aware that most of these discussions don't "convert," or "englighten," anyone and that the prospect of this thread charging into the flaming abyss of crap are high: therefor, let us do our best to maintain a civil discourse.

So: Prove to me your God exists!

Quote from SpinPool

Quote from proletaria

Quote from SpinPool

a woman in my life with whom I can start a family.

This is not a thing single men say.

It's hard being young and not properly understanding the world. But you will, too, one day.

Assuming you are just out of undergrad; making you about twenty-three, years old (give or take). I'm about three times your age.

What was all that about understanding the world again?

Quote from alodude

I have a 44 sorc. and I'm trying to level with my friend. She's a 17 or 18 Barbarian. In Act II I killed, for her, the monster in the Maggot Layer and Valley of Snakes (altar, not montser) and asked her to pick up the parts of the staff.

For some reason she didn't do what I said (she's not good at video games), and now she only has one part of the staff.

I keep going back in (with her creating a game) and going back to those areas, but the half of the staff she is missing is not dropping for her. Again, she created the game, and I joined.

Is her barbarian stuck in Act II? If she doesn't have both parts of the staff of kings how can she get to the boss?

thanks for your help,
this is my second question in 24 hours

cheers

Make sure the head of the staff necklace is not equipped on her...

Quote from proletaria

And by that measure we would have massive censorship. I'd invite you to read what i'm posting, but it's evident that you do not.

No, we wouldn't, because you are reading things into what I am saying that I am not.
I did not, even once, suggest that we should legislate peace.
There is a difference between that which is "peaceful" that which is "just" that which is "legal" and that which is "good."
These are separate concepts.
For no apparent reason, you are tying every comment I make about what it means to be peaceful into a normative value that should be spread across America as the law.

Quote from proletaria

That is a self-evident non-sense statement. You've blamed the speaker and in doing so you've effectively given the violent person an excuse to do the same thing again (or others like him).

No, I did not. You are not comprehending the difference between moral condemnation and causation.
I never once excused the violent person, or gave the violent person a moral justification.

Quote from proletaria

I get you're, once again, trying to explain incitement. Let me just tell you that sociopaths will be violent without those conditions and normal people don't resort to violence just because the conditions for violence are right. Take my earlier example about african american police guarding a kkk rally. Do you think they wanted to beat those racist idiots down? Sure. Were they going to? No. They had no right to under the law. They respect their right to free speech because they realize taking it from even the most awful person means is too much. If it isn't absolute free speech, it's absolute censorship.

I'm was not trying to explain incitement, I'm trying to explain causality.

Quote from proletaria

You're justifying physical violence with speech again. Shame on you.

No! Justification has to be based in either moral principle or some sort of law - I am talking about causality and the control we have, as individuals, over situations.
Shame on you for not understanding causality and misinterpreting everything I say into a moral or legal philosophy when in reality we have the exact same view on what ought to be the law, and what is the moral course of action.

Quote from proletaria

You should read about both. I think you have a very loose understanding - at best - of what went on. I can suggest a few books to start with if you'd like.

No thanks, after reading biographies on em for a leadership class I took a year ago, and the several times I went over civil rights movement in undergrad, and the brief one episode rant by Penn Jellete on his recent tv show, and the oral history passed on to me by acquaintances, I'm not very interested.

You are misinformed, not on my understanding of the civil rights movement or Ghandi, but on the very things I am saying in this thread.
You seem incapable of separating a point of fact on an abstract concept from a moral imperative or an argument for legal change.

Quote from proletaria

There you go denegrating peaceful protest again. Color me suprised.

I thought by repetition it would sink in, and you would magically discover that I am talking about the abstract principle of what it means to not cause harm to others and to refrain from creating situations where harm is caused to anyone, by anyone, for any reason, when you have the power to do so.

Quote from proletaria

Then you've articulated your points very ineffectively, also social inequity is a tangent issue. We are discussing free speech. If you want to diverge onto the class system or socio-economic problems I think we'll need another thread.

The thing is though, Proletaria, is that I didn't.
I agree that social inequality is a tangent issue, I brought it up to show what my personal normative values are.
Most of what I said in this thread was not about what I thought was right or wrong, or what I thought was constitutional or unconstitutional, or what I thought was legal or illegal.

And I am positive that there are other lurkers out there who read what I wrote and understood that I was not suggesting policy.
At least one other person in this thread has recognized that your responses are disjointed to what people are actually saying - it upsets me because your characterization of what I am preaching is libelously incorrect.

We have the exact same beliefs about everything but what it means to be peaceful, and you just can't see it

We've added individual pages for all three followers, which are basically just skill lists for now:

Templar
Enchantress
Scoundrel

I've transcribed some of the quest dialogue for the Templar, but it's not finished. We're also going to need the general chat dialogue for him (as you're questing) for all 5 classes, and I'm sure any help from watching streams or from F&F testers would be greatly appreciated!