People who ninja for their companions

[Vecke]

At 50, I use my companion to do the dailies on Belsavis and Ilum. I can't use it in WZs or Operations. I haven't tried it in any HM FPs, but suspect that even in full Rakata gear it would fall short on the role I needed it to fill. So for me the question is do I roll need for that companion to shave maybe a few minutes off daily quests when an actual player could use that gear as an upgrade for his character? No.

 

That's fine, and it's a good way to look at it. I would do the same. But I'm saying the value of a companion is far greater for other folks. It's a fundamental construct in the game and was designed to be so. When bind will bind the gear to you AND your companion, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to assume need is appropriate.

 

To say that because it would trim off a few minutes of a daily as compared to another character's upgrade is just you (and me) placing a lesser value on the companion. If you and another person need the same gear for the same character (not a companion), do you ask that person how much the upgrade would be, then pass if their upgrade would be more than your upgrade? Or do you just roll need? Would someone rolling need be a jerk for rolling need, even if the upgrade would be better for the other person?

 

Other people value that companion much more and use it much more, and my point is that it's not some universal truth that they're wrong to do so. For players that don't do warzones and like to duo through FPs, that companion's gear is going to have a very high value to them. Probably a higher value than some people wanting it for their player character.

 

My only point is that the value of companion in regards to the player is different in this game, and it's unfair for us to judge and berate them based on the standards put forth in games that didn't have companions. This is a new thing.

[Magnijung]

I;ve used companions here.

 

I've run flashpoints with companions.

 

I don't do these, so they're irrelevant to me.

 

So is the rest of the gear that I get from flashpoints...I'm not really seeing your point.

 

the prospect of that doesn't frighten me. That's how most of my non-guild groups worked in eq

 

not that that's what we'd see...

 

eh, some people might; about the same number that need on stuff and say "oops, hit the wrong button" right now. Most people won't though.

 

So I see you haven't played in like a month since you haven't been able to use companions on Ilum for pvp in like a month. If your group gives consensus to use your companions rather than 4th member, do what ever you want.

 

Also it is apparent that you are do not care about general development of the structure in the game. You only care about the part that concerns you only. There is no point in arguing with you because any logic that I can provide, if it is not beneficial to you, you will not accept it.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Magnijung

[Irusan]

It's fairer than NBG.

 

I'd say that the fairest is the fractional loot system, where everyone gets tokens off of each boss equally, allowing you to buy whatever it is you want.

 

 

ther's nothing dim about it... maybe you mean "it's not the fastest way to try and gear anyone up" or something like that?

 

I'd say that speedy loot gain isn't an inherently good thing, but I think that's a bit tangential to the discussion at hand.

 

What I am saying is what I am saying. Fair and intelligent are not the same. Round Robin and Roll/Pass are both very fair. They are not efficient, faster, smarter ways to get gear for anyone. In other words, not the brightest choice.

[Vecke]

Let me be frank, on my Assassin, at level 50 the only thing that I have done with my companions is send them out to gather stuff and to see the their personal story play out. While leveling, my companions did not have a single piece of gear that dropped in a flashpoint. Usually my companion gear was never on par with my assassin or with the content I was doing. Yet, I got to 50 without much trouble.

 

Companions are important but they are not so important that you cannot manage to play the game without them. Furthermore, in flashpoints, in most cases, you do play without them. It is not like you can pull one out with an ability and he would help you heal the group, save the group of tank goes down or dps and help kill stuff faster.

 

Companions are primarily there for your solo play. On Ilum pvp, no companions. In flashpoints, no companions. In ops, no companions. Companions are there to help you to do missions and help you with crew skills. Basically they are there for the purpose of solo play.

 

Personally I do not have a problem with either systems as long as everyone knows which one it is. If we are rolling on gear for our companions, that's fine with me but tell that to your group and do you want to play where everyone will roll need on every single pieces of gear? I mean every one will roll need because there is no way to compare what pieces all your companions are wearing. That is not supported by the UI. I would say this is in anti argument but Bioware doesn't support anything UI department.

 

The majority of my playtime is with my wife, questing, duoing heroics, and seeing how far we can get in FPs. Often, our friend joins us, making a three-person group. Someone always use companions and those companions are very important to our daily gameplay.

 

Just because they're not important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to other people. And again, on the few occasions we pug, we ask the loot rules. And if - for whatever reason - we don't ask, we just roll greed for companions.

 

But my point is that we shouldn't assume rolling need for a companion is a jerk move. For many people, it's most certainly not a jerk move. It's usually that they don't know there's a "community standard" and they do what they see as the most logical thing. Unless they have experience in a pug, it's unreasonable to expect them to just know that you don't roll need when your companion needs it.

 

I agree with you (and have said in nearly every post) that the best action is to communicate with the group.

[Laokoon]

that seems pretty irrational to me.

 

Good, I'm glad. That was the point of my statement. To people who believe that you shouldn't need on an item unless you can use it, people who believe that you can need on an item if your companion can use it are "irrational" and unfair. To people who believe you should need on an item for your companion, my statement should be "irrational" and unfair. However, as everybody has been pointing out, it is just a difference of opinion. Your opinion is A, mine is B. Well, I just introduced opinion C. We both agree opinion C is unfair (I'm guessing you do). But if we are to say, "you can't say I'm wrong, because it is my opinion versus your opinion, and no opinion is more correct than another" then opinion C gets that same defense.

 

Hopefully you can do the boss without the tank, eh?

 

Actually, a majority of the time when the boss frenzies and is at low health, I could let the tank die and the rest of the group could finish the boss (due to the already low health). However, I don't because that is rude and inconsiderate. We worked as a team and we deserve to be rewarded as a team. But if the tank thinks its fair to take an item that can directly benefit me, and in turn the group as a whole since I would be a more effective healer, so that he can be indirectly benefited himself and the group isn't benefited at all, then I think it is fair to let the tank die and not get any loot. If the tank, or any role, doesn't want to be a team player, they are welcome to find some other group to run with.

 

 

So? you weren't more instrumental to beating that boss than the other player that was part of the fight, thus you don't deserve that item any more than they do.

 

I agree, I am not more instrumental in beating the boss than any other player. We are in agreement. I don't deserve "loot" any more than they do, I totally agree. What I *do* deserve more than they do is specific loot that can directly benefit me that cannot directly benefit you. If you and I both benefit from a certain piece, then neither one of us "deserves" it more. But if I am a Cunning class and you are a Willpower class and amazing willpower item drops, you should get it because it can directly help you, and thus the group as a whole since you do your job better, while I can only tangentially benefit by allowing my companion to use it, and give no benefit what-so-ever to the group.

 

 

No, it's more like "everyone has exactly the same chance to win the loot, which is inherently more fair than biasing the rules in any way"

 

I do admit, that from a perfectly objective standpoint, a perfectly random distribution of loot would be the most possible fair outcome. However, we are dealing with subjective standards of fair. If "everyone has exactly the same chance to win the loot, which is inherently more fair than biasing the rules in any way" then it should be okay for me to sit on the sidelines during a 16 man fight, not heal anyone or do any damage, and still get some loot from the fight, simply because the distribution is random. Does that sound fair?

[Irusan]

That's fine, and it's a good way to look at it. I would do the same. But I'm saying the value of a companion is far greater for other folks. It's a fundamental construct in the game and was designed to be so. When bind will bind the gear to you AND your companion, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to assume need is appropriate.

 

To say that because it would trim off a few minutes of a daily as compared to another character's upgrade is just you (and me) placing a lesser value on the companion. If you and another person need the same gear for the same character (not a companion), do you ask that person how much the upgrade would be, then pass if their upgrade would be more than your upgrade? Or do you just roll need? Would someone rolling need be a jerk for rolling need, even if the upgrade would be better for the other person?

 

Other people value that companion much more and use it much more, and my point is that it's not some universal truth that they're wrong to do so. For players that don't do warzones and like to duo through FPs, that companion's gear is going to have a very high value to them. Probably a higher value than some people wanting it for their player character.

 

My only point is that the value of companion in regards to the player is different in this game, and it's unfair for us to judge and berate them based on the standards put forth in games that didn't have companions. This is a new thing.

 

And this is exactly why I support the Companion Need addition to the roll. The popular counter-argument to that is that certain classes have companions that use the same stats as their main character, enabling them to "Need" roll when it's actually a Companion Roll. In doing this, they are overlooking the Companion Need option and in effect being dishonest. There is no cure for that. But I promise you I am not going to be dishonest on my rolls, and though I don't know you at all really I bet you aren't going to be dishonest about it either. And if someone is dishonest? It happens. We all have to live with our choices. We are often not punished for our sins, but we are always punished by them.

[Irusan]

People who don't punch people who ninja for their companions in the nose make me sick.

 

I am stealing this for my signature.

[Magnijung]

The majority of my playtime is with my wife, questing, duoing heroics, and seeing how far we can get in FPs. Often, our friend joins us, making a three-person group. Someone always use companions and those companions are very important to our daily gameplay.

 

Just because they're not important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to other people. And again, on the few occasions we pug, we ask the loot rules. And if - for whatever reason - we don't ask, we just roll greed for companions.

 

But my point is that we shouldn't assume rolling need for a companion is a jerk move. For many people, it's most certainly not a jerk move. It's usually that they don't know there's a "community standard" and they do what they see as the most logical thing. Unless they have experience in a pug, it's unreasonable to expect them to just know that you don't roll need when your companion needs it.

 

I agree with you (and have said in nearly every post) that the best action is to communicate with the group.

 

Well here is the deal. Jerk move does not stem from simple rolling need on gear for companions. The jerk move stems from continues rolling Need on gear for companions when the rule has not been established. Personally I do not care if someone rolls Need on gear for their companion while in the group with me as long as they do not roll Need on items that are class appropriate to and their companions. Basically their companion holds greater value than I. Seems kind of wrong.

 

At the same time if there is a possibility that I will lose rolls on gear that is appropriate for my class, I will need gear for my companions because now my character is less geared. Basically if I follow my set of norms, at the end of the run I can have no gear upgrades on my character and on my companions. Basically the norm that majority of the player base accepts is being undermined and for the majority of the player base it is a lose lose situation. So basically, either everyone accepts the norm which is not to roll Need on companion gear without the consensus of the group or the norm that majority follow needs to change. The main question, would it be better if everyone who played the game used the Need button 95-100% of the time? Would gave environment be better or worse?

 

In your case, it is not an issue. If you wanted you could just sell everything that drops. You are basically in your little universe and your wife and you are the gods there. The main questions stands is what is the proper behavior in a group of strangers?

 

Personally if I join a group and group leader is going through 2 dozen rules and regulations with dozen of subsections, I will leave. The run is not that complex and basic human decency can resolve most problems. Most problem that are not linked with 1 member trying to screw the group over because "it is just a video game." For now, you can ignore them and never group with them again. Future will be seen with how cross server lfg development progresses on Bioware's side. With x-lfg, the question is not if it will get implemented but when. Before community rules are established or after?

 

Oh and one incident of a newb rolling Need is not an issue.

 

Personally I really wish that Bioware would take a clear stance.

[Vydor_HC]

The majority of my playtime is with my wife, questing, duoing heroics, and seeing how far we can get in FPs. Often, our friend joins us, making a three-person group. Someone always use companions and those companions are very important to our daily gameplay.

 

Just because they're not important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to other people. And again, on the few occasions we pug, we ask the loot rules. And if - for whatever reason - we don't ask, we just roll greed for companions.

 

But my point is that we shouldn't assume rolling need for a companion is a jerk move. For many people, it's most certainly not a jerk move. It's usually that they don't know there's a "community standard" and they do what they see as the most logical thing. Unless they have experience in a pug, it's unreasonable to expect them to just know that you don't roll need when your companion needs it.

 

I agree with you (and have said in nearly every post) that the best action is to communicate with the group.

 

Nice to see your verbosity is back.

[Vecke]

And this is exactly why I support the Companion Need addition to the roll. The popular counter-argument to that is that certain classes have companions that use the same stats as their main character, enabling them to "Need" roll when it's actually a Companion Roll. In doing this, they are overlooking the Companion Need option and in effect being dishonest. There is no cure for that. But I promise you I am not going to be dishonest on my rolls, and though I don't know you at all really I bet you aren't going to be dishonest about it either. And if someone is dishonest? It happens. We all have to live with our choices. We are often not punished for our sins, but we are always punished by them.

 

I don't have a problem with this. Honestly, I've not had a problem with any level-headed reasonable solution presented on this thread - from both sides of the debate.

 

For the record, I'm not advocating that rolling need for a companion is how everyone should do it. I'm only saying that this is a situation where both opinions are quite valid (IMO). I'm not standing against people that think you should only roll need for player characters.

 

I'm just saying I fundamentally disagree with the "I am right and you are a wrong jerk" approach that I'm seeing come up in this thread. It seems like I'm defending the "need for companion" crowd more because blanket "you're a greedy jerk" statements are - more often than not - coming from the "greed for companions" crowd. I mean, the replies I'm seeing are downright vile.

 

Companions have changed the paradigm here just enough to where both sides actually make a good point. I think the "You should be punched in the nose" attitude is much more detrimental to the community than the "I think I should be able to roll need on companions" crowd.

[Irusan]

I don't have a problem with this. Honestly, I've not had a problem with any level-headed reasonable solution presented on this thread - from both sides of the debate.

 

For the record, I'm not advocating that rolling need for a companion is how everyone should do it. I'm only saying that this is a situation where both opinions are quite valid (IMO). I'm not standing against people that think you should only roll need for player characters.

 

I'm just saying I fundamentally disagree with the "I am right and you are a wrong jerk" approach that I'm seeing come up in this thread. It seems like I'm defending the "need for companion" crowd more because blanket "you're a greedy jerk" statements are - more often than not - coming from the "greed for companions" crowd. I mean, the replies I'm seeing are downright vile.

 

Companions have changed the paradigm here just enough to where both sides actually make a good point. I think the "You should be punched in the nose" attitude is much more detrimental to the community than the "I think I should be able to roll need on companions" crowd.

 

True, but it was still funny I thought.

[Magnijung]

I don't have a problem with this. Honestly, I've not had a problem with any level-headed reasonable solution presented on this thread - from both sides of the debate.

 

For the record, I'm not advocating that rolling need for a companion is how everyone should do it. I'm only saying that this is a situation where both opinions are quite valid (IMO). I'm not standing against people that think you should only roll need for player characters.

 

I'm just saying I fundamentally disagree with the "I am right and you are a wrong jerk" approach that I'm seeing come up in this thread. It seems like I'm defending the "need for companion" crowd more because blanket "you're a greedy jerk" statements are - more often than not - coming from the "greed for companions" crowd. I mean, the replies I'm seeing are downright vile.

 

Companions have changed the paradigm here just enough to where both sides actually make a good point. I think the "You should be punched in the nose" attitude is much more detrimental to the community than the "I think I should be able to roll need on companions" crowd.

 

There are 2 possible solutions:

 

1. Currency system. Every boss drops currency for all party members. That currency system can be used to purchase companion gear only.

 

2. Add additional loot table to all bosses that consists of only companion exclusive gear.

[jontyld]

My only point is that the value of companion in regards to the player is different in this game, and it's unfair for us to judge and berate them based on the standards put forth in games that didn't have companions. This is a new thing.

 

I've seen this response come up a few times, and I hate it. Unless someone tells you not to need on companions "because thats how its always been" its completely irrelevant. At best, it should prompt someone to reconsider the entire situation as a whole, where they could still develop the opinion/feeling that it is still wrong. Many people (myself included), actually thought for ourselves about it, and still feel that kind of behavior is rude.

 

My real issue with this is just people who will roll need on stuff for companions/mods and their group be damned. I think thats a selfish attitude, and not someone I'll spend anymore time with.

[Vecke]

Basically their companion holds greater value than I. Seems kind of wrong.

 

They aren't saying their companion is more important than you. They are saying that companions are equal to player characters. They consider neither of them to be you. It's a different perspective, but it's not a personal slight toward you.

 

The main question, would it be better if everyone who played the game used the Need button 95-100% of the time? Would gave environment be better or worse?

 

I personally hate the NBG system and I hate binding. I think looting had much less drama when everyone rolled FFA and if the winner had something you could use, you asked him for it. If he gave it to you, great. If not, his choice. Most people did give it to you, by the way. And there was no perception of "I'm entitled to this loot because I need it."

 

That's unrelated, though, because I'm not suggesting people hit need 95% of the time. I'm not - nor have I ever - suggested that everyone should roll need for their companions.

 

In your case, it is not an issue. If you wanted you could just sell everything that drops. You are basically in your little universe and your wife and you are the gods there. The main questions stands is what is the proper behavior in a group of strangers?

 

As I stated, when I pug, I roll greed for companions. I think I might have done a poor job of stating my position here.

 

Personally if I join a group and group leader is going through 2 dozen rules and regulations with dozen of subsections, I will leave.

 

"Loot rule: greed for companions" is not 2 dozen rules. It's 5 words that takes 3 seconds to type and 1 second to read, that would clear up any chance of confusion in the group.

 

Oh and one incident of a newb rolling Need is not an issue.

 

I suspect miscommunications happen more often than people doing it just to spite you or because they're being disrespectful.

 

Personally I really wish that Bioware would take a clear stance.

 

I agree.

 

 

I'm not advocating one stance over the other. I'm advocating that people stop assuming there's a universal righteousness to their opinion on this matter. In my opinion, both sides make some valid points when you weed out the inflammatory language and trolling.

[Nepumuk]

Amusing anecdote:

 

Recently I actually encountered the first incident of such a companion ninja clown.

 

We were three level appropriate Bounty Hunters and the jerk a 35 something Sorcerer in Athiss. First boss dropped orange Bounty Hunter legs and you would not believe it, without saying a word the scum just goes ahead selects need even after 2 of us already needed. I still have to laugh at the situation. 3 BHs, 1 Sorc, Sorc needs on BH gear. LOL!

 

Me: "Why do you need on Aim gear?"

Idiot: "I need it for Khem"

 

*facepalm*

 

After a little back and forth about basic loot etiquette, I had to ask him to leave as he did not agree. I could really not have it worded anymore non confrontational during the actual situation inside the flashpoint. On top of his other demonstrated social qualities he also turned out to be quite the pighead so I had to kick him.

 

After that we cleared the flashpoint with a companion equipped in quest gear and left overs as 4th.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Nepumuk

[ferroz]

Good, I'm glad. That was the point of my statement.

your point is that you should be irrational even though the people who need on companions are being completely rational?

 

To people who believe that you shouldn't need on an item unless you can use it, people who believe that you can need on an item if your companion can use it are "irrational" and unfair.

They haven't called it irrational; can you go into any detail why you think that's so?

 

Clearly it's not unfair; if they believe that they're just unclear on what the word "fair" means.

 

To people who believe you should need on an item for your companion, my statement should be "irrational" and unfair.

No, just irrational.

 

You're talking about intentionally griefing someone strictly because you don't like them by doing something that you acknolowedge is "rude and inconsiderate" That's pretty irrational.

 

However, as everybody has been pointing out, it is just a difference of opinion.

Oh no, it's not an opinion that allowing people to roll for companions is more fair than preventing it... that's a fact.

 

We agree that your griefing example is rude and inconsiderate. We don't agree that rolling need for reasons that player X doesn't approve of is rude and inconsiderate.

 

 

However, I don't because that is rude and inconsiderate.

I'm glad we agree.

 

If the tank, or any role, doesn't want to be a team player, they are welcome to find some other group to run with.

How is the tank not being a team player? He's tanking the mobs, not hitting vanish and laughing as they slaughter the group, etc.

 

The fact that he wants the same items as you doesn't make him "not a team player"

 

I don't deserve "loot" any more than they do, I totally agree. What I *do* deserve more than they do is specific loot that can directly benefit me that cannot directly benefit you.

No, that's a contradictory set of statements.

 

If you and I both benefit from a certain piece, then neither one of us "deserves" it more.

If you use cunning, and my primary companion (who's my healer) also uses cunning, we both benefit from a certain piece.

 

But if I am a Cunning class and you are a Willpower class and amazing willpower item drops, you should get it because it can directly help you, and thus the group as a whole since you do your job better, while I can only tangentially benefit by allowing my companion to use it, and give no benefit what-so-ever to the group.

No, I think that whoever wins the item should get it. I may not even roll on it, depending on what it looks like.

 

 

However, we are dealing with subjective standards of fair.

Subjective standards of fairness clearly aren't as fair as objective standards of fairness. That seems almost tautological

 

If "everyone has exactly the same chance to win the loot, which is inherently more fair than biasing the rules in any way" then it should be okay for me to sit on the sidelines during a 16 man fight, not heal anyone or do any damage, and still get some loot from the fight, simply because the distribution is random. Does that sound fair?

I'm pretty sure that the everyone in that context = "all of the players who participated in the fight" ... that's the stance that he's taken the whole time. I was just paraphrasing, and figured that was well known at this point in the thread. Based on that, I'd say that your example (Mr sideline) doesn't meet his criteria of "everyone" but the guy who rolling need on gear for his companion does.

 

Beyond that: I personally don't have any problem with mr sideline. I did content in EQ where someone was required to stand off to the side to not draw additional aggro (plane of sky I think, for the warrior epic); he had to stand on the sideline to not chain aggro more stuff. It was easier for us to down it and then let him loot the item he needed after we won.

 

I'd say that either way, it's kind of a moot point, since you're unlikely to find people who will do 16 man raid content who don't load up extra loot rules and go over them in detail when the group starts.

Edited February 23, 2012 by ferroz
clarified a few things and fixed a broken quote tag.

[Vecke]

Nice to see your verbosity is back.

 

Thanks.

[Magnijung]

I'm not advocating one stance over the other. I'm advocating that people stop assuming there's a universal righteousness to their opinion on this matter. In my opinion, both sides make some valid points when you weed out the inflammatory language and trolling.

 

Issue exists. Stance must be taken. Arguments need to be provided. I agree with what both sides are saying but I am stating my argument and the conclusion that has developed from the argument.

 

Why would I make an argument and then say "discard everything I said because I agree with both sides?"

[souloferdrick]

After 350 plus pages now, BW has enough fodder here to understand that nothing should be done with the current implementation of the roll system.

[Vecke]

Issue exists. Stance must be taken. Arguments need to be provided. I agree with what both sides are saying but I am stating my argument and the conclusion that has developed from the argument.

 

Why would I make an argument and then say "discard everything I said because I agree with both sides?"

 

Again, I'm doing a poor job of presenting my point. I'm not saying you shouldn't express your opinion on the matter. You should. And people that disagree should post theirs.

 

My goal is to show the validity of the counter argument, not to show that the counter-argument is right.

 

In this thread, I've seen a ton of people that say (and believe - they aren't trolling) that anybody who rolls need for a companion is a terrible person. They use words like "Greedy Piggy", "Grade A ***hole" , "Jerk" and many other more colorful metaphors.

 

And again, they're not trolling. They're not insulting people on the forums just to be inflammatory. They really believe this about anybody that rolls need on a companion, all the way to the point of saying they would punch this person if they could.

 

My point is that this is a very unfair approach to have and is worse for the community than rolling need for companions could ever be. You disagree with the philosophy, I'm all for you stating it. Be as passionate about it as you want.

 

But your stance isn't universally true. It's an opinion. And it's not an admission that you're wrong if you admit it's just an opinion. I admit that constantly, and even admit that others make good points, even if I disagree. I still debate my side, though.

 

But I never presume there's some universal truth to my opinion. I'm arguing against the people that act like their opinion is absolutely true and make these blanket statements about people that disagree. I'm not talking about you, by the way. Just explaining who it is I'm arguing against.

[owenthorn]

First point

 

Nothing in this game "belongs" to you

 

Second point

 

You do not make rules in this game for anyone but yourself

 

got it yet???

There is no "ninja", why?? See point one

 

Do not like the fact someone rolled need against you??? See point One, then see point two

[Magnijung]

My goal is to show the validity of the counter argument, not to show that the counter-argument is right.

 

 

I do not understand this part. Why is it your goal to show validity? Shouldn't validity stand on the grounds of the poster's logic and argument?

[souloferdrick]

My real issue with this is just people who will roll need on stuff for companions/mods and their group be damned. I think thats a selfish attitude, and not someone I'll spend anymore time with.

 

How is that argument (albeit grossly misrepresented) any different from those who believe that gear should not go to companions? Its the same stinkin' argument: I want the loot for X and I want the loot for Y.

[Magnijung]

First point

 

Nothing in this game "belongs" to you

 

Second point

 

You do not make rules in this game for anyone but yourself

 

got it yet???

There is no "ninja", why?? See point one

 

Do not like the fact someone rolled need against you??? See point One, then see point two

 

Oh I like you. Basically do what ever you want and every thing in the game that is not yourself is an NPC.

[owenthorn]

Oh I like you. Basically do what ever you want and every thing in the game that is not yourself is an NPC.

 

Are you even aware what the thread is about???