EvilGeko

There's other things. A Power path character could believe themselves a hero, but they aren't. At best they are a loyal companion and officer, a glory hound, a warrior for the cause (of tyranny).

Great rogue path, but like Han Solo, you got to make a choice to save the Wookie at some point.

Can I get you a refill on that Enriche sir?

The character I did it with was. Hell, that mission made me feel so bad, it scared him straight!

When I did that mission, I felt sick at being praised by that monster.

I agree, I haven't had this much fun arguing about the game in years!

No, that's a misspelling, you didn't mean the internet meme "refudiate" which requires someone to give up their ideals. You were using a form of the base refute. Incorrectly, I might add. The context betrays your dissembling. And you have the gall to call someone out about grammar.

And typo or not, it's still a grammatically incorrect use of punctuation.

Because you're wrong. Cole is immortal. You all have provided no means by which his government is to be defeated. Ergo, he will be in power forever. Whether you all will ACCEPT what you're arguing for or not is irrelevant.

You've bought into the central premise of Cole's rule; that safety justifies tyranny.

The creation of the ghouls, the enslavement of the Seers, the torture and the experiments, those should have been "event horizons" for the Loyalists. Any decent person should have turned away then.

This is correcting spelling and grammar:

"Except" should be set off by a comma in the first sentence since you used it as a transitional;
You used a semi-colon instead of an apostrophe in the contraction "couldn't";
And refutation is how it's spelled.

I'm not really sure what you did!

BTW - it's not the extermination of humanity. It's the destruction of the capital city. The head of the snake as it were and a legitimate military objective if you're trying to overthrow the government.

Understood.

That's just plain fantasy. Washington, Kang (although he later sees the error of his ways), Whitworth, McKnight, Tilman and Anti-Matter are all devoted to the regime.

By your own admission, you haven't even played all the arcs, please take the time to so that you know what you're talking about. And please learn what a straw-man argument is before accusing someone of it.

EDIT: Re-reading this, I'm thinking you might be talking about players instead of in-game characters. If so I apologize. But then, I'll also ask, "What is the right way?" Because you all say that, but offer no specifics.

The Resistance doesn't want to kill everyone. Just Cole and his Praetors and all that follow them whether armed or not! *evil cackle*

I just want to focus on this, because this is the key point. Are you saying that leaving the tyrant in place, allowing freedom to die, and having humanity forever being subject to an immortal dictator is the preferable course?

Because, you did not offer a contrary strategy. You seem to recognize the futility of attacking the regime directly. I must agree. I've actually given some thought to how the resistance could do this and not harm any innocent people. I can't think of anything that would work. This was a frightening thought to me as well.

Yes, they most certainly do. Their utopia is built on the blood and bones of children. All people have a responsibility to stand against that.

Yes, they most certainly do, because they support a government who kidnaps others because of who their friends are or what their friends and family say.

YES, they most certainly do, because their sworn duty is to support a brutal dictatorship.

We don't know that. Free societies tend to be safer and more prosperous. It's interesting, but Praetoria isn't much a utopia. It has anarchist in the streets blowing things up, a criminal underground moving to subvert the government and an armed militia in an insurrection. At the same time you have a tyrannical government that's a threat to anyone who happens to be considered a "threat."

I'm not seeing what's worth saving there.

Of course, they warned the people about Cole. They do it all the time. They've been trying for years to get these people to wake up to the evil that's all around them. To their credit, many people have woken up. But others are completely loyal to their safety. So if they only thing they are loyal to is their safety and they're willing to give everything up for it (including the safety and lives of others) then the only thing left to take away is their safety.

I guess I don't understand. Cole and his monsters created the Clockwork and armed these robots, the Resistance is just turning the weapon the other way.

Cole's golden boy, Neuron created the Ghouls and set them against the Resistance. The Resistance is just turning them back on the society that created them.

As for the nuclear strike you all get so incensed about, it's Cole's nuke. Again turning his weapons against his perfect society.

This is a war. No I don't think the Crusaders are nice people, no I don't think they are paragons of virtue. They didn't get to live in a world that allows that. They got to be born into a world where an immortal with superpowers and his band of other super-powered thugs decided that they get to rule the world. And so, while I lament what they do, I certainly understand it and can even understand how one could turn to these extreme actions.

Scott got the bad luck to be born into a world where his wife was taken from him and when he complained about it, his hero threw him in jail. Yes, he's hostile and angry and probably wants to blow some stuff up. I would too, if I were him.

By contrast, Cole. What the hell is he so mad about? Sure he got a nuke fired at him, but he got to walk away from it. Why does he have the right to create a government with secret execution chambers, brutal, corrupt police, telepathic slaves, and human experimentation.

I can't side with that. I can't understand why anyone would. I CAN AND DO understand why you have no sympathy for a society that accepts this. I CAN AND DO see that such a society is better off destroyed than allowed to perpetuate that evil.

OK, let me ask you this then. What should the Resistance do? How should they fight? They are a demonstrably weaker force against an enemy with more troops (including supers) and more resources.

Should they simply roll over and let Tyrant control everything? Don't tell me "work within the system." That's not a reasonable option. Cole is a dictator and he's immortal. He's not going anywhere unless pushed. How do you do that without anyone innocent getting in the way?

Calvin Scott did not form the Resistance. See when you all say stuff like this, I have a hard time believing you've actually played these arcs.

Question: Is your Responsibility path "hero" TRULY loyal to Cole and his regime? As opposed to being someone like Cleopatra who tries to subvert the excesses of the system.

Because for me, that's the rub. You simply cannot be a good person and support that government. For really all the reasons you say that the Crusaders are evil, I say that the loyal responsibility path character is. There are some things that you just cannot support and be a good person.

You cannot support the Seer program and be a good person. There is not one thing about Praetoria that is more evil. How can a person deal with Tilman and not be utterly convinced of that is beyond me.

Interestingly enough, I have a hard time seeing how any sane person could side with the Responsibility Loyalists.

The Crusader missions must have shocked you so much that you didn't actually pay attention to what's going on. The Crusader didn't create the ghouls, the Praetorians did and unleashed them in the underground to terrorize the Resistance. Had you bothered to finish playing the missions you would have learned what finally happened between the Crusaders and the Ghouls.

Actually, I read about this game a lot, and honestly, this isn't nearly as praised as you all make it out to be. In fact, there are a number of problems with a game offering nearly all of its visual rewards upfront.

However, I'm going to fight my desire to argue because I'm accomplishing nothing more than bumping this thread and giving this awful idea more visibility.

It removes a money sink. Not every player has dozens of costume tokens, vet discounts or day job badges. Any money sink in this game is desirable.

Got no problem with the devs selling more costume slots. DO have a problem with them giving them away as it takes programming time away from other things for what is at best a minor QoL improvement.

And citing Champions Online in support of any idea probably does more harm than good.

Bull. This has nothing to do with a timesink. It has to do with an completely unnecessary UI change for the small number of people who can't be bothered to fix their own problem.

The clothes horses buy the packs anyway. Now if you're suggesting that they add an additional $10-20 charge for each additional costume slot, then I would agree.

Otherwise, this is completely unnecessary and undesirable to the game element of the game. Sure we have many ways of cutting into the tailor costs, but not everyone has the vet rewards/day jobs/15,000 free tokens.

So the devs should find the time to change the UI to accommodate additional costumes for the small number of people for whom going to the tailor for a couple of minutes is a major hardship?

OK. Still /unsigned, completely unnecessary and removes a money sink from the game. The means to have as many costumes as you want on one character already exists.