Pop

Only if they let you use the NWN dryad voice, and replace every enemy combat voice with that NWN tutorial goblin. KILL THE DRYAD! NO, I MUST ESCAPE!

I play male. If there's a significant gameplay difference, as in Fallout 2, I'll play both. But I couldn't manage to slog through BG as a female, since the game is actually worse with a female in that case (given the main difference between them is romance)

But that's incongruous with the universal rules we've thus far established (murder and lying being wrong) If we consider consequences, then we run into all kinds of instances in which what is wrong yields favorable consequences, such as lying to the killer. Universal law can only work when consequences aren't considered. So we either have to amend the premise that lying is 100% wrong all of the time, or ignore the fact that lying is our best option in some contexts. Otherwise we have a contradiction. What's the difference between what you're saying and your statements (statements being things that you say)? The notion that some things are always right or wrong is innately weak, in that the arguments supporting it have big, nasty cracks in them. One can easily formulate situations in which someone should do something that they shouldn't do in some different situation, and many of them are more reasonable and allow less leeway than the psycho killer situation. A position is weak without reason. I wouldn't say you shouldn't kill her. It's subject to context. The decision is hers first. If she feels she should live with chronic back problems or without the use of some or all limbs, I can't tell her she can't. Nor could I tell her she had to live if she didn't want to. If her nasty fall results in her becoming Terri Schiavo, without some precautionary living will, alive in only the strictest sense, incapable of voicing her judgement, permanently, then the decision to end her life would ultimately be an arbitrary one, but if she would be in some measure of pain, kill her by all means. Wouldn't it be better to just disregard the notion of lying being wrong in this case? It wouldn't result in any negative consequences. What's wrong with it? If the Texas Chainsaw Massacre example doesn't work for you, consider a realistic one: Maria is a jew in late 30's Germany, and Darque is hiding Maria in her attic, scheduled to be shipped to safe England the next day. The nazis come to Darque's door and ask her if she knows where Maria is hiding. If Darque refuses to answer, she will be arrested and killed alongside Maria. If she tells the truth, Maria will be murdered. Darque is a convincing liar, and Maria will likely be spared the gas chamber if she denies knowledge of Maria's wherabouts. How could we possibly condemn Darque in any way for lying in this situation? Isn't it reasonable to demand she lie? It would be the right thing to do.

Considering the way he talks to females, I probably should have said he knows Luskan territory like the palm of his hand. Oh Snap!

The thing about Bishop was that he supposedly knew Luskan territory like the back of his hand, and thus could keep up with the rapidly departing Gith. There are other characters who could track, sure, but Bishop would still be the path of least resistance if he was made optional.

"We can never tell the future" is an anti-consequentialist argument precisely because it precludes any consideration of consequences. You can never be assured of the consequences of any action, thus you shouldn't seriously consider consequences when making moral judgements. Classic Kantian position. It's a pretty weak one, too. Yeah, I addressed that one too. When considering moral matters, perfection is too much to ask. Sound reason and consistency are acceptable alternatives. Yet there are cases in which there is no viable alternative option, or the alternative option isn't much of an option at all (saying nothing to the chainsaw-wielding maniac, for example) The problem isn't that we don't have a viable option, the problem is that the best option (lying, in this case) is denied us because that option is prima facae wrong. If telling the truth is sometimes the wrong thing to do, then surely lying can be right thing to do sometimes as well. Universal rules like "lying is wrong" require universal application, without exceptions due to context or consequences. They're universal. And I'm not willing to accept that Darque shouldn't lie to save Maria's life. Thus I must call into question the entire concept of lying being wrong prima facae, and by extension that killing DR is wrong prima facae.

Tell that to Kheldorn when he lopped off Viconias head " And that was a Lawful Good paladin :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heh, she was pretty evil. I can't remember how many times she suggested torturing people. And besides, Keldorn is prefectly willing to let Viconia live, just not in his general vicinity he tells you to kick her out of the group. His hand was obviously forced ^_^ Well, descriptive relativism works just fine, it always does, but normative relativism is where all the problems arise. Even without the cosmology and the alignment system, the conclusion that there is no objective morality does not follow from the argument that different people have different moral standards. A D&D character could be a relativist, but he wouldn't do very well. A drow who considers murder to be right because drow culture is permissive of such things will become evil no matter what his alignment is. Good characters know murder to be wrong, and neutral characters tend to have the self-interest and sense to discourage the acceptance of murder. But it all rests on the DM and whether or not he/she wants to follow the moral guidelines of the universe. All I can say is that he's going to have a hell of a time discarding it. Even a relatively nihilistic universe like Fallout has some semblance of universal ethics.

Nobody ever knows the future in advance (in D&D, some high-level spells could very well make this untrue) but that's not a good enough reason to advocate not killing DR. Since we're going down an anti-consequentialist path, suppose this counter-example: Maria runs through Darque's yard, in through the front door and out through the back, and Pop comes into the yard shortly thereafter, dripping with fresh blood, donning a leather mask and wielding a large, bloody chainsaw. Pop then asks Darque where Maria went. Obviously, Pop means Maria harm. But we can't know the future, perhaps Pop simply wants to return Maria's bloody chainsaw to her. And if murder is prima facae wrong we can reasonably assume that lying is also prima facae wrong. Therefore, we must conclude that Darque must tell Pop the truth, and in so doing, probably condemn Maria to a horrible death. I see something seriously wrong with this reasoning. Of course, one cannot tell the future, but we can reasonably assume what the future will hold, given our actions. The argument that DR didn't sign off on her own death is sound, given that we accept one's supreme right over themselves. However, if DR is in a persistent vegetative state (remember that?) or some other comatose condition from which she will never emerge and thus can never decide for herself what she wants, the concept of "rights" becomes hopelessly confused, and we can discard it. It then comes down to sanctity of life vs. prevention of pain arguments. What I was trying to convery is that in the D&D universe killing is seen as an act that is not good under any circumstances. An ideally good person does not kill at all. But the fact of the matter is that evil has no such limitations. Thus those who fight against evil, if they are good, do so reluctantly. A paladin would rather not have to take up his sword and fight, he would rather there were peace. But there isn't, so he fights to make it possible, and he is remorseful for the lives he takes, even those lives that are the blackest of the evil, because a good person cannot celebrate killing (he can, however, celebrate the prevention of additional, needless deaths). Killing may be necessary, but it's always the last resort, and it is never the right thing to do.

I can live with the whole "dramatic death" thing, but like many other instances in which something like that happens (the betrayals at the end, the destruction of West Harbor) it's supposed to be a big deal, but it comes off as relatively unimportant. NWN2 was doing very well with its forced party until Ammon Jerro. I mean, he murdered a member of your party, but when you take him to task about it the game practically points you to a big neon sign that says "FORGET ABOUT IT" because you "need" him (the web of purity is used only once to great effect, and it's not required to win) and sure enough, the game eventually makes it so that you're at a disadvantage to hold it against him. That really undermined the dramatic thrust of Shandra's murder. Ammon Jerro's a fairly well-written character, but if NWN2 has a GOTO, it's him.

Messier but more intimate? In all seriousness, BGtutu has been pretty smooth for me (there are a few crash spots outside Bereghost, nothing major) and having played through BG2 first and missing the extra classes and kits in BG, BGtutu is the game I always wanted to play. Does anybody know how to get a BG intra-party dialogue mod to work in Tutu?

I would have preferred an option to keep her alive. I think I could have lived without the Web of Purity or Ammon Jerro.

Restart the game, and refrain from changing the display resolution in-game.

Good question. What happens if the person who is fighting in your honor loses? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The game ends, just like any combat in which your entire party (in this case, your chosen guy) dies.

Bah, they're getting rid of the weak link (that damned quarterback) presently. What they need to do is get that Shanahan running game back.

Ho, friend, meet the stumble button, now with pr0n-seeking categories. Also, if you need a laugh, there' pornotube.

Keep in mind there are no expansions and no box sets, of which there are numerous NWN incarnations. So a comparison might not be apt.

BOLLOCKS I SAY

Butterfly Effect may be Donnie Darko for special people, but Donnie Darko is The Matrix for people who want to appear intelligent and hip. At least Donnie Darko had actual actors in it. Not so. People love **** movies (ie Titanic). But seeing how easy that is to forget, if a movie has a small, rabid fanbase, that may lead many people to regard that movie as better than it actually is, which is the definition of overrated. Example: The Warriors. Midnight movie cult favourite. Yet, it's completely unwatchable and tacky. But the fact that it still persists as a cultural phenomenon has led many to call it a "classic". It's not. The Godfather is a classic. The Warriors is kitsch. Or another example: Ed Wood films. People (ie Tim Burton fans) talk about his films like they're overlooked classics, labors of love from an untalented but big-hearted hack. But again, they are **** films. Just ****. Funny, but unintentionally so. Cult audiences tend to willfully mistake embarassment for accomplishment, and thus overrate the quality of their films. But that's not always the case. The Big Lebowski was a cult movie that is as loved as it deserves to be, Texas Chainsaw Massacre was pretty scary, and as much as I dislike Tarantino, Resevoir Dogs was very much the right film at the right time.

Oh **** it, I'm going to ruthlessly exploit our member gallery. You can listen to what I list here there, if you like. That's the whole point of the thing, eh? Wagon Christ - Bend Over Hecate - Input Imogen Heap - Hide and Seek

o i c. Gallery is totally useable but nne of my 10mb + songs made it. Oh well!

I'll give it another shot.

Not working for me size restriction. And I'm also no allowed to upload music into the "my music" portion of the site, for some reason.

I did not. Wasn't aware of the need to remove mods before the patch. The game doesn't seem to have any failings beyond the menu problem. Could possibly run into some new obstacle, but I haven't, yet.

I mean, you can't upload music, you have to link it from some other source. Pictures look to be okay. I just don't have many to share.

Patched, and I'm not noticing any huge changes in performance (the fixing of the camera issue was welcome, though) However, I did implement a minor mod, the one that adds clerical domains. The problem is that it seems to clash with the beta patch. The new camera options menu has about half its text replaced by text from the mod. There are 3 sliders, one for "clerics with the elf domain have", one for "clerics with the halfling domain have" and one for "SEBEK" and one toggle option is "clerics with the orc domain have" I've intuited what the sliders are actually for (although I have to reset them every time I load for some reason), but the toggle is lost on me. It's the button on the lower-left hand corner of the menu.