Supporting GGG and PoE, but not necessarily Bestiary Leaguespansion

So basically your main complaint is not about WHAT we're doing, but HOW we're doing it?
The way I understand your point, you dislike the fact that GGG basically forces all exiles to become cultists of something, which is rather off-character for some (ranger and templar come to mind, though I can totally see witch and shadow being fine with it and marauder and duelist reluctantly agree to the process).
Or did I get something significantly wrong and just made a fool of myself?

I would be against it if we were capturing the little cats or foxes or ferrets. But these are mean monsters! They kill us in terrible ways. Also they are not natural. To me at least, that is a huge difference. In RL we don't have unnatural monsters that are deadly to humans and animals (though some of the nuts that speak of sharks sound like they believe otherwise).

I suppose we could make monster stew but since they are unnatural I wouldn't fancy eating them.

"

Pyrollusion wrote:

The only difference to what this new league brings to the table is the amount of time that passes before the creature dies.

I don't agree that that's the only difference. To me, the key difference is the amount of control you have over the necessity of the creature's fate - and a corresponding narrowing of the mental space for abstracting away concerns about it.

Previously, you could see all that killing as happening because the creatures attacked you - something that you could not prevent them from doing - and you fought for your survival because you needed to move through that wilderness. Even when that wasn't technically the case (ie. you could theoretically just run to the end of each zone) you can still consider the game a depiction of a such a story in abstract.

But in the case of this feature, such abstractions are more difficult because of the clarity of what it depicts. It's very explicitly the player caging creatures. And if you have a creature in captivity, it is of no danger to you. There is no imperative to kill it, no survival story there. Regardless of your reasons, you're now very clearly choosing to kill a helpless animal.

At best it becomes a very "the end justifies the means" story about a person sacrificing creatures because (we must assume) they think it's necessary for "the greater good". That I don't believe the end justifies the means, and think we should generally be highly skeptical of anyone who would act this way, is precisely why I find this an ugly direction for the game to push its protagonist into.

No he also talks about how he feels in general.

As for justification,For Templar might feel a way to purify them.
Ranger maybe can't stand their male animal counterparts and goes full sjw on sacrificing them instead

"

FCK42 wrote:

So basically your main complaint is not about WHAT we're doing, but HOW we're doing it?
The way I understand your point, you dislike the fact that GGG basically forces all exiles to become cultists of something, which is rather off-character for some (ranger and templar come to mind, though I can totally see witch and shadow being fine with it and marauder and duelist reluctantly agree to the process).
Or did I get something significantly wrong and just made a fool of myself?

No, that's exactly it. I was excited for Bestiary before most people knew it was coming. And when I saw that book mechanic, I was like, this is COOL. This is a distinctly non-violent gimmick that gives players incentive to capture enemies and study them, get stronger against them...Then I saw the cages and the spikes and was like, oh, this isn't academic or intellectual after all. This is...yep, we're fighting them. And sacrificing them. Oh, man. What a letdown.

"

FCK42 wrote:

So basically your main complaint is not about WHAT we're doing, but HOW we're doing it?
The way I understand your point, you dislike the fact that GGG basically forces all exiles to become cultists of something, which is rather off-character for some (ranger and templar come to mind, though I can totally see witch and shadow being fine with it and marauder and duelist reluctantly agree to the process).
Or did I get something significantly wrong and just made a fool of myself?

Umm .. yeah, you got it (for me at least)

I certainly don't have a problem with using bits of the animal to craft with, actually that's far less wasteful (specially from the rangers point of view). But the zoo is ... off.

As for the characters,

Ranger - nope (too much respect for the animals)
Templar - nope (too much respect for the animals)
Scion - nope (too much of a snob)
Duelist - nope (too much of a snob)
Shadow - maybe
Marauder - maybe
Witch - maybe - and this is an odd one. I really think the witch is a mean nasty individual who is totally driven by revenge. I don't think that she'd actually go out of her way to be deliberately cruel to an animal just for the sake of power, I do think she'd have no problem collecting 'bits' from her travels though. TBH I don't think the animals in the witch would fare well in captivity, I think she'd forget to feed them.

Witch: Who.. The hell.. Are you?
Person 1: Were with the RSPCA.
Witch: The what?
Person 2: We're here to collect the Rhoas.
Witch: Piss off - they're mine. I need to collect their third lower spleen to upgrade my wand.
Person 1: The're dead.
Witch: ??? Oh F*&k, not again.

Cheers,
Matt.

Wait.. so you guys are okay with going around countless maps slaughtering everything on your way with an increadible ammount of dps that would probably make the eart explode, but you're not okay with choosing the monsters that you would kill anyway and instead put them in an arena and kill them to get buffs?

I don't know, it seems like you're just searching resons to dislike or make things changed for no reason.

What? Are you afraid they're gonna starve?

Don't worry, GGG is feeding them to keep them strong and fight at full strenght to slain your characters and put you on standard.

Just enjoy the League, to me it seems really cool and awesome.

Remember that it's a game, not life and i expect that people of age 16+ (as you should be since PoE it's rated 16+) understand that this is a game and you shouldn't try to leap slam over people or animals.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

I would be against it if we were capturing the little cats or foxes or ferrets. But these are mean monsters! They kill us in terrible ways. Also they are not natural. To me at least, that is a huge difference. In RL we don't have unnatural monsters that are deadly to humans and animals (though some of the nuts that speak of sharks sound like they believe otherwise).

I suppose we could make monster stew but since they are unnatural I wouldn't fancy eating them.

Are they 'mean'? That's attributing more agency to them than I suspect they deserve. They operate with base animal instinct and imperative. And who knows? Maybe they have no more self-control than little cats or foxes or ferrets. Doesn't make it just as cruel then?

IRL, I kill larger spiders and cockroaches in my house but not moths or little skinks. I make the distinction that the former make me very uncomfortable while the latter do not. Purely selfish. But I don't torture the spiders or cockroaches if I can help it. Their being dead is what I desire, not the act of their death. Merciful death, if you will. The only beings I think should suffer in a prolonged, deliberate sense are those who have proven they willed that on others. I don't think you can say that about the beasts of Wraeclast.

But that's just me. If the Exile can justify this behaviour, so be it. I don't believe they can, not without losing some portion of whatever it is we call a soul in PoE.

So here's what I think about the exiles and that bestiary:

The templar would not even get close to that. He already apologised to god at the sight of the dried lake saying that "we still have to learn not to abuse" his creation.

Similar thing with the ranger. She may be a poacher, but she still seems like the most sane person of the bunch. If she kills animals, then in a way where they don't have to suffer.

Marauder might agree to it, depending on which path he went down. If he becomes more refined in a way (juggernaut being somewhat close to a knight), I can imagine him refusing vehemently. If he goes more into the karui way direction (chieftain), then I think he would just ignore it, since it's not in his religion. However, if he turns more savage (berserker), he might embrace it. I could see them fit together.

The duelist would be in for it as long as he's not going down the path of what is basically a classic medieval hero (champion). He comes out of the arena and this IS an arena. No reason to refuse for him with the one mentioned exception.

The witch would not let this possibility of being able to research the occult go to waste. She's already a psychotic mass murderer and any kind of eldritch power she could get her hands on would be welcome I think.

The shadow probably also wouldn't pass this up, but in his case it's because of his obsession with death. The reasult doesn't really differ from the witch's though.

Scion is unpredictable as ever. It's entirely up to what she wants, I don't know nearly enough about her personality for certain that I could make any guesses.

"

essemoni wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

@Scourge, when act 5 was introduced, did you go on a rant about the fact that we're given the ability to kill unarmed civilians that are running away from us, clearly scared?

Funny you mention this, but I_No raised this concern, and call me crazy but I go out of my way to leave the civilians alone...

Slainte,
Matt.

That's surprising. I_NO is close to the last person who I'd ever thought would mention that.

Killing in such a manner goes against my moral standards as well. Even in games.

"

The_Scourge wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

@Scourge, when act 5 was introduced, did you go on a rant about the fact that we're given the ability to kill unarmed civilians that are running away from us, clearly scared?

No, others did that. I pointed out that they were still in some way complicit to the atrocities. What we do in act 5 is incredibly violent but you can't equate the 'unarmed civilians' of an openly cruel, oppressive regime with genuinely innocent animals that have been placed in captivity for the express purpose of being sacrificed. Or maybe you can. I can't.

So... All germans were on some level responsible for things that Hitler and co. did? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

To me it's not about the characterization of the exiles. I don't consider there being a secondary moral code between my clicks and the events that take place in the game. I suppose your immersion works differently; I won't have an issue with killing, trapping or sacrificing anything that attacks me. The only mob I probably wouldn't want to sacrifice is an albino rhoa.