Pretty soon we’re all going to be playing World of Fruitcraft.
Log in, choose your fruit (class), and then sit around talking about how woke you all are.
5 Likes
Oh looky here another crybaby emboldened by other bed wetters on the internet. Cant wait for people like you to get your way and have the internet sterilized of everything anyone can deem offensive which I can promise you is everything.
1 Like
It’s a big deal in real life. In real life, it should never happen and should not be condoned.
In art, movies, music, and games, however - it’s just part of the story. If an artist’s vision happens to include any controversial scenario, it should make it all the way through to the final product. If a consumer doesn’t like it, they can leave the product alone or they can ignore that part of it.
To alter content to suit your sensibilities is to damage the story for those of us who enjoy it as-is, and to insult the creator by asking them to bastardize their vision because you feel some type of way.
This should not be viewed as acceptable.
5 Likes
No it doesn’t. You don’t need to be coddled, and you don’t need your feelings protected. This banter is, at the very worst, P-13.
Now for the obligatory eye roll gif to the cancel culture post:
5 Likes
Either all it’s ok to remove or none of it it’s ok.
Blizzard should either remain consistent with their facade, or restore the things they’ve changed.
2 Likes
That is not the first thing that I thought of. I thought more of how certain species play with their food before eating it.
4 Likes
They thought he was like a ken doll, they were going to dress him up and place house. Duh.
Think op is seeing sexual assult where there isnt any…
A banshee is a ghost a harpy eats humanoids the hunter toys with its prey. And being stripped down to be at mercy of the elements is psychological and physical torture.
I dont see why nudity to anyone immediantly = rape… This seems to be a jump to conclusions to be outraged and make claims that are not verified.
Either way its a story and things happen that are not always sunshine and joy. Bad things happen in war stories and just because they offend shouldnt be grounds to remove.
Indeed blizz should stay consistant…but the fact is their other removals were pretty equally as meaningless and dont do anything to fix anything its pandering to the easily offended and outraged who have nothing better to do then nitpick at everything always.
2 Likes
It’s part of an entire, entitled culture that demands the world conform to their desires.
People like this have the audacity to watch a comedy special and demand changes rather than turn it off. Or go into a group gathering and demand the group change their ideals to fit the entitled individual.
2 Likes
Your interpretation is unacceptable because it doesn’t forward an agenda. Lol.
1 Like
Cleary they didn’t play skyrim.
Dawnstar sanctuary, the dungoen.
Vanilla they wear underwear only. MOdded with say CBBE au naturaral settings…birthday suit.
I don’t hit up my dungeon for sexual based kicks. I got 4 empty black souls gems. I got 4 guests. I leave the dungeon with 4 now filled black soul gems…
2 Likes
If it was all harpies I’d get it. But if it’s a harpy and a banshee, banshees aren’t scrwing anything. They might kill it, torture it, or possess it. But that’s about the extent that a ghost in this game is going to do.
I know I’m quibbling. I also know that the reverse situation with a woman would be taken a different way and very poorly. However, we tend as a society to default to the assumption that only guys do that stuff (regardless of reality), and so it is well within the realm of believability that the writers didn’t see anything sexual in it when they wrote it.
I think you took this too litteraly. When I read this it didn’t make me think of rape. It made me think about torture.
Banshees can’t exactly have sex, so rape is out of the question for at least half of the party.
Not really up to your normal standards, Rhielle.
Just because he’s naked and his captors are talking about possibly playing with him before killing him does NOT automatically mean that the OP’s implication is correct. As a guy in real life who has mained a mage since 2007 and completed the quest in question, it was so not-obvious that I don’t even recall the quest existing, let alone being completed and causing me offence. I read it to mean the same thing as your parent telling you not to play with your food before eating it when you were a child.
I’m just trying to figure out the logic behind being offended by a single line of flavour dialogue by a very obscure, minor character accessible only to a subset of players who unlock that character in the first place and actually read the text in question but somehow not being offended by things like the Forsaken literally planting humans into the ground, up to their necks, and then having the player bash them over the head with a shovel.
Picking and choosing what to be outraged about makes zero sense. Either everything that’s objectively borderline or completely immoral IRL is something that should be changed, or it’s not. Morality isn’t an international border that has to meander and twist and turn to follow a waterway based on the values of the person judging the morality. If a mostly conservative group of people entering an extremely public building in an attempt to make their voices heard and property damage occurring are both unacceptable and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, then people spending the better part of a year rioting, vandalizing, looting, and burning their own cities (causing millions of dollars in damage and causing some businesses to go under) is also unacceptable and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Picking and choosing which moral imperative to enforce is hypocritical. There is only right, wrong, or some mixture of the two. But you can’t take two morally outrageous things and say one is horrible and should be changed but ignore the other because it’s fine because it doesn’t advance your agenda.
Camp Taurajo’s destruction, which led to Theramore getting nuked (IIRC), is equally criminal and morally reprehensible as Teldrassil getting nuked. But with that debate, Horde players essentially argue that killing thousands of civilians in retaliation for a couple dozen villagers at most is perfectly fine will have no problem defending the Horde bombing the school in Stonetalon Mountains, kidnapping pandaren children and using them to power demons, or Garrosh purposely committing genocide.
A specific set of actions is either morally and legally acceptable or not. Conversely, a specific set of actions is either morally and legally unacceptable or not. Even when not having an exact comparison to work with, using a similar set of facts does not alter whether a specific set of actions is morally and legally acceptable (this is a legitimate principle in common-law systems).
TL;DR: You don’t get to pick and choose what’s right or wrong. The same or similar things are either right or wrong, and not one wrong and one right. And ignoring the fact that the exact opposite opinion is equally possible as yours when the issue in question is not completely unambiguous is purposely arguing in bad faith, and that’s not something I’ve come to expect from you specifically.
3 Likes
I don’t know what this means and I don’t want to know.
TL;DR: try reading the entire thread instead of cherry picking one post. Because you missed the points being made entirely.
2 Likes
I agree that it’s a coping mechanism, nothing more.
I’m actually surprised you’re claiming her use of the word “Ha!” is disgusting and problematic instead of simply advocating the removal of, “without a stitch of clothing!”
While I have no issue of the portraits swap in Vanilla, I see nothing wrong with this quest whatsoever. It feels like you’re inserting meaning that isn’t there.
If she were making light of his predicament, why does she save him instead of really laughing, then telling him to “find his own way out of a mess of his own making.”
But she doesn’t do or say that, and there’s nothing in the dialog to to infer she thinks that, or thinks it’s funny. She saves him, while being mortified she has to free his naked self, and if that wasn’t humiliating enough, she’s got to tell her own humiliating trauma to you, a stranger.
As a female and professional actor and director, if I were reading that copy, in that situation at an audition, saying those words out loud explaining what happened to a complete stranger (your character), I’d be very uncomfortable, and likely make the same non-sequitor noise, trying to compose myself and Sgt Joe Friday (Dragnet) my way through the situation, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Unless I was specifically directed otherwise.
There’s not enough copy in a simple, “Ha!” To infer she’s laughing, or making light of anything. That’s how you’re personally choosing to see it. I don’t see it the same because there’s no evidence in the dialog.
There would need to be more verbiage making it clear she was actually laughing and making light of it for that meaning to be there such as I described above, or she’d be adding something to the effect of, “I could barely see through the tears of my laughter clear enough to free him from his bonds! I was laughing so hard at the situation, it’s a miracle I wasn’t captured as well, [and anything more than the word, “play” to insinuate it being sexual in any way:] I did make sure he wanted to be rescued because hey, who am I to judge? Haaaaaaaaa!” But she says nothing remotely like that.
Also, why are you assuming it’s sexual assault, instead of straight up torture?
Maybe we could ask Bush’s torture apologist who currently works for Activision-Blizzard what she thinks, considering all the naked torture that happened in Iraq & Afghanistan on her watch.
3 Likes
A woman saved him from SA, so he feels indebted. I personally don’t see how that’s an issue.
1 Like
Don’t worry about it 
its a good discussion to have regardless
1 Like
2 Likes