I apologize for the confusion but it seems from that point on you are referring to my initial post which started the discussion. Me and @Undecided both do not have avatars and randomly were given the same background color and @Undecided participated in the discussion more actively while I went to sleep, so I understand where you are coming from . And sorry for the confusion.
But that aside, I actually was starting to feel really bad for derailing the discussion in the thread on the matters of lore and world-building. And even already started to type an apology answer. So it was a relieve to read this statement of yours, thank you:
This idea seems to get said quite a bit by people not used to the gripes thread. The thread is to state your gripes, yes, but there are not 1,500 gripes. I've griped a lot in here, some about small thing, some about... well actually I'm not sure if I've griped about anything large, but I've certainly made a big deal of small stuff (like the size cap on fucking Ryn's ass, and how I don't like that having a big dick and also fucking Ryn's ass necessitates corruption gain). The thing is, while this is a place to state gripes, it's also a place to discus them.
Your own gripe asks for a few changes, like wanting the "kill" buttons to be standardized (I agree with this, it's always nicer to have things be consistent) and potentially hidden (toggles are harder to do than just moving buttons, as far as I know, but it would probably be nice to have a "no murderboner" switch), along with the request that the champ never kill unless directed to by the player (referring specifically to Taldahs in the corrupted route).
people so eagerly jumped on addressing the problems with my flawed interpretation of the in-game world that my initial propositions addressing the "murderboners" issue (as several of you put it) was left mostly untouched. I do hope that just means those people had no objections against the suggestions themselves.
You are absolutely right about me really shooting myself in the foot by needlessly bringing up my skewed view of the world. It only made my suggestions to be viewed as similarly wrong and mistaken. The problem of someone suggesting to do a right thing but explaining their motivation with a flawed reasoning, therefore making you question and doubt if the right thing was actually right to begin with.
Well, the suggestion is to add a checkbox in the menu. That way, those of us who feel disturbed by the issue, would have the ability to opt-out. Unless you are referring to being disappointed by me viewing that matter differently than you (in which case I can relate to the feeling actually), rather than the proposition itself, I don't think you should worry about a possibility of the game content changing even if the devs decide to actually implement the requests.
As for the issue of my skewed and wrong interpretation of the world: I do agree with a lot of things brought to my attention and started to re-evaluate how I see the game as a whole. It now obvious to me, that my bad memory and main focus on amazingly written sex scenes and trying out different builds during my replays of the game, resulted in me incorrectly remembering or falsifying facts present in the game which lead to me arriving to wrong conclusions.
I really need to properly re-experience the game if I do not want to embarrass myself like that again.
I also initially wanted to participate in the discussion on the topic of corruption but reading more, eventually realized I would have just spouted more nonsense (((. My current understanding of what corruption is and how corrupted individuals suppose to behave seems to be very skewed and based primarily on interactions with Kassyra and amazingly written sex scenes with imps and Behemoth by Wsan.
I guess what confuses me the most is that Kassyra seems to be falling in love with the champion (aside from the whole romance business which can be viewed as manipulation on her part, there is also bad end in the "Getting Into the Closet" quest for losing to the final encounter: here, Kassyra not just states she loves champion, the fact that she does actually brought her downfall and yet she is quite happy to spend a near eternity alone in the embrace of the champion. Which makes me to believe her feelings are genuine.).
But now, reading the discussion, I am wandering how a demon without empathy (being fully corrupted) can love? Something should be false in this logical statement...
This isn't a serious gripe as much as an odd coincidence but I just went over to Cait's temple and it introduced the new salamander researcher, the problem being that he shares the exact same name as my character.
Dialogue gets a bit weird when it refers to 'Darius" or 'Darius' without anyone involved seeing anything strange about it.
So we all agree that telling Quin to buzz off is not inherently bad. Remember, the same way he does not trust us even after we rescue him, the game should not expect us to trust him.
The only way I see corruption as justified is to allert players that they did something that they may regret. At 4 percent of them.
I've only done the orc camp, like, two or three times, so I'm not sure. It's probably that the only other option is violence, so negotations are breaking down and you attack him, a slave. Since, of course, he is being kept as a slave there, so he's already living a harsh life, and he knows that whatever happens will lead to him being severely punished (which it does, since he's effectively removed from the game after this encounter). I think he outright says something about that to you. He wants the blowjob because at least then he can have some upside to this situation which almost certainly will make his already bad life even worse, and denying it leads to you beating the shit out of him.
Also, with regards to Eryka for example, if the PC does bad stuff to her post victory they become more corrupt, yes? But she literally battles with the corruption she received directly from Kasyrra and does bad stuff to the PC post loss, but unlike the imps, centaurs and what have you, the PC doesn't become more corrupt from that.
One could argue that she'd be less corrupt upon arriving to the chapel, but certainly not before, explicitly when it certainly is implied as such in the scenes.
With Eryka, it isn't just that Eryka is corrupted. She is a corrupted being, sure, but her corruption is causing her insanity, where she's attacking anything that moves while terrified. She isn't truly corrupted, like the centaur packs, nor is the inherently corrupt, like the imps, she's a normal woman who's had corruption shoved into her and is trying to deal with it. After the battle, the corruption temporarily receeds, allowing for her to think rationally again. The reason as to why corruption is gained from fucking her is not because she is corrupt, but rather, because you could chose to help her by guiding her back to town while she's still sane, but instead you chose to rape her, also seeming to cause the corruption struggle to flare up and overtake her mind once again until the next time you fight her. It's essentially the same reason why Ryn's monstrous anal increases corruption, despite Ryn herself being pure. The Champ is using her for sexual pleasure, without regard for her wellbeing and feelings, in both cases.
On to the Herod example, I don't exactly know why you'd bring that up. It's not the same scenario here, as I'm not advocating for anything, nor stating that any of my personal gripes with the game should result in any change - which he certainly seemed to want for his narrative.
Whoops, yeah. I completely got the two of you mixed up. I can blame how I just saw that the profile images were the same color, but even so I probably should have checked.
I apologize for the confusion but it seems from that point on you are referring to my initial post which started the discussion. Me and @Undecided both do not have avatars and randomly were given the same background color and @Undecided participated in the discussion more actively while I went to sleep, so I understand where you are coming from . And sorry for the confusion.
Well, the suggestion is to add a checkbox in the menu. That way, those of us who feel disturbed by the issue, would have the ability to opt-out. Unless you are referring to being disappointed by me viewing that matter differently than you (in which case I can relate to the feeling actually), rather than the proposition itself, I don't think you should worry about a possibility of the game content changing even if the devs decide to actually implement the requests.
As for the issue of my skewed and wrong interpretation of the world: I do agree with a lot of things brought to my attention and started to re-evaluate how I see the game as a whole. It now obvious to me, that my bad memory and main focus on amazingly written sex scenes and trying out different builds during my replays of the game, resulted in me incorrectly remembering or falsifying facts present in the game which lead to me arriving to wrong conclusions.
I really need to properly re-experience the game if I do not want to embarrass myself like that again.
Nice, yeah. It's alright to be wrong, really, though it's generally better to check. I didn't actually remember if the centaurs liked the corruption or not, so I played through the entire centaur quest again just to see if the majority seemed to like it or dislike it.
I guess what confuses me the most is that Kassyra seems to be falling in love with the champion (aside from the whole romance business which can be viewed as manipulation on her part, there is also bad end in the "Getting Into the Closet" quest for losing to the final encounter: here, Kassyra not just states she loves champion, the fact that she does actually brought her downfall and yet she is quite happy to spend a near eternity alone in the embrace of the champion. Which makes me to believe her feelings are genuine.).
Bad ends are generally considered to not actually be cannon, so the stuff contained within bad ends may actually just not be factual, but outside of that bad end there is a lot of Kasyrra falling in love with the Champ. Like the Halloween event, in which she essentially takes the Champ on a date. I'd say she's probably genuine.
But now, reading the discussion, I am wandering how a demon without empathy (being fully corrupted) can love? Something should be false in this logical statement...
I think that empathy isn't necessarily a requirement for feeling love. Taldahs' corruption was caused by manipulation of his parental love for Ahmri and also his romantic/sexual love for her mother. Demons in CoC1 seem to be capable of forming romantic bonds. It's probably harder for an actual bond to form, as relationships are predicated on mutual feelings, but love can be tied to desire and attraction, and a wish to be with someone. It isn't necessarily feeling exactly what they feel, even though it helps to understand how your partner feels.
I've only done the orc camp, like, two or three times, so I'm not sure. It's probably that the only other option is violence, so negotations are breaking down and you attack him, a slave. Since, of course, he is being kept as a slave there, so he's already living a harsh life, and he knows that whatever happens will lead to him being severely punished (which it does, since he's effectively removed from the game after this encounter). I think he outright says something about that to you. He wants the blowjob because at least then he can have some upside to this situation which almost certainly will make his already bad life even worse, and denying it leads to you beating the shit out of him.
Yeah, but that's the crux of the issue, there's no other scene presented. Are you justifying that a pure PC should have non-consensual (in the terms of no other options presented) intercourse with an NPC for something that is vital for the quest that there is assumedly no other option to obtain (without Cait in the party or being an Orc PC to bypass it completely)?
And the very act of not wanting to give up one's dignity in that case is deserving of implying that the PCs moral outlook has been compromised and they're more corrupt than the alternative - even when considering not knowing exactly how corrupt any of the NPCs actually are in the Kervus camp (which as seen the the previous game, if they're more corrupt than the PC they'd generally increase the PCs corruption anyway post-sex / post-rape).
It sounds like you're justifying the lack of context surrounding the inclusion of an increase in corruption in this case (and the Quin case), without taking into consideration of any of the other worse things the PC can do, such as letting Benny Hill run amok whilst the slaves are still trapped, yet this instance of Pavo's wishes is where the moral high ground is supposedly more prominent.
If it's questionable, like with the Quin case, surely you could understand why there would be some reason to question it - not outright just accept it like it's 100% justifiable and makes sense.
If the PC was presented with options of negotiating with him (aside from being an Orc PC which just bypasses this whole thing in the first place), and not resorting to violence, I'd understand this argument moreso (the PC gaining corruption for beating him up). But as it stands it just seems like it's expected for the PC to forgo their own wishes / preferences / dignity (or at least for the player to look at every scenario from a metagaming perspective), just to try and maintain some fragile concept of morality that has been shown to be at least somewhat inconsistent time and time again (something you yourself admitted previously with the Quin scenario...).
With Eryka, it isn't just that Eryka is corrupted. She is a corrupted being, sure, but her corruption is causing her insanity, where she's attacking anything that moves while terrified. She isn't truly corrupted, like the centaur packs, nor is the inherently corrupt, like the imps, she's a normal woman who's had corruption shoved into her and is trying to deal with it. After the battle, the corruption temporarily receeds, allowing for her to think rationally again. The reason as to why corruption is gained from fucking her is not because she is corrupt, but rather, because you could chose to help her by guiding her back to town while she's still sane, but instead you chose to rape her, also seeming to cause the corruption struggle to flare up and overtake her mind once again until the next time you fight her. It's essentially the same reason why Ryn's monstrous anal increases corruption, despite Ryn herself being pure. The Champ is using her for sexual pleasure, without regard for her wellbeing and feelings, in both cases.
No, she rapes your PC even if you lose from the first encounter with her, not as a result of her being raped by the PC. There is no "flare up" she is the exact same NPC in both scenes, furthering the inconsistency (unless you acknowledge the corruption, which you don't seem to be doing) - she's apparently clear of mind if she loses, but fine to rape anything if they lose to her.
Also, I wasn't questioning why the PC gets corruption for the victory scenes, I was using that as a comparison to say that that's bad right, after the PC wins her corruption "recedes" (as seen by her dialogue), sure, but if the PC loses to her she goes out of her way to do bad corruptible stuff to the PC, which she even mentions in the dialogue.
You're defending that as though that obvious corruption Kasyrra imparted on her is not in any way going to be imparted to the PC (when Eryka rapes the PC from their very first encounter with her, unprovoked), when the Centaurs, Imps and other corrupted NPCs in the game all do as well to the PC when they win - if that's not in any way comparative to you - then rather don't reply to this post though, lest this continue ad infinitum.
Unless you're overtly trying to justify Eryka raping the the PC from the very first encounter by saying that Eryka is clearly not corrupted in the slightest (despite it being mentioned to take over her autonomy in the PC Defeat scene), then I don't know what else you were trying to imply.
Additionally, the Ryn comparison is not exactly helping the case either, because it's showing that you're only looking at it from one point of view, not the other. Sure the scene with Ryn makes sense for corruption to increase there (although I do have a gripe about how it's the only way to increase her capacity...), but that's not the same scene I was referring to at all, let alone the same context for the NPC I was actually referring to.
Eryka Intro 1 said:
Ahead of you you see what appears to be an armored human woman with a head of flaming orange hair, a brightly glowing sword brandished in her right hand as she looks wildly back and forth. She doesn't seem to have spotted you yet, so you could probably fall back safely if you had a mind to.
If a pure PC was attempting to investigate and find out more info, especially in the starting area - one would expect to be capable of trying to investigate / help an NPC, so sure one could fall back, but they likely wouldn't expect the encounter to turn into what it does.
Eryka Intro 2 said:
As you move closer, the woman turns to face you; her eyes are brilliant blue and at the moment, bloodshot, wild and unfocused; she's breathing hard, and there's equal parts lust, fear and confusion written all over her face. Her eyes focus on you as she begins to speak.
"Who are you? More demons? I..." she pauses here, shivering visibly, and you can see that her face is flushed. Something must've happened... not that you have time to think about it. She's brandishing her blade at you now, the fear and confusion on her face replaced by cold fury.
"You monsters tried to take my soul once," she begins, "you may have given me a... male parts, but... I am Eryka, I am a paladin, and I'll never let you take me! YOU CAN'T HAVE MY SOUL!!" she howls, lunging at you.
No other option presented to the PC (if they decide to investigate, with the potential to try and help), as with many corrupt encounters they are literally forced into combat.
Eyrka Totally Not Corrupt Loss Scene said:
Defeated, you slump to the ground as the crazed paladin steps toward you. "De... demon! I beat you!" she says triumphantly, shifting her hips uncomfortably. She pauses, as if realizing something — then her face screws up, an internal battle clearly being waged. "I could... b-but I shouldn't. I shouldn't. I can't. No, no, no, no..." she mumbles, dropping her sword and staring at her shaking hands. She looks up at you — your beaten form, especially — and after a few seconds, resolve sets into her features. What's the verdict..?
She then proceeds to rape the PC as well as thrash them with her belt, yeah, really showing how uncorrupt she'd be in that regard. Even her scenes in the chapel have some undercurrent of the corruption she experienced at the hands of Kasyrra, like Lyla.
But, I know you're only looking at the other scenario, the one where if the PC's rapes her - which I never said was justifiable in any case, I mentioned it and confirmed with you that it's corrupt inducing for the PC to rape her post sex (which you agreed with).
That was only part of my point shown as an example of verifiable corruption increase, but also to illustrate that there is at least some inconsistency (at least if Eryka wasn't corrupted - the duality is more apparent if she is corrupt, meaning that her corrupting the PC upon raping them should make sense) in how she acts upon victory / loss with her duality in personality, and it also doesn't mean that the precedent that her raping the PC whilst literally battling against the corruption that has been explicitly said to have occurred, wouldn't make the PC more corrupt.
Once she gets the the chapel one would assume that she'd become somewhat less corrupt overtime, or at least not have the corruption referenced as up front as the defeat scene is. That'll likely be expanded on in the future, when Franks adds more content for her.
But as it stands, it is definitely not as cut and dry as that only specific scenes are deserving of corruption increase over others, because that leads to people not exactly knowing why that is - which was the entire point I was making over multiple posts, which is something you disagree with, which is fine. However, as to why I'm replying again, I take issue with some of your reasoning, not that I'm saying wrong though (unlike your initial stance seemingly was when replying to my posts...), as well as how you present (or should I say seemingly misrepresent) what my stance is to make it easier to address.
This was based in the assumption that you were Linulanielly, as they were advocating for changes. I got the two of you mixed up.
That doesn't change anything really though, it's was still something you seemingly disingenuously used as a comparison to aid in you dismissing a stance as though it's the exact same premise, which it wasn't. Even if the narrative has changed now, that was definitely how it seemed to be implied previously. And interestingly enough, I've noted that out of every response so far you've elected to continue to cherry-pick certain statements out of my responses (as well as Linulanielly's posts yesterday) instead of responding to them as a whole, like I've done with your relevant responses to me.
But worry not, I've deduced that you'll come up with whatever reasoning you want to justify that, and that's fine, I'm doing the same with my stances - which is why I suggest we not further this. I posted a gripe I had, you responded, I responded to your response, and over and over again we go. This is not pleasant for anyone else to look at, you must realize that. So why is it necessary to continue to critique others upon their stances / opinions in a literal thread relevant for them stating their opinions / stances instead of just ignoring it if you disagree with it? Seems a whole lot more inconvenient for everyone involved to be honest.
Almost as though there has to be a specific verdict that one stance is correct and one is wrong for this thread / forum to exist - when opinions aren't really as cut and dry as right and wrong.
Also, (as mentioned prior) I do take issue with your seemingly consistent attempts to either disingenuously misinterpret / misrepresent my stances / opinions.
As I'll reiterate once again, I didn't think it'd be such an issue for me to post a gripe in the literal titled "Your gripes with CoC II" thread, as though that was justification alone for stances / opinions to be examined and critiqued.
At that point it's more of a "Your gripes with CoC II, but only if it meets a certain criteria and people don't disagree with it, otherwise your stance will be critiqued and the discussion about why you're wrong will drag on and on, and you should feel bad for posting it in the first place" thread.
Whoops, yeah. I completely got the two of you mixed up. I can blame how I just saw that the profile images were the same color, but even so I probably should have checked.
And the very act of not wanting to give up one's dignity in that case is deserving of implying that the PCs moral outlook has been compromised and they're more corrupt than the alternative
But as it stands it just seems like it's expected for the PC to forgo their own wishes / preferences / dignity (or at least for the player to look at every scenario from a metagaming perspective), just to try and maintain some fragile concept of morality
I'm not going to address your other points because I'm, admittedly, too tired to get into this conversation, but I think it's important to point out a bias you seem to be demonstrating here.
This is not the first time I've seen you say that giving Pavo a blowjob means the Champion is "giving up their dignity", and I just want to say, that's kind of fucked up? Like, there's nothing debasing about giving a blowjob, in and of itself. It's just another sex act, and the reason I think it's weird is because it seems to be the fact he asks for oral specifically that's got you upset, at least from what I can gather from your posts.
If it's not too much to ask, can you elaborate on what you mean by how giving Pavo some oral results in the Champ "losing their dignity"? Because as it stands, it just reads as a very shitty and judgmental view to people who enjoy giving oral. (I don't know if that was your intention, hence why I'm asking for some clarification.)
I'm not going to address your other points because I'm, admittedly, too tired to get into this conversation, but I think it's important to point out a bias you seem to be demonstrating here.
This is not the first time I've seen you say that giving Pavo a blowjob means the Champion is "giving up their dignity", and I just want to say, that's kind of fucked up? Like, there's nothing debasing about giving a blowjob, in and of itself. It's just another sex act, and the reason I think it's weird is because it seems to be the fact he asks for oral specifically that's got you upset, at least from what I can gather from your posts.
If it's not too much to ask, can you elaborate on what you mean by how giving Pavo some oral results in the Champ "losing their dignity"? Because as it stands, it just reads as a very shitty and judgmental view to people who enjoy giving oral. (I don't know if that was your intention, hence why I'm asking for some clarification.)
Seems I'm literally everyone's punching bag this month, huh.
Admittedly, I could of phrased it better, but it was in the hypothetical scenario of a pure PC who would not want to go out of their way to perform sexual acts just to move forward on their quest (or just a hypothetical pure chaste PC to begin with, which considering this game is kinda ironic lol).
In that hypothetical scenario if the PC in-game didn't have Cait in their party, wasn't an Orc, or wasn't up for intercourse with the premise being somewhat manipulative (as in Pavo didn't want anything else, and there was no other way to resolve that situation) or that the PC was just chaste in general, I'd presume that (within the context of this hypothetical scenario) they would feel like they were "giving up their dignity" in some sense to perform that - lest they actually get raped or killed by the entire Kervus tribe.
Not saying that the PC wouldn't be up for that, cuz the PC is written to be open to anything, but I'm saying that if we're to continue with the "pure PC" hypothetical narrative, for me personally at least (within the context of this hypothetical scenario), I would consider being in a situation where there's no other solution, and where one doesn't want to give up their own sense of self worth in a sense (assuming the PC would want to be chaste, or was already in a monogamous relationship with one of the companions for instance - Brint / Brienne etc) it would be rather undignifying for them to do so (at least in my opinion within this hypothetical scenario, and relevant to my hypothetical scenario - not saying it is literally the case nor meant to reflect my actual views or anyone else's views outside of this specific hypothetical scenario - with the above context included).
Not that I have any issue if people have different views on it, but for me personally, (within this context / hypothetical scenario) it seems like there is an element of coercion or manipulation on Pavo's part when considering the alternate bad end that the PC may be subjected to if they didn't do so - or didn't want to "corrupt" themselves by attacking him (as there's no other option presented).
I'm not going to address your other points because I'm, admittedly, too tired to get into this conversation, but I think it's important to point out a bias you seem to be demonstrating here.
This is not the first time I've seen you say that giving Pavo a blowjob means the Champion is "giving up their dignity", and I just want to say, that's kind of fucked up? Like, there's nothing debasing about giving a blowjob, in and of itself. It's just another sex act, and the reason I think it's weird is because it seems to be the fact he asks for oral specifically that's got you upset, at least from what I can gather from your posts.
If it's not too much to ask, can you elaborate on what you mean by how giving Pavo some oral results in the Champ "losing their dignity"? Because as it stands, it just reads as a very shitty and judgmental view to people who enjoy giving oral. (I don't know if that was your intention, hence why I'm asking for some clarification.)
I mean, you are doing it for a favour. While to some that is not a big deal, to others it is just not worth it. Basically whoring yourself out. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but some people are not into it.
I am not really going to go into if beating him up is good or bad. I usually just send Cait at him, since I dofeel bad for the guy. Not enough to blow him tho. And Caitwould enjoy it.
Yeah, but that's the crux of the issue, there's no other scene presented. Are you justifying that a pure PC should have non-consensual (in the terms of no other options presented) intercourse with an NPC for something that is vital for the quest that there is assumedly no other option to obtain (without Cait in the party or being an Orc PC to bypass it completely)?
And the very act of not wanting to give up one's dignity in that case is deserving of implying that the PCs moral outlook has been compromised and they're more corrupt than the alternative - even when considering not knowing exactly how corrupt any of the NPCs actually are in the Kervus camp (which as seen the the previous game, if they're more corrupt than the PC they'd generally increase the PCs corruption anyway post-sex / post-rape).
It sounds like you're justifying the lack of context surrounding the inclusion of an increase in corruption in this case (and the Quin case), without taking into consideration of any of the other worse things the PC can do, such as letting Benny Hill run amok whilst the slaves are still trapped, yet this instance of Pavo's wishes is where the moral high ground is supposedly more prominent.
If it's questionable, like with the Quin case, surely you could understand why there would be some reason to question it - not outright just accept it like it's 100% justifiable and makes sense.
If the PC was presented with options of negotiating with him (aside from being an Orc PC which just bypasses this whole thing in the first place), and not resorting to violence, I'd understand this argument moreso (the PC gaining corruption for beating him up). But as it stands it just seems like it's expected for the PC to forgo their own wishes / preferences / dignity (or at least for the player to look at every scenario from a metagaming perspective), just to try and maintain some fragile concept of morality that has been shown to be at least somewhat inconsistent time and time again (something you yourself admitted previously with the Quin scenario...).
You asked me to justify the corruption gain for Pavo, not what my personal thoughts were. My personal look is just the same as with Quint, that I don't think this choice should actually increase corruption, unless there were more options given. But my writing was done specifically to just list justifications for it, because that's what I thought you asked for.
No, she rapes your PC even if you lose from the first encounter with her, not as a result of her being raped by the PC. There is no "flare up" she is the exact same NPC in both scenes, furthering the inconsistency (unless you acknowledge the corruption, which you don't seem to be doing) - she's apparently clear of mind if she loses, but fine to rape anything if they lose to her.
Also, I wasn't questioning why the PC gets corruption for the victory scenes, I was using that as a comparison to say that that's bad right, after the PC wins her corruption "recedes" (as seen by her dialogue), sure, but if the PC loses to her she goes out of her way to do bad corruptible stuff to the PC, which she even mentions in the dialogue.
You're defending that as though that obvious corruption Kasyrra imparted on her is not in any way going to be imparted to the PC (when Eryka rapes the PC from their very first encounter with her, unprovoked), when the Centaurs, Imps and other corrupted NPCs in the game all do as well to the PC when they win - if that's not in any way comparative to you - then rather don't reply to this post though, lest this continue ad infinitum.
Unless you're overtly trying to justify Eryka raping the the PC from the very first encounter by saying that Eryka is clearly not corrupted in the slightest (despite it being mentioned to take over her autonomy in the PC Defeat scene), then I don't know what else you were trying to imply.
So I just realized I didn't actually finish what I was saying on that. I just kind of moved on I guess? My attention is weird. I sometimes get hyper-fixated on something for a few minutes and then I get completely distracted by something else. In the thing your responding to, in the segments responding to you, I wrote the fourth bit first, then the third, then the first, then the second.
The "flare up" statement was honestly just supposed to be about why the pc victory sex is corrupting, since she starts out crazy, gets calm, and then through the pc's actions things get worse again. The primary corrupter in the scene is that the pc is being cruel, with any corruption in Eryka being secondary. As for how corruption isn't imparted in the loss scene, even in a lessened amount, well, I'm not sure. How is it that sex with the Alraune, or bimbo'd hornets, or alraune effigies don't result in corruption gain, despite their corruption? I don't know. What I'd written so far in the Eryka thing was mostly just about how the pc having victory sex would inherently be much more corrupting than the loss sex scene, since the pc themself was engaging in corruptive actions aside from just fucking someone who's corrupted, but in attempting to justify why Eryka's loss sex scenes don't impart any corruption, all I could think of is that she isn't leaking corruption or something like that. Like, it could very well be that corruption on the part of those who inflict it on the pc specifically intend for it. Centaur packs fuck with the intent to break the pc until they can keep them as a docile slave. Imps are kind of just inherently evil and seem to seek specifically to spread corruption. The Alraune, effigies, and hornets don't seek to corrupt others, just to spread their seed/eggs. Farrah is a full on demon, and I think the only sex the pc can have with her is a buttjob, but that doesn't spread corruption because she has no desire to corrupt, but the Painted Demon enemy/ies love to fuck, and they want to get others to fuck. They want to spread corruption because, I guess, they think it'll make others horny like they are, particularly given that they comment on how tainted pcs are "like them" and offer to skip the combat and go straight to sex. So going back to Eryka, she doesn't want to spread corruption. The corruption in her makes her more sexual and domineering, but she doesn't really want to spread corruption.
That doesn't change anything really though, it's was still something you seemingly disingenuously used as a comparison to aid in you dismissing a stance as though it's the exact same premise, which it wasn't. Even if the narrative has changed now, that was definitely how it seemed to be implied previously. And interestingly enough, I've noted that out of every response so far you've elected to continue to cherry-pick certain statements out of my responses (as well as Linulanielly's posts yesterday) instead of responding to them as a whole, like I've done with your relevant responses to me.
But worry not, I've deduced that you'll come up with whatever reasoning you want to justify that, and that's fine, I'm doing the same with my stances - which is why I suggest we not further this. I posted a gripe I had, you responded, I responded to your response, and over and over again we go. This is not pleasant for anyone else to look at, you must realize that. So why is it necessary to continue to critique others upon their stances / opinions in a literal thread relevant for them stating their opinions / stances instead of just ignoring it if you disagree with it? Seems a whole lot more inconvenient for everyone involved to be honest.
Almost as though there has to be a specific verdict that one stance is correct and one is wrong for this thread / forum to exist - when opinions aren't really as cut and dry as right and wrong.
Also, (as mentioned prior) I do take issue with your seemingly consistent attempts to either disingenuously misinterpret / misrepresent my stances / opinions.
As I'll reiterate once again, I didn't think it'd be such an issue for me to post a gripe in the literal titled "Your gripes with CoC II" thread, as though that was justification alone for stances / opinions to be examined and critiqued.
At that point it's more of a "Your gripes with CoC II, but only if it meets a certain criteria and people don't disagree with it, otherwise your stance will be critiqued and the discussion about why you're wrong will drag on and on, and you should feel bad for posting it in the first place" thread.
The point of the Herod comparison wasn't "you're like Herod." In case you didn't notice, the paragraph in the post you're complaining about here ended by saying that the gripes thread is a "marketplace of ideas." Herod was just the first notable example I could think of of a person posting long-form criticism which had several wrong points, which led to a lengthy discussion on the topic.
I don't think that there is just one "right" opinion, but I do think that some opinions may be better than others. I hold the belief that opinions usually start out weak, and they get stronger as they're challenged, cutting out the bad parts and adding on new, better additions. As I said in regards to the Herod thing, this thread has a ton of conversation on many gripes that have been made in the past. There is no issue with posting a gripe in this thread, but the environment of this thread is such that you should prepare for a discussion on things. Even if most of the time, the discussion is nowhere near this lengthy or heated.
On the cherry-picking front, that's kind of just to pinpoint specific things I want to respond to. If I were responding to literally everything you said, these posts would be even larger, and they'd either be bloated with points I don't care about or just not address half of what gets put in the quotes. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, and hell it feels like you're being disingenuous here as you repeatedly make assertions about stances and beliefs and behaviors you think I have. I doubt that's your intent but it sure as hell feels like it. So yeah, we should stop here. Because it feels like you think I'm arguing in bad faith, and your presentation of that makes me feel like you're arguing in bad faith. I don't think you actually are coming at this from a bad faith position, but I do think you're exasperated, and at this point, so am I.
Bad ends are generally considered to not actually be cannon, so the stuff contained within bad ends may actually just not be factual, but outside of that bad end there is a lot of Kasyrra falling in love with the Champ. Like the Halloween event, in which she essentially takes the Champ on a date. I'd say she's probably genuine.
Plus she says she maybe can't tell the difference between love and lust anymore. Poor Kas's emotions are all screwed up. She can't tell when she should be asking someone on a date to the conveniently located bar, and when she should be conquering the world for attention. Though I wonder why she falls for the champion. I may be a sucker for romance, but Kas is confusing me. Maybe she's watched too many Hallmark romance movies.
Pretty much. Though people having difficulty telling the difference between me actually joking and being serious but having that way of talking happens often in real life too. I've often told friends and coworkers that I can say anything and they won't immediately know if I'm joking or not because of it. It was a defense mechanism until it became a part of me. Hooray for weird coping mechanisms.
I think that empathy isn't necessarily a requirement for feeling love. Taldahs' corruption was caused by manipulation of his parental love for Ahmri and also his romantic/sexual love for her mother. Demons in CoC1 seem to be capable of forming romantic bonds. It's probably harder for an actual bond to form, as relationships are predicated on mutual feelings, but love can be tied to desire and attraction, and a wish to be with someone. It isn't necessarily feeling exactly what they feel, even though it helps to understand how your partner feels.
Love can be selfish. Someone may keep their partner happy solely to keep them around due to the enjoyment they bring. Even if potentially selfish and toxic, that afromentioned and nebulous someone still feels love. Love comes in a lot of forms. Too many. It makes those lovely and totally serious high art Hallmark movies confusing. Though I don't remember any demon romance in CoC1, although it has been a while. Maybe the join Lethice ending in some interpretations?
And on Pavo. In my opinion, the problem is that it feels like he is devaluing the champion as a sex object and expects to degrade ourselves for his pleasure. This alone wouldn't be bad if there was the option to pay him in money or help him escape or something like that. Instead it's just no blow the lizard man and be happy or take the corruption. The Pavo thing is something that shouldn't give you corruption because of that. Why should we be "punished" for having preferences or not wanting to do as he pleases. I put punish in quotation marks because the gain isn't much and there are no lasting consequences, but it definitely feels like I'm being judged for not giving the muzzled scaley what he wants. As if we're secondary to Pavo's wants and pleasure. Why yes I do beat Pavo up and don't feel bad. How did you know?
There have been development issues, specifically in regards to authors and Berwyn not having one. So for a time he wasn't really being supported, for example he's not an option with the new Elthara scenes.
Fingers crossed we'll gradually see support for him coming back in now there's a new author on it.
There have been development issues, specifically in regards to authors and Berwyn not having one. So for a time he wasn't really being supported, for example he's not an option with the new Elthara scenes.
Fingers crossed we'll gradually see support for him coming back in now there's a new author on it.
B's busy writing Berwyn quest 2 so he probably doesn't have time. Judging from his thread and just how much he's shown, it's gonna be a pretty good size quest with stuff after. So combine that with having needed time to sort everything regarding big dick Berry and who will get to adopt him, he's probably gonna need more time.
B's busy writing Berwyn quest 2 so he probably doesn't have time. Judging from his thread and just how much he's shown, it's gonna be a pretty good size quest with stuff after. So combine that with having needed time to sort everything regarding big dick Berry and who will get to adopt him, he's probably gonna need more time.
Though I wonder why she falls for the champion. I may be a sucker for romance, but Kas is confusing me. Maybe she's watched too many Hallmark romance movies.
Apparently the Champ's soul is magically attractive and it's not just because they're the first person that Kasyrra met (and possibly fucked) when she arrived in Savarra. So yeah, her first motivation is that she wants you to get stronger so you make a really impressive bit of Lethicite when she finally succeeds in fucking your soul out of you. If you happen to get on Kas' Romantic path, well, you've done some extra stuff on top of that like bringing her wine and flowers. Even perma-horni sex demons like flowers, apparently.
Apparently the Champ's soul is magically attractive and it's not just because they're the first person that Kasyrra met (and possibly fucked) when she arrived in Savarra.
Kas and PC comment, the first verbally and the second in thought, that likely the blast from the portal charged her soul magickally, or Kas did something to them during the portal problem.
So yeah, her first motivation is that she wants you to get stronger so you make a really impressive bit of Lethicite when she finally succeeds in fucking your soul out of you.
Either she fucks your soul out or you manage to overpower her and have your way with her.
Keeping track of some of these is a pain at times - not saying there needs to be a sort of tracker for stuff in the Journal though, even if you can just open a savefile in text and check for stuff.
Apparently the Champ's soul is magically attractive and it's not just because they're the first person that Kasyrra met (and possibly fucked) when she arrived in Savarra.
So yeah, her first motivation is that she wants you to get stronger so you make a really impressive bit of Lethicite when she finally succeeds in fucking your soul out of you.
My confusion comes from her seeming to want something romantic off of her romance path too. As long as you don't try to stab her to many times at least.
If you happen to get on Kas' Romantic path, well, you've done some extra stuff on top of that like bringing her wine and flowers. Even perma-horni sex demons like flowers, apparently.
The game picks between the two companions you bring in with you. It was a lot easier for me to get the one I wanted by bringing Berwyn + whatever companion I needed the flavor text for. The one benefit to bringing him I guess.
The game picks between the two companions you bring in with you. It was a lot easier for me to get the one I wanted by bringing Berwyn + whatever companion I needed the flavor text for. The one benefit to bringing him I guess.
Having fun with a certain fight where I am basically being disarmed/silenced to death. So I would like to see either a hard limit on the enemies ability to do something like that or at least allow us to punch the enemies to death.
I personally call Kas "Lady Pump & Dump," unless you force her to stay like her Halloween event.
Speaking of pump & dump, reiterating a bunch of people's wants with: I'd like to see some more options to stay and snug for more than say, a few minutes with some NPCs rather than fuck/get fucked and then "sorry babe, got places to be and random imps to slay - in both senses of the word."
Having fun with a certain fight where I am basically being disarmed/silenced to death. So I would like to see either a hard limit on the enemies ability to do something like that or at least allow us to punch the enemies to death.
Remedy can clear up both those conditions. Or you can look at the boss' stats and realize that they're extremely vulnerable to Tease which they can't prevent you from using...
I guess my gripe with disarming is that even though I may be dual wielding, I still am repeatedly disarmed. You'd think I would have a chance to have at least one of my weapons in hand. Oh well.
. And sorry for the confusion.
