Talk:Pathfinder

Should we know Pathfinder can have sex?

My opinion? NO. The source should still be in resources, yes, but you have to think that little kids see this. And I am not to sure that parents would like it if their nine year old asks them “Mommy? What is ‘sexual inter-coarce’?” I think the source should still be up, but is a bit to gross and to uncertain (hence the ‘might’) to be counted as trivia. To uncertain. You don’t know. To gross (who wants to think a loveable robot in a fun game can f***?) Azzazin (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If a mother allows her young child to play a violent video game then they have bigger problems then a random footnote in the associated wiki page.MrPeachie (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t change anything. Blood and sex are two different things. What you just said has nothing to do with my point. True, Apex is a bloody game, but the nine year old part was just one point. I honestly don’t care whether pathfinder can have sex, just don’t want it blatantly in the open. The source will still be there, just not the summary. Azzazin (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My point is that it is hardly our fault or our position to make sure things are safe for children that shouldn't be playing the game in the first place as it is rated T. It's not even plastered all over the page but literally in the last section. I get your intent that it seemingly sticks out but that is because it's the only trivia fact we have listed. I'm not a fan of hiding such trivial information because it MIGHT offend someone. MrPeachie (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, that’s not my only point. Great, one point is down. Still, it is disturbing to see that as the one and only thing. We may not need to hide it from nine year olds, and the link will still be there, but that being the one fact and being a gruesome one at that, doesn’t exactly strike me as wiki material. If you could explain this, let me know. Otherwise, I will be changing it. Azzazin (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, that’s not my only point. Great, one point is down. Still, it is disturbing to see that as the one and only thing. We may not need to hide it from nine year olds, and the link will still be there, but that being the one fact and being a gruesome one at that, doesn’t exactly strike me as wiki material. If you could explain this, let me know. Otherwise, I will be changing it. Azzazin (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Dang it! Sorry for the two responses, it said not saved so I tapped save again. Azzazin (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My question to you is how can you consider what is sufficient "wiki material" and what is not. Just because you find it gruesome doesn't make it not welcome on the wiki and hidden away. I think it should stay because it doesn't harm anyone and at most it suggests an allusion to something completely normal. I'd understand if this trivia bit was completely baseless but it is sourced. It's obviously not ever going to be 100% confirmed because that'd be a PR nightmare but it's obvious that the intent was for it to be a throwaway trivial joke.

If you don't like the fact that it's the only trivia bit on the page, I suggest finding and adding more trivia or just ignoring it. MrPeachie (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean if you ask me we shouldn't. But we do, and not including the information when we have it is kind of like censoring it.

Metafysika (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with you Meta. I agree with the last part Mr. peach. So, how about I just add some more useless trivia, and we just leave it there as a compromise between us three. Sound good? Azzazin (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello? Respond if you agree. Azzazin (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you've got some more trivia to add, that sounds great. But don't add "useless" trivia just for the sake of padding around the one thing we do have.
Mr Pie 5 (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Useless trivia? Like this subject isn’t 100% useless and will not help at all in life😐

I’ll see what I can do Azzazin (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I used the word "useless" only because you yourself used it to describe your proposed additions. If your frame of reference for what qualifies as useful is real life, I might have some bad news for you regarding everything on this wiki and the game itself. As for what you actually added, looks good to me.
Mr Pie 5 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to add info that Pathfinder's new passive also resets his Ult and automatically charged it.174.6.71.190 14:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)