Theodur

I hate to plug my own work, but before now, my Jaheria was my favorite mod of her ever.

With that said, I might start using this one:

Oh. Oooooooh. That's absolutely amazing... love it! The skulls are superbly ironic on a druid... hmm, maybe she could be a necrodruid or something?

Secondly, If I want to play BG with a black lipstick wearing Minsc, give me one good reason why I shouldn't?

Hear, hear! I completely agree with what Jyzabyl said.

As a note, I wrote for Jaheira in the BG1 NPC Mod and am of course a great fan of said NPC, and rather passionate about all things involving that half-elven druid. I probably will not play with Jaheira's goth portrait myself - though I am very curious to see how her BG1 goth portrait will look like! - but to all people who want to use it, and will be using in conjuction with the texts I've written for her... urm, why shouldn't they be able to do so? I certainly won't feel personally insulted by the thought that someone somewhere plays the game 'improperly', the way it 'should have never been played', or whatever. I run *my* BG2 game with the mods *I* want, and I play it the way *I* want to play, everyone else should feel free to do the same and I will always support their rights to do so.

I understand that Coran leaves his wife some coin

Coran has/had a wife? I didn't know that, who is she?

Presumably because you've realised what a ridiculous statement it was, so you tried to throw up a smokescreen by introducing a completely different topic.

How is that statement ridiculous?

No, my argument is that it breaks the immersion which is essential to creating a convincing gameworld

Immersion. You're quite fond of that word, aren't you? I assume it also means something else to you than what it means for me. Probably 'Sim must be able to enjoy all parts of the game equally' or some such.

providing any sort of meaningful objection to my argument

You don't actually have any argument, other than fancily throwing around the word 'immersion'. Not to mention that there will never be united opinion on what is 'convincing gameworld'. If the appearance of the Spectator beholder makes the gameworld less convincing for you, all I can say is, well, tough.

Unless you're contending that it's arrogant to criticise ANY writing at all, in which case I invite you to return to the Attic and post "More please!" in as many threads as you can find.

Regardless of your fondness to tell other people what to do in their spare time, I will decide where to post for myself. Of course, if you'll extend the same courtesy to me, then I'll kindly invite you to return to PPG and perhaps do something worthwhile by perhaps fixing some of the still unresolved BG1 Tutu bugs.

Let me put it this way: I am not arrogant enough to declare Tolkien's writing to be of bad quality just because I don't particularly enjoy reading LotR.

But that doesn't seem to be anything to do with what I asked.

Really? Why is that, I wonder?

Your defence of BG2's comedy moments was "it's popular". And so, I'm still asking, do you think that serves as an adequate defence of writing quality?

If your argument against it is 'Sim doesn't like it', then yes, it's more than adequate.

You really think it's that arrogant to suggest that "Run, my furry brothers!  RUN!!" isn't neccessarily a great part of literary history?

So you consider the other parts of the game to be a great part of literary history, then?