Originally Posted by UnknownEvil
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Btw. Let's not throw psychology into this. I've taken psychology. I've studied human behavior and the behavior of animals and such. Even illogical people are logical and predictable in various ways. There is order even in chaos and chaos even in order.

I think the githyanki are crazy. They are psycho nutjobs for serving an undead lich queen and they do so very vehemently. This is established lore. They are crazy, intelligent, and very dangerous, and they serve their queen zealously.

But even their insanity has rationale to it. They are driven and insane because they are sold out to their belief in their lich queen. As such, a gith who does not act in an extreme way to serve his lich queen and gain glory for it, is acting contrary to how he should act using his own people's logic and reasoning.

Ok, if you do not want to go into psychology, thats ok. But if you took psychology classes and studied human behaviour i cannot understand your posts, sorry.

So we go with what Ragnarok said:

Larian is the GM and the GMs word is rule ( only not on shove please). All hail Lord Ao.

There are two sides here, with some misconduct in the middle. People here are right in that the DM (Larian) has asked for feedback, and therefore it's unproductive to try and stifle criticism and feedback just because of disagreeing with it, or believing it's pointless. However, as JandK has tried to express too...


Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'd really like to know what makes you feel a Baldur's Gate game when playing BG3.

And because you're going to answer...

You don't really want to know because you've already presumed my answer. That is not asking a question in good faith.

It's equally wrong and unproductive of those on the other side of the fence, wanting certain changes or ideas through, to actively try to shut down or devalue any input or criticism to said criticism that attempts to offer a different viewpoint. I've had reports on posts in this thread, that I've explicitly waited with moderating, because I view those reports as "This is bad man disagreeing with me, must punish". Discussions like these get very tribal and defensive because of opposition, or "Haters VS Larian Shills", where either side describes itself as a more flattering descriptor of "Being realistic" or "genuine criticism" - Where from my PoV, everyone has moments of failure when it comes to productive conversation. I see some people holds their point of view to be more valuable because of being criticism (and getting defensive if ever not fully agreed with by a respondent) and that's bad. None of you individually has more right to an opinion, than anyone else. Yet I see people indirectly imply this through disagreeing and trying to essentially say "This is criticism, you're not allowed to disagree with my criticism so go away."

You're all walking down the path of unproductive conversation, and if you ever find yourself in a position of wanting to silence someone just because you disagree: Stop. This is not a tribal war.