To put this bluntly, you're getting into very slippery territory if you want to argue that just being moral support of an action totally alleviates you of the moral consequences of said action.
That is completely different topic ...
We were not talking here about any moral consequences ... just about action itself.
I mean if i see you that you broke a window by a ball and dont tell on you ... im your acomplice, and i share guilt (if they find out) no doubt about that.
But i still didnt broke it.
The thing is, some person made the argument that in a topic where people are pointing out disconnects in game stuff, those people are in fact actually just bending over backwards to hate on the game. And you gave that person a +1. So while you didn't post the comment, you expressed that you agree with it.
And I'm not saying this to "put you in a bad light". That would mean nothing to me. I care about the game. BG2 was amazing and I want BG3 to be as good. Anyone giving Larian a lenient time and making excuses for why something is okay at a 7/10 instead of needing to be 10/10 can go give Crusher a foot massage, as far as I'm concerned. That's my mindset. Lacksadaisical halfassery is some times acceptable, but not in Baldur's Gate.
I'm not going to cut this into bits, because that's just aggravating to look at.
I am ... bcs funny enough, i have the same feeling for huge wall of text that is refering to something that is half monitor far from it.
I mean this text in particular isnt "so huge" ... but anyway.
Yeah, I sort of figured you might. But now imagine if I did the same thing with your 25 separate quotes, except some of them need more detail, so my comment has 35 quotes. And then you reply, because why not, and now we have 40 or 45 quotes in total. And at some point, one of us or both of us will lose track of the general plot and just start arguing for the sake of arguing. And then it becomes an endless battle of will and spare time that will drive the poor moderators up a wall since they have to check that we don't go out of bounds.
Anyway, I much prefer writing longer blobs of text (with appropriate white space, of course) over having constant breakups that I respond to with one or two lines of text. It's a personal failing of mine, I suppose, that I have this brilliant tendency of never saying with just a few words what could be written out in glorious detail with at least twenty or thirty. Comes from being a sucky handwriter, I guess. Back when I was handwriting essays, I was the tersest little brat you can imagine. But then we got computers and suddenly little kid me could actually keep up (and surpass by some margin) the more coordinated kids with great handwriting.
Apparently no order is given to the archer or the archer willfully disobeys a direct order.
That would be true ... asuming Aradin is one ultimate leader of them all ...
When we later talked to that Archer woman she litteraly said that someone died and then say "as if i didnt teach him better" ...
SO what if ... and yes we are in purely speculative teritory here
... Aradin and that Archer lady wich name i dont even remember are actualy equal in chain of comand? :P Aradin give order to his last subordinate, and ignored her bcs he knew she would be ignoring him aswell.
This is possible. But Aradin does act a whole lot like he's a leader, he's the one talking to the tieflings, and he's the one talking to the player party. My alternative theory, Aradin is in charge but the people he's in charge of have different levels of veterancy. The archer lady is a veteran, the dead fellow is a relatively new hire in the group that she trained but apparently didn't train well enough.
Ordering to "Form up" means they fight in formation but use their own judgment to find their place in the formation.
So basicaly stand wherever you wish ... i dont see much reason for such order. O_o
Ordering to "form lines", notice the plural, means forming up according to type. It's been done since the Romans so yes, warriors with any kind of training, even mercs for rent, would certainly understand the concept intuitively and implicitly.
That is good argument and i like it!
Except it could be used without single change for "Form a line" aswell.
On the first one, "form up" doesn't mean "stand where you like", it means "get into formation and use you best judgment to find your position in the formation". Just standing around somewhere fails on the formation aspect. The second one, forming lines means separating into melee grunts and archers. "Form a line" takes some stretching to convey that same information.
Execution, do the three mercs then following the tactics ordered by the commander? They do not. They're not holding a tight formation in the corner where the archer is shielded and the walls protect their flanks. They are not making the numerical advantage of the enemy count for as little as possible. They are not making themselves hard to flank and gang up on.
They are not suppose to hold tight formation ... the meele guys are suppose to "form a line" to hold meele goblins in their effort to get close to Archer ... and that is exactly happening. O_o
Where did you get tight formation?
Whenever I play this scene, Aradin gets off the line and the archer is exposed and eventually engaged in melee. They do not hug the corner and make it difficult for the enemy to flank them. Which is the one sensible thing they could do when caught out like that. Forming a line makes no sense whatsoever unless they try to keep their very tiny formation as tight as possible and then limit the room on the flanks, creating a very small pocket from which the archer can shoot without interruption, while the gobbos will have a hard time finding the room to engage.
If your argument for him talking nonsense is that he's just talking in code then any discussion at any time becomes irrelevant because anything is just code. At that point you've essentially accepted any disconnect at any time between what is said by characters and what they do, because it's just code. It extremely obviously makes zero sense to even have that communication happen in the first place in a medium like a game if the communication isn't coherent or "in a code" that is never given to the player. This is so silly that it pretty much has to be bait.
That was a joke.
I try to mark them more clearly.
Dang it. Yeah, didn't catch that one. Will try harder next time.