Shadowstrider

This ain't a thread about President Bush, y'all.

They aren't here now to explain their reasoning, or what factors played in their mind. Its one thing to analyze the factors leading up to a decision and the decision itself, but the fact is we don't know ALL the things which played in their mind. Thus I'm not going to debate what someone's intent was. I never met George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. so I'll restrain myself from saying "I think they thought." Polls support that most people accept the seperation of church and state arguement. It might not be an overwhelming majority, but neither was Bush's election. In all likelihood if you went to a breadbasket state to poll, most might not accept it. *Shrugs* I go by what the polls show.

It has a little in common, like a single block button and some very twitch-reactive playstyle. If the AI in that game wasn't so stupid, it could pass for a very, very bad fighting game.

1 - Gromnir is right about Jefferson in all regards. He was considered on the outer fringes of politicians. 2 - The "Wall" of seperation may not have existed in the original intent (which we really can't debate their intent), or the original wording. However we have come to a point where people believe that is the case, and most accept it. 3 - Socialization of young people is one of the main goals of public school.

Nope. Quite often one misquote can mess up an entire post. Depends on the error. I'll look into it more once I've eaten (hopefully soon... damn food takes forever to cook).

I can't edit it (and I'm certainly not going to try and reply to it in that state). The problem is you have a misquote or bad BBcode. Reading it makes my eyes bleed, I'll consider looking at it after I eat.

just because you label something "character building" does not make it automatically good, interesting, clever, or well done You want good character building? Rent Master & Commander <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not going to debate your opinion. I find it all of the above, good, interesting, clever and well done - AT THE MOMENT. I don't know where its going yet. If it turns out crapptastic I'll be first in line to demand reperations. Right now though it has a lot of potential.

Your arguement is "I know whats happening as it happens!" Ofcourse you do, what would you rather have happen? Tribune Marc Anthony is attacked on the steps by the mob for no apparent reason? Glabius leaves the city, only to return later and sweep his former wife back into his arms? Snore. Like I said in my last post, of course these events were obvious as they unfolded. The events themselves aren't important, its what will happen as a RESULT of them that are important. Ofcourse Glabius was killed, they foreshadowed it in episode 1. Are you honestly telling me that you thought the daughter would believe the mother's denial of the murder? I didn't. The two barely stand each other, why then would the daughter, who was told Glabius would likely die, believe the denial? It builds the scenario and the characters. Once again, Glabius is not important to the story, his death is. Ofcourse there are problems between Lucius and his wife, they forehadowed it in episode 1 AND the whole fact that he's been away on war for what must've seemed like an eternity. Again, the fact that there is tension between them isn't whats important, we all knew there would be. No it doesn't. Not at all. If there was nothing but conflict building and no resolution of minor conflicts at all, then it would be a horrible show. It has an OVER-conflict and several episode-long conflicts. An over conflict would be Lucius and his wife. An episodal conflict was Pullo's battle in the bar, and then the battle at the Senate's steps - Hell we don't even know if this is fully resolved yet. Problem is they aren't. I'll say it again - Glabius' didn't matter. His death did. not how he died, the fact that he died does. The events themselves you mention are set ups for the greater issues. Would you have rather that Glabius lived? Or that he was killed at random? That he wasn't introduced at all? Snore. Its all a set up. Where did I say that he'd be unharmed? I thought they'd kill him and take the horse. Thats what I thought Pompeii sent the men to do, not stealing the eagle or kidnapping the boy. I thought they'd kill him, take the horse back to Pompeii and be done with it. The actors are all great. The material is great, too. I find the criticisms you're making invalid, because, as I said, the events your critisizing are pretty useless. Okay, so the child is Lucius' wife. So? Would you have rather it have actually been the girls and she goes off to marry the herder-boy, and they all live happily ever after? ZzzZZzzZzZZZz Again, it was a set up for the tension to come. Would you have rather the mob attack the Tribune "just cuz?" On Pullo: If it seems out of character then it isn't predictable, now is it? Fact is we don't know his character fully yet, so you can't say its out of character. Fact is you didn't expect him to want to go back and save the girl, not to mention we don't know WHY he did it. Reread what I wrote He could be a "rebel without a cause" or he could simply be pretending. The only thing we know about him is that he is impulsive. He saved her, then looked in the cart and saw what he had. For all we know he was going to save her, look in the cart. If the cart was worthless he would then drag the girl back to his cave. We DON'T know yet. Fact is he saved her, and made off with the loot. All we know about Pullo is that he is impulsive, and that he shows signs that he is a "nice" guy when he is sober. When he is drunk he does things like punch his superior officer in a battle, or have his way with women. When sober he does things like council Lucius on how to be a good man to his wife, or explain to Lucius' wife that Lucius does love her. Additionally, he shows a deep knowledge of how to please a woman (both sexually and emotionally), which leads me to believe that while he actually DOES care for people - just not when drunk. Why force a woman to have sex with you, or pay her to when you can make her want to? Yeah he saved her and gave her something to drink. See my above analysis of Pullo for more. He saved her, possibly because he didn't want Caesar to be suspicious of him leaving with a cart and a girl lying in the field (which make him selfish), or perhaps he took her to make sure she was safe (which makes him a nice guy). In either case I don't see how it is out of character.

Okay well, welcome to the real world.

I disagree, if you live in a country you should be in allegiance with it. You don't have to love it. Treason isn't disliking your country. Treason is selling secrets to enemies, betraying your country, etc... I think it should be punished by death. Every secret betrayed to an enemy country could cost hundreds of lives - the fact that it could cost one is punishable by death, to me. Don't like [insert country here] then you have three choices; speak out against it, leave, do nothing about it. Traitors are reserved the worst punishment in Dante's Inferno with good reason.

Oh and think about this, as well. If Lucius' wife tells Lucius that the child is in fact hers, and not their daughters, will Lucius revoke the wedding permission of the boy and his daughter? All character building

Okay this I anticipated, but what movie or show takes place at a grunge, dive bar type place and does include a brawl? No good one, thats what! Me. It never crossed my mind. I saw this coming, but when Lucius' wife said she didn't I wanted to believe her. I didn't, but wanted to. Good acting. This event (like the one below) are pretty transparent, intentionally I think. Otherwise they wouldn't end the episode on that note. The event itself isn't whats important to the story, its what happens WITH the event that matters. Its building their characters up. If you think TEH DRAMAS are unfolding now, you're wrong. If this event itself were important they'd have shown the two of 'em making the baby. Its not that she cheated on him, its that she did so, lied to him and regrets both that matter. Well this was pretty much a given, but this isn't an important event in this regard. The importance of it is that the mother could lie so well to the daughter after merciless ordering her lover's death. Glabius the character = unimportant to the story. Galbius' death, on the other hand, is building tension for future stories - at least I would hope. Same as the last two, this isn't the importance of the matter. You said yourself that they did something you'd didn't expect with Pullo when he saved the girl. We don't know what he is going to do. The event of him discovering and then running off with the gold is just a catalyst to trigger character development. Will Pullo return the gold? Return some of it? None of it? Will he give some of the gold to the girl and let her go? Will the two fall in love (I bet yes)? Will the two fall in love and she convinces him to return the gold? Will the two fall in love, and he wants to return part of the gold, but she tries to convince him not to? This is what is important, not that he got the gold; its what he does with it. Same with Lucius and his Wife. Will Lucius return to military service? Will his wife tell him the truth? Will his wife's revalation and his feeling of dishonor drive him insane? Personally, I think you're taking this too much at face and not thinking about the actual depth of the events. So you knew that Octavian would be captured by Pompeii's men and that they would still Caesar's eagle? I didn't. I thought he was going to simply take the horse back to Pompeii - the depth of the scheme surprised me. You knew that Lucius would abandon the 13th? I didn't. Hell, we don't know whether or not Pullo even saved the girl. Its entirely possible he didn't want to leave the girl lying in the field and run off with the gold with Caesar running past; that'd arouse suspicion. Werd.

You remember what happened last time this thread went off topic? Allow me to state, unequivically, we have more hostages.

I don't think they've really changed his character. He is a lonely character who is seeking companionship and personal success. It just so happens he sees one primary means to attain both; fightin'! He isn't a brute, necessarily - its just that to him violence is a means to an end. Considering the era in which he lived, I'd say he is a pretty good presentation of the "every man." Some semi-spoiler stuff below, but I doubt anyone who hasn't seen episode three is reading, anyway. We don't know why Titus saved the girl, yet. Personally, I think Titus is a good guy, typical of the "wrong side of the tracks" upbringing. He probably saved the girl because he wants to play hero, and get the girl, like a lot of childhood fantasies end (and adult ones, for that matter). I find his character very believable.

I see what you mean now. I sort of figured the term elected would clue into democratically chosen body. I wouldn't call an oligarchical body chosen by the previous body an elected body.

Go back and point out where I said "Elected Republic != Democracy." I, in fact, said Pure Democracy = Tyranny of the Majority. Yes, an elected republic is a form of democracy, where did I suggest otherwise? It isn't a pure "majority rules!" system. I was explaining the american process to Mothman, and why "because we outnumber you" isn't how the USA's system works.

Pure democracy = Tyranny of Majority The United States is an Elected Republic, I believe most nations which people call democratic are actually elected republics. If the majority's say was all that mattered black americans would still be "seperate but equal." No one is DENYING you from saying under god. Its the opposite, people are being FORCED to say under god. Were the roles switched I would be for allowing people to say under god, and against forced removal. Every day I pull a dollar out of my wallet, what do I have to look at? "In God We Trust" When I walk into a courthouse what do I see? The 10 Commandments. No one is preventing you from believing such things, or saying such things. There is no ruling that PREVENTS you from saying or believing such things. Conversely, in order to properly recite the pledge of allegiance I MUST sware under God. The court's ruling isn't that you can't say "under god" the court's ruling is that you can't force me to say it, just because your mob is bigger and louder than mine.

I believe "under god" should be omitted. When I was in school, or when I was a marine, I omitted it and when questioned by anyone I would say that I didn't find it proper. I agree that if the pledge is said everyday, it should be enforced, but "Under God" should be omitted

Personally, I think its better than Deadwood but not quite as good as Sopranos, with Band of Brothers being the tops. I really like it, you can tell its building up the characters, their personalities and the conflicts. I missed the episode on Sunday but watched it last night, and I loved it Especially at the end, I was actually confused myself as to what choices Titus and Lucius would make.

Silent Storm

You sound like you're having some sort of identity crisis. Be proud of your online personna, or I'll send Volourn to your home to r00fle you to death.

Mr. Bojangles Jovial Juggler 2 tuff 2 care

Traditional CRPGs had shallow stories, for one. Traditional CRPGs really didn't allow the freedom of Fallout, either. Turn base combat, sure. All RPGs still have rules "like PnP" so thats moot. Most also still have isometric view, also moot.

Fallout was by no means a "traditional CRPG." At least not in any summation I can find, it was beyond its time.

Mine is a miniature head-shot of an artist's rendering of the character Shadowstrider. The full version is here.