itch.io

Hi! I think I step into a bug (spoilers ahead).

I was looking for the plant to heal the caravan guy when I stumbled into some shrine that grants wishes, I asked a wish, finished the trial and got both wishes done... (I was a bit clueless on what the wishes actually were doing since at that time I had not met any "spirit" and didn't know about the "curse")

However, if I then collect the plant and enter the tent where the caravan guy is, there's no way for me to give the plant to the doctor and I can't leave the tent.

I'm guessing you need to give the plant to the doctor before lifting the curse. I'd suggest disabling the option to wish to remove the curse in the shrine until the plant is given to the doctor to avoid the lock. Also, I don't think the player knows about the curse at that point.

I can't comment on the "spirit" option since I'm not sure yet what the consequences of that are.

I think my character inserted some gem to get into the shrine, but I don't remember where I got that gem from or if I actually had it.

Other than this, congrats on the game! It's fun

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there.  I never implied they were equivalent, what I said is that stealing is an aggression also when you are stealing from social/public funds.

I don't think killing 1 person is equivalent to killing 100, but I would still say both are aggressions and I'd rather be defended against both situations.

The person I was replying to (Wulfgar_3D) assumed that stealing from someone was an aggression (to be defended against), but that it isn't an aggression to commit tax fraud (which as I illustrated, it's like refusing to pay after a purchase... or like not paying the rent , the electricity or the internet). For him,  defending against tax fraud IS what's "using aggresion against innocent people", and my point was to show that that's just hypocrisy.

Calling "innocent" to someone who doesn't want to pay for the police, at the same time as he wants to use "defensive force against agressors" is not making much sense, specially considering that you need police for such defense..

Someone who steals from private hands is as much of an aggressor/innocent as someone who steals from social hands.

Note that socialism is not about public (government-controlled) goods but socially owned  (community/cooperative/group-controlled) goods. ie. in this case you should compare it to someone who steals from your local community (let's say.. a building where the ownership is shared) something that belongs to a group or a collective. Not necessarily to the government.

You are probably gonna argue that it's not the same to take money from someone than to steal a good. But as a matter of fact, taking money from someone is what is done in every purchase. When someone takes a good from your shop without paying for it, you are actually forcing him to give you money in exchange, in the same way as you pay taxes in exchange from being able to be part of a community with its benefits and obligations. You can always emigrate to the United Arab Emirates or any other country without taxes if you don't want to be in a community that has taxes as part of its social contract established by "we, the people".

You can't expect to have the police defend you from stealing and at the same time refuse to pay the salary of the police (which in the USA it's publicly-funded with taxes, same as the army, the sewage, the garbage collection/treatment, and other "evil" social services).

Yeah, most European countries have what's known as "Social Market Economy" which is based on the free market. It's basically impossing socialist laws without changing ownership, just putting limits to the private hands. Because in the end it doesn't matter if the means of production are privately or socially owned as long as some social limits are impossed .This prevents huge monopolies from raising up and killing the small companies (in a way, protecting social welfare is the best way to protect capitalism).

Sadly, because US does not care so much about protecting social welfare, huge international companies based on the US rise up to eat up market, mess up with the competition internationally and more than once have clashed with the antimonopoly laws in Europe, or have to conform to things like the GDPR and other European social laws.

The fear the US has to socialism seems to have creeped into any kind of social reform, and any mention of social measures often gets automatically identified with communism as if they were equivalent. There's the irrational belief that it's impossible to have any form of social reform that doesn't lead to authoritarianism, and when presented with any possitive influence social reforms have had in any country (even in the US) they'll immemdiatelly attribute it to capitalism, or justify it saying that it's still capitalism, without acknowledging that it's thanks to those social reforms that capitalism (and economic competition) was healthy.