What i honestly dont know is why you keep repeating it
Because of the way your comments tend to make others think "wow this guy just doesn't see it but he keeps talking nonetheless", so we have the tendency to repeat the point when it's relevant to our argument. But if you
have to ask...
How does it NOT make sense if an order of paladins would accept a thief into their ranks as a squire as long as your Thief is *not stealing*??
This makes no sense because as long as you select a class, from the game world's point of view there has to be something defining you as someone
of that class. Saying "if your thief doesn't steal" still makes little sense even if you play your game without ever using any of the thief's abilities whatsoever. As long as your class is a thief, it's believable that in the game other characters have ways to find out.
Im glad you asked ... you did, by this sentence:
How does it make sense if an order of paladins would accept a thief into their ranks as a squire???
How you managed to infer "people are able to tell someone is a rogue by just looking at him" from that sentence is completely beyond me. It's astounding. Especially when I even tried to explain no it's
not just by looking at him, by saying your character has to go through quests and such.
And before you start complaining ... remember, once again ... it was YOUR example, not mine
I don't know how you see all this as "complaining", but I'll just chalk it up to a subpar choice of word. And yes, it was my example, so there's no need to keep reminding me that. Unlike some, I know what I said and I'll back up what I said, instead of repeatedly saying "it's not my suggestion", "I never said this, I never said that", "this is your own words, your own example", etc. before ending more than half of my sentences with emotes.
In that example, what I
tried to say was that, it doesn't make sense if someone accepts you into their circle without you providing any sort of information whatsoever. And if they know something about you, then it's not "just by looking at you". This point you clearly missed, it seems. This is a reply to your saying "you are not supposed to recognize a thief just by looking at him."
1) I dont want to tell.
2) I dont have any to be honest, but i would like to start working here and get them
I'd love to see you try saying these lines in an actual interview. Or are you only saying these ridiculous things because you know there's no problem typing them out here on these forums? And no, this is not a video-game situation expressed in real life words. I was actually taking real life situations, so you'll have to forgive me for not buying all that [Deception], [Intimidation], [Performance] crap. Yes, I know, "everything is possible", right? Always relying on "always right" generic arguments like that though doesn't make your case very convincing, just saying.
But either way, through your example, you proved that you
have to reveal information about yourself in order to convince people you are an appropriate candidate, whether you're telling the truth or just bluffing. This, if anything, just supports what I was saying previously: you have to provide people with information in some manner. But seeing as you inferred something I totally didn't say, it's understandable that you would provide this kind of example.
So let's try to wrap this up, shall we? Through all this, my biggest points are: you haven't played the original BG games, and your comments clearly show you know next to nothing about them. I believe we can agree on this. Everything specific to the game that I said, you conveniently ignored. As I also have said, it's hard for anyone to take whatever you say seriously. By this point, most people on these forums probably already know just how much credibility your comments contain.
On the contrary, we are talking here about imaginary situation in game that is still in development.
Not "we", it was mostly "you". It's part of the problem here, isn't it. When others were talking about BG2, you jumped in and said a lot of things. When we said you don't have those things in a game made 20 years ago, you said "but I'm talking about BG3". When we said that wouldn't make sense in BG2, you said "but everything is possible because I'm talking
about BG3". I mean, that's true - everything is possible for a game in development. The conclusion here is that: yes, you don't know anything about BG2, but tried to argue nonetheless, then it turned out that you were talking about something else altogether. This about sums it up, I believe?
