Pop

I generally find the Gith races to be rather boring in the oddworld of Planescape (which strangely enough I also found to be rather boring), but MCA certainly knows his ****, and even if he didn't exactly "move forward" with Z as a character concept, she's still rather compelling in execution.

The drow are CE because even though there is a heirarchy in drow society, order itself is not valued. If you can get away with killing your superiors, you should. The same can't be said of, say, the zhentarim, where a lot of caution must be exercised if you're going to break rank. In this way, the drow society is chaotic in a social darwinist sense, the herd is constantly being culled of the weak, and as a result the drow are always formidable opponents. However, unlike the Germanic-style CE warrior culture of the orcs, the paremeters of the drow heirarchy remain more or less static, there's an established high-born class that always leads them, and the race of the drow itself retains a singular sense of malign purpose (in the following of Lolth) that unites them against external pressures and makes their threat to the surface constant. Interestingly, in the FR Lolth no longer exists, for all intents and purposes, and drow society in that setting has more or less collapsed as CE groups tend to do when they have no supreme power-regulating figure with an interest in a status quo, but the full implications of it haven't been explored much last time I checked.

I just hope these games don't constitute a "revolution in gaming" like some claim. I found the J-Horror plot of FEAR (a big selling point of the game) to be atrocious sub-anime tripe, and I've already said my piece on GoW. I'll be happy if I never see another game franchise that's focused primarily on arena combat MP.

Bahahahaha It's long, but worth it.

Bah. The equation of ethics with opinion is fallacious. The statement "I like coffee" is fundamentally different from the statement "rapists should be castrated". The former is descriptive claim that is true so long as it is the case that I like coffee, the latter is normative claim prescribing that it ought to be the case that rapists be castrated, and the truth of my claim is dependent not on how I feel, but the reasons for my conclusion. One's subjective opinions about whether or not coffee is good does not require rational defense. One's claim that rapists should be castrated does require reason, and if that reason is sound its persuasive force requires acknowledgment. If there is no good reason given, then they're just making noise and you're free to ignore them or ridicule them. The very fact that there exist different conceptions of right and wrong does not make them created equal as opinion. It does not follow that there is no objective fact of the matter, and that no one is truly right nor wrong when they make a normative claim. I think in most regards it's reasonable. To do otherwise abrogates the philosophy of rights you're wanting to uphold. Nonsense, I never stated that rights are inalienable or universally applied. One gets around the problem by concieving of a social contract that one must follow in order to recieve his/her recognized rights. The fact that those outside the contract are not considered is a strength and a weakness of the theory. A strength in that those who violate or ignore the contract forfeit their rights and thus crime and punishment becomes a relatively transparent issue, a weakness in that naturally one does wish to include some who are excluded. Social contracts are by nature conservative. But in this case, I'm willing to make rapists non-people. Why should they have moral consideration for what you allege are your rights? Yours are just as phantasmal. Naturally, because it's in their best interests to do so. Their agreement not to violate the contract and my rights as a signee with them is made with the reciprocal understanding that I cannot violate theirs. When they break the contract and harm others, they invite harm upon themselves. When they recognize and protect others' rights, they recieve those rights and enjoy them. Perhaps. If we're being realistic we're talking about people who were convicted of crimes, not necessarily people who have committed them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course, which is the most significant and reasonable argument not to rip anyone's balls off, or kill them for that matter. But that's not to say that retributive justice is wrong, it's to say that it can't be applied fairly. Once guilt is 100% assurable, we can practice such punishments. But because we'll never be 100% sure, we shouldn't practice them, lest we contradict ourselves by torturing / killing the innocent. Ah, it's refreshing to try on Hobbes' shoes for a night.

That's only if we consider that everyone everywhere all the time no matter what have the same basic rights. Is it really reasonable to consider a rapist and Ghandi, or a murderer and a common citizen, as equal in all regards? I'd say that the rapists and murderers are less deserving of moral consideration. They themselves never regarded what was right, why should we include them? We're not talking about ripping the balls off of your average man or your petty thief, we're talking about ripping the balls off of people who have committed the worst violations of right & wrong imaginable.

Here I was actually expecting reason, and all I get is an appeal to relativism. Tsk. Moral questions are not opinion-based. The desire to punish criminals is an incredibly reasonable one. The concept of a convict being a victim of crimes perpetrated by the state is invalid if we consider that by violating the law, he has removed himself from the law's protections. If he is guilty of the crime, it is not unreasonable to demand that he not be protected from that crime. He has asserted that he cannot regard others' rights, and thus he himself has no rights.

Dead Rising. I'm trying to decide what to do with my free week.

There's a dichotomy between the ethical legitimacy of retributive justice and the feasability of its implementation. Of course a rapist deserves to have his balls ripped off. If you're arguing against that then you're fighting a losing battle. Surely someone who commits such a heinous crime is removed from the consideration we would put on the rest of humanity. The only reason we don't rape rapists is because there's always the possibility of innocence.

excerrent

they're all okay. . As it stands, Sand is probably my favourite character.

I didn't much like the narrator either, probably because I spent a lot of the time trying to place him (he's the voice of the graveyard caretaker ghoul in Bloodlines) but really, he doesn't have a good narration voice. Shoulda got Ron Perlman

I read eons ago (probably around the time the Brosnan films started getting overly ridiculous) that Fleming had originally intended for Bond to be the exact opposite of what he turned out to be, or maybe what he always was: A dead-on-the-inside, bland caricature of an Englishman, defined by his job, like a spy-accountant. The guy's name and choice of alcohol were supposed to reflect this. If that's true, Fleming's vision of Bond as Hoagy Carmicheal (sp?) is pretty apt But nevertheless, he became a sex symbol, and what was intended to be dull turned out to be suave. It probably has more to do with the actors than the part, and I'm not sure the endless conquest of ready, gorgeous women was part of Fleming's conception. BUT I liked this one. It didn't have far to go to top the last few, obviously, and I'm not sure how I feel about the new Origin Story and reinvention of the character. I loved Daniel Craig, he's a wonderfully unBond looking and acting character, and he's probably the best actor to tackle the role, but I couldn't figure out if this film is meant to be a springboard for a new, more human Bond or a straight "this is how he became Bond" story. If it's the latter, I'm not sure how they could even justify scrapping Craig's hot-blooded, vulgar, rather refreshing 007 interpretation for a Sean Connery impression. Of course, everybody's enamored with the cool, debonaire Bond, but the makers of the film can't seem to make up their minds as to what they intend to pursue. Even for how different it was, Casino Royale seemed awfully enamored with the old Bond. There must have been a ****in' million references to the other films ("money penny", pretty much all of M's dialogue, etc.) Maybe that will be shaken next time, but I wish they'd just ****in' leave behind so much of the gaudy spectacle they're obviously trying to break away from. A villain with a debillitating injury and an exotic scar, but a romantic, brawling Bond? Christ, make up your mind. Much as I enjoyed this movie, I can't help but feel that the Bourne movies did what CR was trying to do (gritty kinda-realistic spy thriller) but better. It's ironic, the Bourne movies being so influenced by Bond, and now the Bond movies seeming to lag behind Bourne. That having been said, I'd much rather see Daniel Craig kick ass than Matt Damon High point: Bond's quip during the rope-and-chair scene. Awesome. Low point: The opening credits. Chris Cornell's theme was TERRIBLE. It was damn-near embarassing to be in a packed theater when it came on. People laughed at it more than they laughed at the Rocky Balboa trailer. That was harsh

Same with child molesters. They've even tried emasculation on some to no effect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No offensive weaponry left for assaulting, though, which is a positive ... along with the genuine deterrent that it embodies (pun intended). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. Sexual assault can occur sans ****, and molestation / assault is as much a pathological problem as it is a sexual problem. The problem of sexual violence isn't solved by removing ****, that would indicate that the problem is ****, and it isn't. That's like saying the problem with murder is guns, when the problem with murder is that one person wants to kill another. Removing guns might alleviate murder somewhat, and removing **** might alleviate rape and molestation somewhat, but the instrument of the crime is not the root of the crime. The problem isn't that men aim to use their parts inappropriately, but that they're willing to harm others and violate their rights, and that can't be remedied simply through castration. And therein you run into another dilemma with castration, the same dilemma you run into with capital punishment, that of permanence and severity. Suppose we castrated a convicted rapist who was later exonerated thoroughly through DNA evidence. We've greatly wronged that person, obviously, but the nature of our punishment is permanent. It's difficult to accept a punishment that can be applied unjustly but can't be corrected (the US constitution would define such punishment as cruel & unusual). Given that mistakes are made, imprisonment is a better option. Besides, I don't even want castrated rapists to be members of my community.

Somebody explain this to me, I was never privy to BIS board drama. Or whatever drama this misunderstanding springs from.

Yeah, there were some cysts on the wrist joint that they removed. Took about 20 minutes. It looks bad because it's drenched in iodine, and was subject to some swelling (they used a tourniquet)

I hope Bishop defects from my group. I would love to personally gut him with my twin blades. Qara would be another one also. Those two I don't have good influence with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bishop always defects, as his betrayal has nothing to do with influence. He foresees your loss and like any self-respecting CE character, bails on you at the least convenient time. Qara defects if you've not gained any influence with her (as I do, as I fon't use her)

Now it's itching under the splint. GAAAAAAAAH.

I got some minor surgery done on my hand, so now I have to type with one hand for the next three weeks :angry: ZOMBIE HAND

I doubt that. I got the distinct feeling from that ending that the shard-bearer will no longer be featured in any games as a character. As a point of reference, sure, but not as a character. It's a shame, really, I love sagas. Maybe next time.

I'm pretty sure the Luskans in the Orc caves killed Kreia, too MCA certainly has a soft spot for his Gith. Githgirl is imo the best written and realized NWN2 character by far.

Feeling proud for some reason. See, Rick Santorum got voted out of office, and I sent an email congratulating Dan Savage, because he played quite a part in making the guy a joke. So he put my e-mail in his column (I'm FFF)! And he says it's okay for me to laugh at the Santorum kids! Take that Dark Moth!

I dunno, RPG and FPS elements can be combined to great effect. I think of Deus Ex. But this is a TPS, which is different. At this point, I'd count on the eventual death of "RPG tactical combat" relatively soon. The continuous-turn-based-with-pause systems are sucking, and they can't very well revert to full TB, with RPGs moving onto consoles more and more. They're going to try and find a way to make RT combat work, but I haven't seen any so far that can function without detracting from the RPG elements of the game.

It'll probably (hopefully) be a toggle function, as I believe it was in Bloodlines. Or perhaps it's some kind of pseudo-free-aim lock and shoot deal. I just hope there are more weapons than just that shotgun. Time will tell. I didn't find Bloodlines' ranged combat system to be counterintuitive, my problem was that they had castrated it for 90% of the enemies. Like all Troika games, the combat was not balanced very well. Perhaps a limitation of the source material, but still, they could've given it some teeth.