By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.

You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.

BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.

To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.

I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.

TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.

Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.

I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.

If he’s so smart, why is he dead?

Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.

“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.

Why does it matter if you’re not a Republican if you espouse their talking points? Does it make you special that you’re not a Republican?

Sorry that you’re either too angry or too dumb to have gleamed that insight. It offered commentary on your logic, that being that you don’t know or don’t care about the inconsistencies, both of which mean debating you is pointless because you’re either an idiot or a bad actor, so why bother?

Lol you all find yourselves special because you are not a “Republican”

Ohh p.s. I’m not Republican

The irony is lost on you.

I love Lejolas and Jimli’s gokes.

They didn’t, otherwise there’d be one less, they’d be wider, flatter, and the tray picture wouldn’t be from an amazon listing.

Also W.

Asking “Why would you do X?” implies heavily that had they not done X, the situation wouldn’t have happened. It is victim blaming.