KINGARTHUR'S PROFILE

author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
goat is not wise enough to consent to anything. all goat can say 7s 'naaa.' that means no in goat and human.

My point was that nobody has a right to assume the opinion of another person (or a goat in this case, but it was an extreme example anyway), especially something like one's consent.

I certainly don't want people putting their words in my mouth, at least.

author=Muninn
Thus, to answer the question initially posed by redman45: While there is certainly merit to asking whether or not you want to have a main character who is a character in his own right or one who has no character written for him, there is another question that you should ask first: Do you need a main character in the first place?

To answer your question, we first have to ask what kind of RPG we're talking about. Are we talking about RPGs (aka wRPGs) where you are literally in the shoes of the protagonist and you are the protagonist (ie: Morrowind, Skyrim, Ace Combat, etc.)? Or are we talking about RPGs (aka jRPGs) where you simply follow the story of a particular character as it unfolds (ie: Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, Ar Tonelico, etc.)?

In regards to the first, a wRPG, no you don't need a "main" character. The absolute minimum required is a character for the player to fill the role of. Take Ace Combat, you don't even have a name beyond an arbitrary callsign and you are completely silent in-game beyond simple commands to your allies. Skyrim drops you in the shoes of the "dragonborn" but it's left up to you who that is and is, again, largely silent beyond dialogue choices you give in replies.

For the second, however, a jRPG would require a complete character to follow since you aren't "filling in" for the character, you're simply tagging along for the ride like a guardian angel and watching the story unfold from a 3rd-person POV. Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, and Ar Tonelico all follow a single "main" character throughout the story as we watch the protagonist interact with his surroundings in a largely hands-off/predetermined manner, with an occasional shift to a different character's POV in some things like cutscenes. Visual novels (the logical conclusion of the jRPG genre) take this to the extreme since their entire gameplay revolves around following the protagonist as his story unfolds almost completely without the player's interaction.

And then we have the odd mix between the two like Hitman and Grand Theft Auto, where you're following the protagonist not unlike a jRPG but also directly participating in their story like a wRPG.

Thus to answer your question of "Do we need a main character in the first place?" I ask you what type of RPG we are talking about. Different genres of RPGs require different levels of minimum characterization for the RPG to properly play out.

author=kentona
Actually, wouldn't the more correct answer be get VXAce? It seems almost the same as 2k3 in terms of features, except with a turn based battle system.

Except the OP mentioned RM2K3. RM2K(3) and RMVXA are completely different pieces of software, and between RMVXA and RM2K Value! the former latter relates much more closely to RM2K3.

RM2K Value! is also still being sold in stores too, so one can obtain it legally unlike RM2K3 or older versions of RM2K.

EDIT: Correcting myself, I must've had a brainfart when I wrote this or something.

author=alterego

author=KingArthur
You're misunderstanding the extent to which Freedom of Speech applies. Things like slander and threats are in fact looked down upon by society at large, this much we agree, and there are consequences for such behavior, but there is (and should be) nothing directly prohibiting me from slandering or threatening someone.

Mmh... I'm not sure if I follow. I'm not talking about people just giving you the stink eye, I'm referring to actually getting the police on your case if you threaten someone or if you incite to violence, stuff like that. Perhaps there should be nothing prohibiting people from doing it, but as far as I know there are laws about it, and while the line is set very high (for example, in the case of threats the harm must be deemed as "imminent" or something like that) there is one and most people will agree that there should be one.

All I'm saying is that everyone has the right to voice their opinions freely, regardless of the intentions being good or bad and regardless of the potential consequences.

The recent Islamic uproar regarding some crappy movie depicting Muhammad is a good example: Yes the movie ended up offending a whole crapload of Islamic people, but the people who made that movie are also guaranteed the right to create and publish their work under the right to Freedom of Speech.

author=Dyhalto
Fundamentally, I agree with you. I wish we could have a society where people would acknowledge the freedoms we have and use them responsibly, but humans are flawed and practical application has to be considered.
AE already mentioned situations where speech can be used to incite violence. The very nature of push is to become shove. Gang members talking trash is harmless, until it becomes a shooting war. Your own example of saying "KKK is awesome" then being lynched by a mob works against your own point. Freedom of Speech would protect your right to irritate and harass people, but you're also legally protected from their violent response, thus, no consequences for your abusive actions. Pretending that people will stop at verbal slander and never degrade to fist fighting is naive. Hell, common advice for dealing with bullies is to knock them hard on their ass.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like this hyper-politically correct society either. There's a balance to be maintained, and we've gone way off the deep end, but I'd rather see Freedom of Speech invoked to protect people who speak out against their government, than to protect shit-talking gamer kids.

edit : grammar correction of my own

While it's true that I would be protected from being lynched by a mob for saying that "KKK is awesome", I would still be treated appropriately for having said that (being viewed with disdane, for one) and I would face the consequences of my actions one way or the other.

That said, I'm glad we agree on the core principal of the matter. Freedom of Speech is a right that many people have shed their blood to achieve and maintain, a right that is so fundamental and essential to a well-functioning society that it is invaluable.

I just feel that given how hard-fought and priceless Freedom of Speech is, we shouldn't be so quick to compromise on that right, or even compromise at all, especially in exchange for "safety" of a person; Benjamin Franklin's quote again comes to mind, anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves neither.

Sometimes, I think many of us take Freedom of Speech for granted.

It's been a while since I've heard anything about ika, name's a bit nostalgic. Good luck developing this editor!