Kate.<br/><br/>If I say that your car's brake lines are cut, I'm not insulting your ability to drive.  If you choose to get all worked up about my insulting your driving when I point out your brake lines are cut, that's not my problem.<br/><br/>If I point out that the core game systematically screws Fighters and dual-wielders, I'm not insulting your ability to roleplay or write a character.  I'm stating the objectively provable status of the system.  That you choose to take it personally is not my concern.  If you then come back with strengths that actively defy the rules themselves, and I point out that the system factually does not work that way, I am not insulting you.  I am stating facts.  If you choose to be insulted by fact-based discourse, to take reality as a personal insult, that is not my problem.<br/><br/>And if you make a point, you are<em>always</em>opening yourself up to a counterpoint.  This is the basis of logical discourse.  To make a counterpoint is distinct from making a personal attack.  Further, all opinions are subject to logic.  Even the most subjective of subjects can still be analyzed rationally.  All opinions must have a logical basis with supporting evidence and premises in order to hold any weight.  If an opinion does not have such support, one is free to hold it, but it carries no weight, and that opinion is still as subject to reason as any other.  To dissect and refute that opinion is not a personal attack.  It is not bickering.  It is not being disagreeable.  It is the basis of logical discourse.<br/><br/>I never said I cannot abide your character, either in terms of background or mechanics.  I merely sought to avoid a common point of contention that often arises when you have a Tome of Battle character next to conventional melee, in that ToB tends to upstage the alternatives precisely because the game systematically screws conventional melee up until ToB.  I was looking out for your ability to enjoy the game as well as my own.  To have a melee character who<em>isn't</em>systematically screwed while not upstaging the folks who are.  In case you hadn't noticed, having Benny in the same group as Joshua was actually the bigger concern, as Joshua's more of a two-handed slaughter type build, same as Benny (though I don't know what houserules were passed modifying his Paladin, so I don't know what they'll do long-term).  This never became a point of contention.<br/><br/>D&D is a game.  A game is meant to be played.  There is no sin in actually playing and considering the game.  It in no way cheapens the roleplay or ruins immersion.  The fun of playing the game stems from actually being able to play the game.  I can have fun and immersive roleplay without any system at all; I play D&D when I want to actually play D&D while having my fun and immersive roleplay.<br/><br/>I have not spoken a word against the quality of Nara as a character.  I say now that Nara is annoying, yet this is not an insult.  Nor, in this case, is it a fact.  This is an observation about a character aspect, and one on which most characters appear to be acting upon.  "Annoying" and "chatty" are valid character aspects.  To possess these aspects is not a diminishing of character in any way.  To point them out is not an insult to the character in any capacity.  And to take offense at the observation is baseless.<br/><br/>Not once have I insulted you, no matter what grounds you present me, even now as you hurl insults at me and my character.  Rather, you choose to insult yourself, to take personal offense at statements that have nothing to do with you.  That is not my problem.<br/><br/><br/>Anyways, as for the sexual aspect of the game, Benny's inability to get any is a part of the character.  It's more interesting to keep her frustrated constantly than to resolve those frustrations.