Aegis

Does it matter anyway? Even assuming women are smarter than men, the real question here is; are they smart enough? Just because I'm doing stupid things doesn't mean a smarter person wouldn't do stupid things as well.

Even if it's true (I have to see some scientific report about it, cause I've never heard anything like that as far as I can remember), it means very little. First of all because we don't utilize our entire brain, and second because women and men utilize it in different ways.

I'm more inclined to blame human stupidity than that of men in particular.

That there is evil in the world is in itself no reason to disbelieve in a god. Perhaps a good god, but even that is questionable. Apart from my personal belief that you need evil in the world to have good, we don't know for what reason there is evil or what the grand plan is. As for organized religion, it does serve a purpose. It brings people together and provide a social structure and incentive to abide by the laws for the common good. Of course, with that, you also get people who abide by laws that are quite possibly bad. Take the crusades, for example. The crusades had political and economical reasons of course. One could argue that it would've happened even without the church, but merely the fact that it could be used as an excuse is enough for me. Whether religious structures ultimately is good or bad is a judgement call.

About Agnosticism & Agnostics It seems like a fairly well-informed site on the topic. I haven't read it all so I can't say for sure, but what I've read so far seems okay. At least none of it was some overzealous christian declare that agnostics are all atheists and will therefore burn in hell (there are sites like that, though that's hardly a surprise given some of the other sites that exists).

Nothing wrong with a bit of guilt. After all, isn't it guilt that tell us when we have done something wrong? However, what some people aren't getting here (at least IMO), is that the guilt itself does not serve a purpose. It is an incentive to consider the action and decide what should've been done instead (if anything). Simply carrying the guilt around will accomplish nothing. In itself, guilt is a wasted emotion. In this particular context (i.e. me), it means I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. There is a philosophy behind it as well but I don't feel it's necessary to explain it.

You can't prove that a negative that doesn't exist doesn't exist, unless of course you assume that it does exist (which would negate the point). As such, atheism is a belief as much as any religion is. In case you haven't guessed it yet, I'm an agnostic.

Uh... gain influence with Atton/Disciple or Visas/Handmaiden depending on gender? There's not a whole lot of things you can do.

And 86 year old men will suddenly stop dying because I start caring?

Most of them didn't get a chance to. I'm sure the pope is a good guy and all, but that doesn't mean I should value him more than other people, or that he's better than anyone else. He's old and has lived his life. If anything, the tragedy here is that his comming death is receiving more attention than the deaths of thousands of children daily. I guess I could care about everyone who dies, but I really don't think feeling bad about things that are not my fault will solve anything.

Some agendas? Because some people don't care? You go around and feel sorry for every single person who dies, even though most of them deserve to die far less than the pope?

I'm not a catholic, not even a follower of any particular religion (including atheism), so no, I don't worry too much about it. He's what, 86? People die, it's part of life. He's lived his life, I don't know the guy, and isn't dying in some horrible way as far as I know, so I really have trouble feeling that sorry for him. He's just a man, I don't care what the catholics say (you're welcome to show me which part of the bible even gets close to describing the pope as anything special, let alone his very existance). As far as his job goes, he can be replaced just like anyone else.

Picking using it to get laid and actually mean it is more than a little pathetic...

Bruce Campbell isn't even close to the worst actor in the world. At least he can act, albeit badly. Take a look at Steven Segal for example. It's like he's wearing a mask. Can he even change expression?

Not a poll? I'm impressed.

On Nar Shadaa, side with the female Rodian and complete the trade route quest. She'll then let you buy the pacifist upgrade. Or you can type giveitem hkpart05 in the console if you're lazy.

Lately, I've been thinking. I came to the conclusion that the jedi philosophy (the "light side") isn't that good. At least not if you compare it to how evil the dark side seems to be. A lot of things the light side jedi do in the movies as well as EU are things I'd be more ready to accept as neutral (at least overall). I've started wondering if the light side isn't more grey than light. The jedi philosophy is the alignment status quo. Let's take a look here, shall we? Good and evil are, by definition, polar opposites. You can't be completely good and completely evil at the same time, but you can be various shades in between. Now let's take a look at the jedi and the sith (the incarnations of the light and the dark side). Would you say they are opposites? Jedi are encouraged to control/ignore their emotions. The sith are encouraged to embrace their dark emotions. Falling to the dark side is easy, and seems to alter someone's personality heavily. The light side is hard to return to (though the redemption theme is getting out of hand in the EU) and the personality seems to be the same as your average guy, i.e. you go back to normal. Furthermore, almost every situation I've seen, the dark side seems to be more powerful. Luke fighting Vader in RotJ, for example. He's getting nowhere, then he becomes angry and basically kicks Vader's ass. One might be able to explain this, but it's not the only time I can remember something similar. At least from what I've seen, the dark side is actually stronger, or at least easier to use. Whether it's good for you long-term is another question. This doesn't look like good vs evil to me. It fact, I can't find any word to describe the "light side" better than neutral. So where does that leave us? Well, theoretically, there must be a polar opposite of the dark side. This is certain, if you accept the assumption that two opposites are defined by eachother (i.e. good cannot exist without evil just like a coin can't exist without two sides). Most people tend to do that, so I'll just move on. If the current light side isn't it, there must be something else beyond it. The question is what. Once again, assuming that good and evil are exact opposites, wouldn't that mean that to be truly good, you have to embrace your "light" emotions? What is the opposite of hate? I'd say love though it's debatable, but I have a hard time believing it's indifference. Compassion is another candidate, but that seems more like the opposite of sadism or something. Taking it a step further, what would the effect of this "ascension" (as opposed to "fall") be? Another radical change in personality? An increase in power, perhaps. After all, if hatred can give you power and change you, shouldn't the opposite emotion do as well? I'm not sure if this is making any sense to anyone else (give me a break, it's 4 AM over here). But it would be ironic if the jedi strive to be good, but refuse to acknowledge the one thing that could possibly get them there. Just a thought. Nothing I have any intention of proving or defending anyway.

Er, if he left the Mandalorians and became a jedi at an early age, I don't see why not. Not saying he was a Mandalorian or anything (as I said, it's just a vague memory from somewhere), but that argument does little to discredit the possibility.

You'll need an altar, a black rooster and a virgin. Oh, and alcohol. Lots of alcohol.

First name. No one calls Bastila "Shan" or Carth "Onasi". I have no idea what his/her last name would be, though. <Wild speculation> I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Revan is a Mandalorian (it might've been made-up or something I've imagined, though). If that is the case, he'd have his clan's name as last name if I understood it correctly ("Canderous Ordo" = "Canderous of clan Ordo" etc.). If he left the Mandalorians to become a jedi, I suppose he might've left his clan as well. </Wild speculation>

The game would go to another developer. Either you signed the contract and get a bad reputation for not following it, or you didn't and the game was given to someone else.

Actually, you'd have no game at all, as well as a bad reputation among publishers which means you won't be making any other games either.

Thank you for sharing, because we're all really interested in what you have to say. We're literally awestruck by your infinite wisdom, cunning arguments and invaluable feedback, which will surely contribute to making Obsidian's next project a marvel to behold.

Hmm, well, in any publisher vs developer scenario, let me put it like this. Publisher: Do you like eating? Developer: Well, yeah, I guess so... Publisher: Would you like to continue eating?

Are you kidding? Science is based on logic, evidence and what we can perceive. Scientology is based on nothing whatsoever (possibly drug-induced fantasies). Ron Hubbard (the founder) is a grade A moron. If you've ever played Fallout 2, I'm quite sure that the "Hubbology" religion you can find there is a jab at scientology, which would explain why my trigger finger itches so badly whenever I go see them. I remember we were supposed to do a project in school a long time ago about religions cults, and my group got scientology. Unfortunately, I don't remember much, but I do remember I started out knowing nothing about it, started thinking that it didn't sound so bad, but eventually came out with a burning hatred for Mr. Hubbard.