Hyltol Descriptions Not Sensible?

Okay, so I know it's a very minor thing, but I find it odd that Hylotl still act like they are of a strictly vegetarian nature when describing certain crops and with their cultural food. It seems like Hylotl lore depicts them as valuing all forms of life so this vegetarian nature is so they do not kill. The thing I have to ask is how that position makes any sense when the Hylotl we play as is slaughtering creatures by the dozen and therefore getting raw meat. In what way does wasting said meat seem more humane than to kill somehting and just throw the meat away.

I know there are exceptions in every culture (and there's a particular Avian NPC line that acknowledges that Hylotl can eat meat) but its hard to take that view when the descriptions are so specific (Avians MUST be atheist, Florans MUST be savage, Hylotl MUST be vegetarian, etc). What are your thoughts on the descriptions that seem to choose our character's personality for us?

 

I look at it as that is stereotypes for each race. While it doesn't hold true for everyone, it holds true for the majority of the race.

 

I think that the lore I have seen so far ,as is, provides an interesting and severe dichotomy which also allows for some very interesting gray areas. Lore can be observed as established history that describes typical behavior, but as players we have the freedom to interact with and influence this universe as we see fit.

 

Highly off topic, but "Avians must be Atheist"? Avians are fanatically religious, I don't even...

Anyways, the descriptions are just generalizations. Obviously not everyone adheres to cultural norms, even in real life.

 

Player character Avians are almost exclusively athiest, and they're on the run because they'll be executed for not being a fanatical Kluex worshipper if they stay on their homeworld.

 

I mean the Avains that are player controlled.

My point isnt that the lore are generalizations of the race, it's clear that in some cases the lore is left open so that you can choose if it defines your character, however, the descriptions seem to betray that idea and choose your character's beliefs for you. Not all the time, but often enough. I don't have a problem with most descriptions, but I do have a bit of an issue with a few of them that suggest I have to take a certain stance on something.

I also have kind of an issue with the player Avians being exclusively atheist after finding myself in a grounded settlement and reading a codec entry about an avian that hid his beliefs because his wife was atheist, and he wonders when he'll abandon his religion entirely. I'm not saying the psycho-Kluex worshippers (aka those snipers in the temples) are preffered lore-wise, but I wish we could have a little bit of elbow room so that we aren't forced into either the "religious zealot" or the "super-atheist" camps.

 

I don't think you're looking at it right. I don't think a Hylotl would say... Kill a passive creature for fun with that attitude. But if one attacked them and they killed it in sense defense I could see them not eating the meat still and "Wasting" it as them not wanting to defile the body of another creature. And instead let it rot and pass on as natural as possible in the circumstances self defense would of forced.

 

Meh, that's a fair point.

But then again, there's no way for them to know you're with or against their faction, without actually implementing a faction system.

Hopefully that is something they will do later down the line.

 

@AmerikanRejekt I didn't say I wanted different possible descriptions to suit almost everyone, just that I'd prefer a more neutral stance that allows room for the player to develop their own personality. For instance, why can't Avian players be given the backstory that they are currently questioning the existence of Kluex rather than automatically being an atheist? Their quesitoning of it explains why they are allowed in grounded settlements and despised by the guards in temples, but the player can still choose.

Also I said I knew this is a very minor concern, and I'd rather have more content/bugfixes, especially because it is beta and this is not important. No reason for you to get enraged over someone elses' opinions.

 

I'm not enraged, I just get antsy whenever I detect even a hint of desire for tool-tip fixes to be prioritized over content/bug fixes. I'm very impassioned when it comes to gameplay v. lore.

I don't see a reason why you had to get my comment deleted, though. It's not like it wasn't on-topic.

 

I think the savage Floran thing is more generally racial then, not, because, well... it seems like the Florans just haven't evolved mentally to the point of having an 'intellectual' Floran is... implausable? and even a floran 'scientist' (Cause someone has to reverse engineer that salvaged tech) would still think on lines 'Floran take Angry Pewpew gun and make so Floran make more to challenge USMC and take prey!' and shtuff.

The others I'm more, kinda in agree-ance on? Having some 'back ground' option that changes the little nuancy flavor of the examine dialogue would be pretty cool. (/the starter background lore)

 

You probably shouldn't assume such things. I didn't get your comment deleted, and it wouldn't have been had you been more civil.

 

According to the message I received in my inbox, someone complained about my comment. It's not really farfetched to assume it was you since it was directed at you. Regardless, I've put in my two cents. Done here.

 

Last I checked you weren't forced to "slaughter creatures by the dozen" - Grow plants. Defend yourself from hostile fauna. Done!

 

Because of pixel cost, you're pretty much required to kill things. And when a level 2 creature tries to attack me when Im going back to retrieve some items and I kill it in one hit, it's kind of a slaughter. That being said, what Rozy said does make sense if I chose to play that way.

@AmerikanRejekt True, but it's also not farfetched that using a lot of obscenities where it is uncalled for might be seen as distasteful to other people aswell. It's just best not to assume and then accuse someone of an action you cannot prove they took. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

I don't care for the player description specificity, myself. It really caught me off guard on my first playthrough.

And the atheism thing is just... strange for a sandbox game, you know? It really should be more up to the player.

This is a minority opinion, you'll find, though. I have no idea why. Because it's an indie game?

 

I repeat - DEFEND - YOURSELF.

I don't know about you, but I can't walk anywhere without being pounced on by a dozen or more hostile and bloodthirsty animals. Kill them dead - Loot their corpses.

Again - not against their philosophy in the slightest.

 

I can't really say what their philosophy is on that since I didnt find any Hylotl lore outside of descriptions and the initial lore that you're given. My point is, there's a difference between defending yourself from an alligator and an angry squirrel. You don't really HAVE to kill the squirrel even if it attacks you becaus eit isnt much of a threat, but you don't really have an alternative in starbound other than running away, into more angry squirrels. (I'm not saying we should have passive weapons at the start of the game, although a taser would be fun for PVP in later tiers, just pointing out the issues with the Hylotl philosophy in-game).