Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General The first thing you see in the game

Sometimes I wonder if people like you are real or just "going through the motions."

Anyway.
My wife plays RPGs in the nuddy and I don't.
Not because I don't want to, but more because I don't want to revert her attention from the task at hand.

And I add to your post with this little part:

Most people voicing opinions like OP - are Christians (or otherwise religious based on Christianity).

And this is funny because if they read their favourite book, they'd find that they are wrong.
Adam and Eve were created NAKED and one can therefore assume that God likes to watch naked people. It was when they discovered that they were naked and covered up, that they got kicked out of Eden.
So God likes naked people. It is in fact wrong to argue against the wishes of God.

Dunno about that: I'm of that persuasion and I disagree with the OP. My main gripe is that I want a better selection of shoes.

Apparently I need to do an IQ-test again, since seeing both male and female treated the same and having no issue with that means I'm stupid according to your post. Nice low stab there. Very mature.

if this would be the 90s.

No they actually arent devout christians. They are devout leftists.
Pretty much the same thing but they pretend its political and not a religion.

Prayer turns to virtue signaling, the original sin is "white privilege" and the Devil becomes the Patriarchy.

Its hillarious realy.

What! AND more cheeses?

Don't make me choose between them. I might implode.

The shoe obviously fits. IQ tests include a reading comprehension portion that you should probably focus on.
Of course, there is nothing in there that checks for delusions or 'grasp on reality'.

I'm dropping in say that as someone who walks the line between being sensitive and difficult to insult, I was a bit jarred to see how elves dress, but in no way was I put off or insulted. My brain just put together pieces of knowledge and suspension of disbelief and the output was to feel slightly awkward, but not put off.

But I will admit that I am not a good judge of what is and isn't sexist when it comes to appearance. I focus more on the societal issues that create disproportional distributions of the populace. Any discrimination, really.
So, all I can say here is how I understand the link between depiction of a (fantasy, non-human) woman and the impact that has on real women: Depiction perceived as defining concept that is then applied as a preconception to real world examples. Of this, I can state that the depiction itself is not at fault. At fault here is the human mind that makes the connections between appearance and content (i.e. what the thing they see actually is). This is part of the deeply rooted tribalism that we as a species that fancies itself elevated really need to grow out of.

In short, blame the people making the associations that lead to discrimination, not the representation that intends to say something very different, maybe even a cold hard fact without beckoning any interpretation whatsoever.

Aside from that, I have seen some good arguments around.

In the end I will respect what direction Larian will take, and I trust that their choice will be reasonable.

Being civil is a minimum requirement, but take it from a cheese loving troll that respecting one another even when clashing in debate is a bonus.

If religion or politics were the crux of the argument against the costumes of the elves, then these would have been mentioned.

Personally, I'm atheist, but I'm not sure what difference that makes. We can debate religion on another forum.

It may surprise you to learn that people on the "left" (eg feminists) are not a homogenous group. While making posts in this forum supporting feminist ideals, I've also made posts in other venues in opposition to so-called feminism. For every feminist you meet, there's another feminist with a different interpretation of what feminism means. So you can never completely please everyone. I have personal experience dealing with the extreme fringes of feminism.

But most people are rational and if we sit together and discuss the issue in a mature way, we can start understanding each other and potentially find common ground.

Anyway, I don't see the elf designs as deliberately sexist, but I think with Sebille as the only elf character (and the first character you see) it looks sexist, and that's not a good thing.

My main concern is that the designs are impractical, unnecessary and jarringly inconsistent with the equipment you're outfitting them with.

I'm not religious at all, but this is hilarious ^^

So basically once we were all naked cave people, with some bunny tails covering our ***ses, we were all smelly and dirty, you know...
But, since then we evolved, took us a long time, and we learnt about morality, psychology, culture, shame and we started to cover ourselves as we became more intelligent and better overall?
Well at least I thought so....

Ain't moral philosophy grand!? There's no right or wrong definitive answer to that ;P

Some people hate moral relativity cause it'd mean they can't say something is wrong and feel confident that they must feel right: take female castration in other cultures for example. Even if you believe it's wrong, there's no objective moral standard to relate that too :P

I'm just saying that woman should be protected, sometimes even from herself.


I'm totally ok with a confident woman, talking and expressing her rights, woman. As a matter of fact I love strong woman, one that can sometimes speak back to me with some reason. But im not ok if someone will tell my daughter that its ok to be naked, that somehow it is connected to confidence and maturity.

Aaaaaand I'm done.

My problem is not that it's sexual but that it's just not practical armor. Ran through as a male Elf Knight and all the heavy armor had thigh tree bark plates but the rest of the leg was exposed as well as the stomach and forearms. Why would any race that's supposedly long lived like the Elves wear armor with that many gaps in it?

I get that they're going for the Wild Elf approach, but the armor is in no way practical at all. Reminds me of the drawing with the person in a metal bikini armor and has arrows and swords sticking in them but it all says 0 dmg floating over them.

Needs some full body Wild armor for heavier stuff if you're going to keep this "one with nature" style of racial armor.

Like this: http://www.kekaiart.com/uploads/5/4/7/6/5476798/8090673_orig.jpg

it's a wild nature style of armor, but the person wearing it isn't going to get stabbed in the gut cause there's nothing protecting it.

If this what you meant to say, you should rethink your argument.

Do you have a problem with nudity, generally? Can you articulate your problem? There are valid reasons to dislike nudity, but I really hope your reasons aren't as sexist as you've made them sound.

Are their valid reasons? Or just reason your relative moral standard would agree with? Is sexism even bad? Who said it was? How do you know they're right? Is cannibalism wrong? according to what objective moral, universally true standard? Did god tell you? But who told god? Where'd he find this universal truth? Or did god just say it was so....in which case, does that just means we judge standards relative to god's subjective, relative view?

Anyway, on armor practicality:
This was a response to someone else bringing up armor styles having certain looks within "melee" and "mage" "class" spectrums.


For instance, the leather rogue armor (+dodge%) looks different from the heavy plate armor that elves (or any race) can wear. That's different sets along the spectrum of "melee scrapper." I don't know if the same holds true for the mage side, but I assume it should in the long term. Mage robes obviously look different from plate armor that has some magic armour, but I don't know if that same plate amour varies enough from regular just physical plate armour as part of different morph set or if the amrour is just different due to level and stats and RNG.

At the moment, I think the amour look comes from the type (ie. robes, leather, plate) and the defenses and stats (ie amount physical/magic amour, resistance) and the race and the level. How extensive that is, is the real question.....

I don't quite like what I've seen for elves so far, but I'm not sure if that's just cause of the limited content or the style itself. Some people bringing up how little protection it looks like...well, I remember the amount of protection the armor in D:OS EE looked like it gave from level 1 to level 20 on a warrior changed alot over time. It evolved based on item level to look more stout and 'cooler' for lack of a better word. The low level elves might look naked simply cause they're a stylized showing of how fragile they are currently.

In short, their might be other visual styles that would solve this entire issue with elf armor, but requires us to get higher levels and further into the game.

Who said anything about objectivity?

I'm asking that he present a valid non-sexist argument against nudity. That doesn't mean I'll agree to it.

I'll also remind you that I'm an atheist.

Sexism is wrong because it derives from the assumption that there are differences between men and women that are fundamental biological realities without adequate justification. It's not sexist to say that women are the only sex who can give birth. It is sexist to say that men are the only sex who can do science.

Dude, I was just poking fun at the idea that the idea that something is "right" or "wrong" is entirely made up concept that at it's most basic form evolved from social contract theory so society could sustain itself. Eh, that probably makes me a bad Christian to say that.

Whether you're atheist or not doesn't really matter. Whether he's sexist or not doesn't matter. Whether I believe new born babies are delicious snacks when lightly fried and tossed with Soy Sauce doesn't matter.

This statement: "Sexism is wrong," fundamentally, relies on the fact that we must have a common understanding of what's wrong. Or one of us must have a better understanding. Or one of us must be mistaken in our understanding. Is it wrong to make a false statement? Who can say. Maybe it's just weird.

You're literally arguing an opinion is what it can be boiled down to.

As for the literal version of wrong of saying something like: The sky is green when it obviously doesn't look like it is. Or that only the male sex can do science. <- We must then commonly define science. Then we must define what is a male. And I can be more asinine and say we must define what one means by "only" or "can do." You might eventually catch me in saying a false statement and disproving it with empirical evidence, but then you have to prove that it's "wrong"to make said false statement and I can stone wall you on that all day for any reason I can imagine.

I'm obviously just poking at you and others, but I do find it a bit amusing in a dark way when I remember that ultimately none of this means anything anyway and peoples individual sensibilities mean very little in the grand scheme. And they are individual since no two people think exactly alike. Person A and Person B might have very similar moral standards but dig deep enough and you'll inevitably find difference.

EDIT:
Also, also, there's plenty of arguments against nudity.

Comfort

Protection

Awkwardness from body image and mating psychology on both sides. Men will check out women and women will check out men and everybody will check out everyone. Can't change cultural brainwashing of what's sexual :P and it's also inherent in biology.

Competitiveness creating power dynamics and social hierarchy

Problems inherent in clothing options/choice and/or lack there of came from culture not from the clothing such that nudity will create it's own cultural issues no doubt. and there's also the real issues that come from biological impulses and psychology tied to it and the the practical reasons against nudity such as cold weather and comfort levels.

It mattered in the context that you were joking that my moral compass is based entirely on a very old book of fiction. :P


Yes. It is literally wrong.

We can debate semantics (or religion) if you want, but this is not the best venue.

Also, no one is entitled to their opinion. Opinions should be justifiable. Stonewalling doesn't grant you any special privilege.


I would argue the inverse.

Anyway, if you're done "poking fun"...