As far as i know, the class is named "rogue"
In BG2 that blanket class is called Thief. Already pointed out that I was talking about BG2, but yes, "as far as you know" means you don't know this.
so as long as your "Thief" is acting in those quests honorable, just, and have no problem with any rule or law ... how else would they determine that he is "a Thief" then?
If the quests were designed with the purpose to reveal your class, then there is no "if this" or "if that". And if your class is not shown after doing said quests, then what are their purposes again? I said "oh but the game uses quests to figure out your class, it's not just by looking at you" - this is how it is in BG2. And you reply by saying that "oh but if I do quests in a way that doesn't reveal my class..." - well then you must be talking about a
different game (what game is that, I wonder), in which case, whatever you say, I suppose.
I certainly believe so. What do you think?
Bcs as i see it, those two sentences are in pure contradiction ...
> The first one claims that once my character is marked as a Thief class, game should concider him being Thief ... no matter if he ever stealed something or not.
> The second one claims that my character should be judged by his deeds, therefore once he stole something, he is a Thief ... no matter what class he picks.
So what is it then?'
Here I thought this was easy to understand. The first sentence speaks from the "gameplay" angle - as long as your character sheet shows that label THIEF, (or Rogue or whatever) then your character is a Thief, until somehow you change your class. The second sentence is from the "game world" (or story) angle - how in-game characters perceive your character, what kind of person they think your character is. I hope this is clear now.
Wich i agreed with, about two sites back ...
In fact, you did not... Or I must have misunderstood you very badly. Because after quoting that point of mine you provided a rather interesting example of how someone can bluff his way through an interview in order to contradict what I said. So what were you trying to say with that example again?
Get me to universe, where outcome of any dialogue will be determined by throwing 20 sided dice, and adding ability bonuses ... and i see no problem.
Gotcha. Just about what I expected. This means your argument here is about as relevant as you think some of mine are.
Well in that case its completely irellevant.
Yes, dismissing something as irrelevant is another way of avoiding tackling it. I used that "real life" example for a purpose, in response to your comment before that. But if you'd rather skip this point because you think it's irrelevant, that's fine too.
If indeed i am "mostly the only one" who came to forum about Baldrur's Gate III., to talk about Baldur's Gate III. ... then yes, that certainly, is a problem!
Oh, nothing as serious as the whole forums. Just this particular topic. During specific exchanges.
Can you please re-read the OP?
Isnt is a little more about: When other were talking about what they wanted in BG3, YOU jumped in and said a lot of things about BG2 ? laugh
It certainly feels that way.
The very first post made by the OP listed things from BG2. That's one. I said a lot of things about BG2 as responses to other posts, including yours. Just like you said a lot of things about BG3 as responses to other posts. Your argument here is about as good as mine.
and i honestly dont see any relevance between "i wat this in this game that we have now" and "it was never in that game 20y ago". O_o
They have as much relevance as your comments give them.
@Try2Handing + @ Ragnarok -> I think you kinda both made your point and we're running in circles now
This stopped being about making points several posts ago, I think. Now this is all about picking apart each other's sentences and see which one you can cling on and use as ammo for your next post. My day work can get really boring and this serves as something that helps keep my brain active. Always look at the bright side and all that.
