Well, he does imply he has a guilty conscience; he's just also saying he can live with it.

The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

It's an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).

There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren't all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say "hello".

The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.

Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.

^Yes,^ ^I^ ^am^ ^aware^ ^I^ ^am^ ^a^ ^basic^ ^bitch.^

(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it's worth getting through to the ending.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it's just ok, in P:T and FNV it's just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn't even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that's something that is important to you, then it's worth to keep that in mind.

Gr8 argument m8!

Should be pretty clear if you actually bothered to read it, but I'll spell it out for you: P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E-S; and overall people who acknowledge the experiences of women that this is supposed to highlight. And I am also on that side, I just think you're doing an absolute shit job of it, being needlessly discriminating, and creating division - as I already explained.

Yeah, god forbid people get angry when others make sexist remarks! They must be real misogynists for not liking sexism!

If you replaced the "man" with "black man" or "black person", or if someone said this with immigrants, it wouldn't need to be explained to you or anyone why this is a pretty fucked up thing to say, but for some reason when it's just "man" it's okay and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, according to you. If I made a general frustrated remark about women, plenty of people would take issue with it, and I don't think you'd would be saying "it wasn’t meant to be a debate, it was meant to illustrate a point", would you?

How about just stop using sexist rhetoric? There are a lot of people on your side who would agree with you if you just dropped the needlessly sexist and divisive rhetoric.

And before you get there - and if not you then I'm sure someone will think of saying it - yes, it's true that the world and system we live in isn't as hostile to men as women, black people, and immigrants, but progressive spaces definitely tend to be the opposite. And believe it or not, that actually has an effect with pushing younger men into the arms of the alt right; you can insult them and just call them fascists if you like, but that doesn't change the reality that young hormonal men going into progressive spaces and seeing this kind of rhetoric will feel excluded, pushed out, and like the world is against them.

Maybe keep reading:

By the post-World War II period and its economic consensus and expansion, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to orthodox Marxism. They shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform as a compromise between capitalism to socialism.[108]

In Britain, the social democratic Gaitskellites emphasized the goals of personal liberty, social welfare, and social equality.[111] The Gaitskellites were part of a political consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, famously dubbed Butskellism.

You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries. Here, also from wiki. I can tell you here in Portugal we have 2 parties which, according to the wiki, are also Social Democratic parties, and they are also the only two parties who have ever been in power. I can tell you first hand, I live in a capitalist system. According to the wiki, the UK's Labour Party "is a political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as being an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists", do they seem socialist to you? And before you claim that they are because "they also have democratic socialists", that would mean that by transitive property, USA's Dem party is a socialist party. I guess the USA is socialist after all!

The two main avenues are slow change through existing means and violent revolution. The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don’t already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I’ve ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

Applied in practice it means that the period of the actual revolution, the so-called transitory stage, must be the introduction, the prelude to the new social conditions. (...)

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone. Witness the tragic condition of Russia. (...)

It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that revolution is in vain unless inspired by its ultimate ideal. Revolutionary methods must be in tune with revolutionary aims. The means used to further the revolution must harmonize with its purposes. In short, the ethical values which the revolution is to establish in the new society must be initiated with the revolutionary activities of the so-called transitional period. The latter can serve as a real and dependable bridge to the better life only if built of the same material as the life to be achieved. Revolution is the mirror of the coming day; it is the child that is to be the Man of To-morrow.

• Emma Goldman, Afterword of My Disillusionment in Russia

A few things to address:

1. There is plenty of room between "Social Democrat" and "Tankie"; and social democracy is still capitalism. I don't know exactly what idea you have of Europe, but we're not free from corporations.

2. I don't know if that is what you are implying, but accusing Biden of supporting genocide does not make someone a tankie. Plenty of countries have condemned Israel and accused Israel of genocide or "committing genocidal actions", are all of them "tankies"?

3. Republicans are (for the most part) Liberal Conservatives, the Dems (for the most part) are Liberal Progressives. They are all capitalists. Biden vs Trump has nothing to do with this conversation.

Read up on the Paris Commune, read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, read up on the anarchists from Manchuria. Those are just the bigger ones I can think of from the top of my head, but there are plenty more (usually smaller scale) examples. Also, read David Graeber's work, especially The Dawn of Everything like another user suggested.

The common point of failure for those, was being a smaller entity that was surrounded and attacked by imperialist forces; some of which received help from other, more powerful, imperialist forces that had a vested interest in these groups failing.

I'm trying to remain cordial and nice, but it's quite difficult when it seems like usually the people claiming "no viable alternatives have been shown to work" have never actually looked into any alternatives; it hardly feels like good faith argumentation.

When I studied Computer Engineering, I met several other students who had a lot of trouble using the Windows file system, and navigating a file system through a terminal was a Herculean task for them.

Most people growing up now, and since over a decade ago, are only tech savvy in the sense they know how to use smartphones, tablets, and social media; none of those require any understanding of file systems, and even using desktops doesn't really require it that much for most people.

I was gonna make this a reply, but I guess it fits as a general comment.

There will always be some excuse to maintain the status quo.

In the USA people say it's because of "first past the post"(*). But in Portugal there is no such thing. We have a parliamentary system (technically semi-presidential, but for practical purposes parliamentary) but somehow people still find an excuse to always maintain the status quo. Since we've been a democracy (49 years), only two parties have ever been in power. Before the last elections, we had 9 parties in parliament. After several decades of incompetence, and everyone complaining about how corrupt the system and politicians are, the same party won the last elections with a majority vote, and now we have 8 parties in parliament. Basically, we're not too far from a two-party system.

This happens because there's always some excuse to compromise; in my country, the excuse/logic to rally behind the centrists and put them in power is something like "look how much the extreme right is growing, we have to keep them at bay! Plus, the other parties are probably as bad and corrupt anyway!", with the expression "useful vote" thrown around a lot. Never mind the fact the far right are growing due to the incompetence of the people currently in power, and that, being a parliamentary system, a vote for any non-right wing party already works to keep the right at bay. And the cherry on top is how everyone gas lits themselves with "the other parties that never had any power are probably as bad and corrupt as the parties that have been in power for decades and which we know for a fact are bad and corrupt".

This isn't very eloquently written, but hopefully the point comes across: some people always expect you to "compromise" with them by doing exactly what they want, while they don't compromise at all; and some people create a self full fulling prophecy by convincing themselves from the start that there are no other options. I can't speak 100% for the USA because I don't understand the system as well, but at least in my country the reality is that if everyone actually voted for the people they most align with, we could still keep the right at bay and not put all the power in the hands of the "moderates".

(*)but, unless I am massively mistaken, if a third party gets enough votes they will still get seats in parliament which should still give them power, or at least still take power away from another.

"We can't make our own phones, so there's literally nothing we can do!"

Do you have a plant based diet, or try to reduce meat consumption to the best of your abilities?

Do you walk or take public transport when you could walk?

Do you avoid buying things you do not need?

If you answered "yes" to all that, then congratulations! You are part of a different 1%, and you are also just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you answered "no", then you're part of the problem. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but you are one cog that keeps the system going. The system isn't magical, other wordly, or some fundamental law of the universe. The system is people and their choices.