Quiconque

This. But even moreso: This. I think the "options" being imputed to the Farlands (as well as discontents with the Pact) in this thread are incredibly unrealistic in light of the power dynamics at play. As for this: The worlds are different, the circumstances are different, even some of the laws of nature are different. No question. There's no 1:1 relationship of anything here, and you're quite right that you can't just blindly superimpose one on the other. But system dynamics are system dynamics; power and ethics are about applications of principles, and those principles are abstract -- they apply across different instances, real or imagined, and can certainly apply across different worlds. I drew analogies above because I was struck by some similarities in the power dynamics, in particular. There may well be circumstantial differences extreme enough to lead you, or anyone, to draw different ethical conclusions about those situations -- I even noted some while making the comparisons. If you want to say "Despite the similarity in power dynamic, I evaluate these completely differently because X" I'd be genuinely interested. Or "I think you're off your rocker about the power dynamics being similar, because Y." Those would be great conversations. But "fantasy can't ever be applicable to politics" is just baloney. (It's also, FWIW, just historically untrue of modern fictional medieval fantasy settings. Tolkien famously objected to allegorical reads of his works, while stating that they are applicable to the politics of his time; he invoked structural sociopolitical problems that culminate when "some Orc gets hold of a ring of power". Other authors have been more explicit.)

I'm probably not being fair, but in the context of current U.S. politics, this is pretty much how I read some of these points: "Do the protesters have legitimate grievances with the government? Absolutely. Are their actions justified? Nope." I realize that the Farlanders do things far more serious than just protesting, but the above paragraph contains lots of elaboration on what the Farlanders do, and zero elaboration on what the grievances are that lead to them taking these actions. You're trying to say their actions aren't justified, that they're disproportionate, but without any consideration of what the proper proportion actually would be. If complaining about their grievances doesn't lead to change, their options are either to say "oh well" or to escalate things. Since you agree the grievances are legitimate, what do you think they should do, given that their complaints are shut down in a second when they are even heard at all? "All we've done for the last 20 years is elect men, mostly old men, who reject policy changes that a majority of the population supports. There's no alternative!" This is a ridiculous fallacy. The game only depicts one political situation and one government structure, therefore it's the only thing that could exist? There's no possible way to set up a council that works better than Hanvar's? There's no possible way for a Keeper (Redbeard included, but presumably someone replacing him, since he is unwilling) to address any of the grievances at all without the Pact falling apart, just because Redbeard thinks there isn't and therefore hasn't tried? You might think the alternatives won't work, but that's basically pure speculation, and the alternatives certainly exist. And they certainly aren't any worse for the people who die, or whose loved ones die, under Redbeard's regime. "We were just attacked, if you are loyal to the U.S. you can't question anything the President is doing" Again, I realize that "question" and "kill" are very different, but Redbeard basically makes "questioning" unavailable as an option, by being so unresponsive, and suppressing dissent to the degree that he does.

Approximately six years, based on the handful of chronological references in the games. It was very disappointing to see Kyass gone. His entire settlement was not in Exile:EFTP or Avernum 1, it was new content in A:EFTP. A2:CS doesn't really have that kind of new content, unfortunately. I can't quite tell if you're asking for build advice or not. If you are, I wrote a fairly compact primer here, and you can find more info in A2:CS Strategy Central.

Oooh. That is significant.

Edgwyn continues to say a lot of things that were, indeed, conventional wisdom on politics in the U.S. at one point -- but no longer apply, and haven't for a great many years. The 1992 U.S. and the 2016 U.S. were extremely different countries, and HRC is a very different politician from WJC. I think what you're suggesting here is broadly impossible . As far as the Bernie-Trump matchup, lots of people love to speculate on that point, and there's no shortage of opinions. People have done polls on such a theoretical matchup, and while that's obviously nowhere close to the same thing as a whole long campaign season, I still find those more substantive than random opinions. There were a profusion of factors that led to this loss. 100% agreed on the second point being one of them, but 0% agreed on the first. The difference between her performance and Biden's isn't that she failed to turn out independents, it's that she failed to turn out the base. You don't turn out the base by moving towards the center. Still waiting for the evidence or argumentation behind this continued assertion. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/public-option-vs-medicare-for-all-debate-biden-buttigieg-sanders-polls.html

Just to be clear, this is not a universal American value -- it's a hotly contested one, as it has been throughout the country's history. (It was, for example, one of the arguments made in defense of slavery.) Definitely true that it has a stronger following here than in most places. If you're actually prettying up the wording, then absolutely. But "social democrat" is widely used across Europe (and beyond) for political parties that have little to nothing in common with the repressive authoritarian states you're referring to. "Democratic socialism" in that context isn't a misuse of the words, and it's not prettying up anything, it's another use entirely -- and frankly a more accurate use, and a more globally consistent one. Let's be very direct here: while you're talking about a real effect, and there are some immigrants with that association to "socialism", the far more widespread bad association in the U.S. is one largely restricted to older Americans, and it's the direct result of McCarthyism and the era of repressive government actions associated with it. I'd also note that exactly the same argument can be made about "democratic" given the un-democratic countries that insert that into their name.

it doesn't make sense to a lot of people here either. but the short answer is that it has more to do with culture and with power dynamics than it does with policy. (us/them power dynamics on the right, and organizational power dynamics on the 'left', both reinforced by the 2 party system and single pass voting (which also reinforce each other))

Hi ka1yhi, Can you please copy and paste the exact email address you sent your requests to? It sounds like your emails may not be making it to Spiderweb. This will help us find that out. Thanks.

Okay, I guess this can have one last update. Lucca Elizabeth Warren Simone de Beauvoir Robo Princess Leia Buffy Summers Zhuge Liang Henry Agard Wallace Bernie Sanders Micah Uncle Iroh Jean-Luc Picard Zeniba Lady Gaga Erika Redmark Zuko Mary Poppins Socrates Sylak Eowyn Captain America Aragorn Katara Frog FDR Plato Graham Nelson Empress Prazac Abigail Adams Honor Harrington Lisa Simpson Kierkegaard Thanos (comics) R2-D2 Ereshkigal Aristotle Magus Jiji Diogenes the Cynic The Kangxi Emperor LBJ Aang Kiki Lord Havelock Vetinari Yubaba King Arthur Cleopatra (Shakespeare) Peter Gabriel Orson Welles Mary Shelley Eisenhower Epicurus JFK Kathryn Janeway Kamala Harris Puddleglum Professor Oak Sherlock Holmes Ayla Cleopatra Jones Harry S. Truman Redbeard Zaphod Beeblebrox Julius Caesar Blaise Pascal Olga of Kiev Boudica Cicero The Doctor Toph Julius Martov Lord British Queen Elizabeth I Inanna Melanchion Mao Zedong Faramir Dumbledore Starrus Gladwell Manfred Redmark Bob the Builder Billie Holiday Ken Burns Eeyore Marle Le Petit Prince Multivac Sokka Pat Paulsen Joe Biden Seth MacFarlane Khan Noonien Singh Werdna Mal Reynolds Queen Elizabeth II Clifford the Big Red Dog Aslan Sir Topham Hatt James T. Kirk Pete Buttigieg Denethor Amy Klobuchar Tucker Carlson Henri III Ayn Rand Cleopatra (real) Daddy Warbucks Pat Sajak Cardinal Richelieu Ozzy Osbourne Sulla Lavos Pilgor the Goat Curious George Kikuchiyo Miss Piggy Lyndon LaRouche Captain Ahab Tiamat Lady Macbeth Benjamin Sisko Darth Vader Evil Abed Crassus Pompey Spider Donald Duck Rand al'Thor Caligula Yosemite Sam George Jetson One of the 7 dwarves (Disney) Guybrush Threepwood Boris Johnson Julie d'Aubigny Zapp Brannigan Donald Trump Pol Pot Grima, Wormtongue Yogi Bear Shaper Rawal Kylo Ren Harcourt Fenton Mudd George Wickham Mike Pence Ivan the Terrible Genghis Khan Morgoth The White Witch Hawthorne Hitler Emperor Palpatine Dorikas Elizabeth Báthory Kefka Smaug The Allied Mastercomputer

If you're comparing U.S. politics to a hot dog, the analogy makes a lot of sense. And no, the end result composition of a hot dog is not ok.

The reality is that much of fantasy combat is unrealistic. Maybe it's unrealistic to dodge a fireball or an explosive ordinance -- but not any more unrealistic than it is to take five direct slashes from a bladed weapon, each causing physical injury, and at the end be (1) alive, (2) with no systemic impact on your fighting ability or any other ability, (3) with no chance of lost or incapacitated limbs or other injuries. It may be legit unrealistic according to the combat paradigm you have gotten used to. I say this with all empathy; I experience it too sometimes. But that is still a paradigm far removed from reality. So "unrealistic," like "flaw," is a bit of a grand proclamation, IMHO.

Exile is really where CS shines the most. But it has uses in this series too. I don't think we've seen a good list for A3RW, but this list for A2CS might give you a place to start: http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/21086-capture-soul-mechanics/?tab=comments#comment-277890

Just want to point out that A3RW is a remake of a remake -- it went from E3 to A3 to A3RW, not straight from E3 to A3RW. I too hate the loss of spell variety, and the loss of neat things to do with Capture Soul / Simulacrum. But I agree with TriRodent, things like spells missing and not all items being plausible to steal seem less like "flaws" and more like slight shifts in balance. I totally understand not liking them, but declaring something like that an abject "flaw" rather than a departure from personal preference (or genre habit), idk.

@ka1yhi I would definitely email Spiderweb directly via the email TriRodent provided. They really pride themselves on their customer support, so whoever you've been emailing, it hasn't been getting to them. Keep in mind that if you purchase through a 3rd party retailer, Spiderweb (like all developers) doesn't actually process the order or keep the records. Spiderweb will still try to help you, because they are awesome. But it's a bigger ask than just "hey can you send me a new key, I purchased directly from you at this email address 5 years ago." That said, Steam has a pretty simple interface to simply download any game you purchased in the past, even if it was years ago. You just need to be logged in to your account. You don't have to interact with customer support at all. Steam is (I think?) the biggest gaming distribution platform there is -- it's pretty much the opposite of "fly by night." (If you're having trouble installing Steam or logging in, we can try to help too, but that's not a Spiderweb problem.) Humble Bundle, likewise, normally sends email links that remain active years later (at least 3 years anyway, I just checked one of mine). You don't even have to log in to use those. So if you still have access to your email history, that could be a solution too.

The Dragons and the Vahnatai both have top-tier magic capabilities, including portals. Olgai sets up a very precise portal to the Tower of Magi without having even been there, and we've seen Athron use portals as well. So it might also be possible that they merely got close to the surface, and then magicked their way out somehow.

I don't think that was traditional D&D so much as all the library research Jeff & co. did while creating Nethergate. If it was just traditional D&D, Celtic warriors would have been able to wear armor.

I'm pretty sure Randomizer was talking about N:R, and comparing it to the original, where Celts had more armor restrictions.

It'll likely take close to a decade for the remaster to get through all 5 games (not exaggerating). So you'll have plenty of time to play those, hehe.

Don't listen to the lack of praise. It's the best thing SW's put out in years. It's just also the biggest departure from the past games (and from orthodox CRPGs in general), and a lot of people don't like that.

2 - Nope. I mean, these games don't really give you real choices about what to do, aside from, I guess, simply not doing certain things. 3 - Erika is, without a doubt, one of the best characters Jeff has written. Her... departure scene, let's say, is incredibly fitting and poetic. You may have emotions if you feel so strongly about her, but I don't think you will be disappointed. Also, she is a significant character throughout A1, A2, and A3, so you don't need to expect seeing that anytime soon. 4 - That's not normal. Usually a node triggers ending your game if you do something like that. Maybe in this case you have to leave the room first or something? 5 - Wow, you really do hate the Empire. Lol. 6 - No, yes, and yes she should. Aimee came down with Erika, Patrick, Rone and Solberg. She has a cameo in A2 and a reference or two in later games, but I'm afraid that's it. She's the only one of those five who never takes on any sort of position of power, so I suppose that says something about what her priorities are.

I think you and I have some kind of fundamental difference in how we determine when a theory has nothing to do with the text and is pure invention, versus when it is -- while still a theory and absolutely bearing the potential to be incorrect -- literally the only thing the text even flinches towards on the subject. In this case, in Exile II, there are only two references to Limoncelli's speed that say anything beyond "fast" -- both in your post above. Both reference haste spells. Both compare the effect to haste spells. One says that the effect is stronger than what a haste spell generates from a haste spell, the other has the game narration using a simile to compare it to multiple stacking haste spells. These comparisons do clearly establish that it cannot be caused by a typical haste spell. They also establish that the effects are like a haste spell in quality, but not in quantity. And I mean, in game mechanics terms, Limoncelli gets a metric crapton of AP... and increasing AP is exactly what haste spells do. This is not a leap. Theorizing about the source of the effect is definitely extrapolation, which is why I described it as a question. Avernum II, as it turns out, does have more to say. Where E2 just said (a touch humorously) that his body even fell to the ground quickly, A2 adds this: "When you strike the mortal blow, Limoncelli does not slow down. Exactly the opposite. His body speeds up an incredible, almost comical amount, as the magic that sustains him falls out of balance.Even though you are seasoned adventurers, you can't help but feel ill seeing what you do. Limoncelli's body violently tears itself apart. As he falls to the ground, the chamber is filled with the snapping, rhythmic echo of all of his bones breaking." While the captain expands his words very slightly: "But he's... he's magical. He's fast! He moves faster than a hasted person, and he's that way all the time!" These are two places where that game flat out says his speed is some kind of magical effect. Everything seems to suggest that it's a permanent effect, particularly the captain's words. And the description of his death seems to strongly suggest that it is tied to his body, as opposed to being the effect of some kind of magic item. So no, it's not a foregone conclusion that his speed comes from a magical effect placed on him, but what little the game says does gesture in that direction, and it doesn't gesture in any others. I think that's enough to shift this from "unsolved mystery" to "yeah it's not specified but it's not very mysterious." -- I'm departing from game-based evidence here (and explictly noting that fact, lest you chastise me again), but I actually think there is a piece of information outside the game that would fit with some kinda of mega-haste spell in particular. The games that influenced Jeff included, as he's mentioned many times, both D&D and a whole bunch of early CRPG's that themselves influenced by D&D. It was a common convention, in these games, that the speed of haste spells came at a cost: the recipient is magically aged. In 2nd edition, this was pretty extreme: "Additionally, this spell ages the recipient by one year, because of sped-up metabolic processes." Anyway, a lot of the spell list in Exile looks like common spells from D&D, often with similar mechanics and at the same spell level. Fireball is classically a level 3 spell; so's Haste, just as they were in Exile. Anyway, this isn't evidence, but a body "violently tearing itself apart" sure seems fitting for the extinguishing of an incredibly powerful version of an effect that speeds up metabolic processes. -- Do I think Limoncelli had a haste spell applied, specifically? Maybe, who knows. Do I think he had a magical effect that is at least similar to a haste spell applied? Yes. That's not a wacky interpretation. It's not conclusive, but it is the only answer the game flinches towards. This is not a great example of a real mystery.

Welcome to Avadon, I gotta say 😅

Limoncelli isn't that much of a mystery. There are multiple descriptions, both in narrative text and NPC dialogue, that refer to haste spells, e.g. It's as if time is warped around him ... he moves as if he has received many haste spells, one on top of the other. I guess there's the question of whether this was done with Empire magic or Vahnatai magic obtained from Gaddika. We never really see any Vahnatai altered in this way, though. My money's on Garzahd, since his expertise in permanent warding was extensive, and his own self-enchantments imbue speed as well. Elderan is also plausible -- he is also on the short list of warding specialists, and he was a fellow commander to Limoncelli and stationed quite close by.

Amena Blade was definitely in G1. I don't think anything was said about his age then, but he was a lieutenant in Kazg, so presumably not a child. It looks like he was old enough in G3 for his eyesight to be failing, and also over 100 in G4. According to a fandom site, he's the only character to have appeared in 4 games, so he may be the best evidence here. I guess his age suggests that G1 to G4 could be anywhere from 60 to 90 years, so perhaps the series timespan is slightly longer than I suggested above. G2 to G3 is definitely a plausible place for some extra years to show up.

Zakary and Barzahl were on Sucia shortly after the events of G1. I don't remember if exact timeframes were mentioned in G2, but based on their descriptions, it doesn't seem like more than 2 or maybe 3 decades could have passed. I agree with Greta and Alwan re G3/4/5, so that just leaves the time between 2 and 3. This could probably be derived from some of the minor NPCs who show up in all of G1/2/3. There are minor NPCs overlapping throughout the series, and extensive aging is limited, even for randos who don't have access to shaping. So all told, I'd guess the timespan from 1 to 5 is probably in the range of 60-90 years.