Pop

Zero 7 - I Have Seen Plaid - Porn Coconut Co. Autechre - 444 Vitalic - Poney Pt. 1 (or Birds, if you want to call it by its video name) *ps - It's up there at the top left

I will never care about Final Fantasy. Ever.

I'm playing ToB, and that damned bug kicked in again. I can't enter areas that don't have doors (can't go through archways, etc.) Unfortunately, this means that I went through 90% of Watcher's Keep, and I can't go any farther. Anybody know where I can find an "AR####" list of every area in the game?

Weird Al interviews Eminem

Don't take **** so seriously, Jorian Dark Raven is just wrong.

See it and tell us what you think. How great it is tends to hinge on whether or not people saw the original Infernal Affairs. I'd definitely reccomend it, solely on the Wahlberg / Baldwin supporting performances.

Looks like the bots are shilling Sid Meier this time. Shame.

I was kinda wondering that too. I have a processor that runs at 2.3 GHz but rates at 3.5. I dunno what that means

Any Half-Drow there? :D ...there are normal half-elves, I do hope they included the drow variant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That would be cool, but they've never done half-elf derivative races before. That and in the FR half-drow are restricted to the waaaaaay south, in the only surface nation run by drow (I can't seem to remember its name) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no surface nation run by drow There are renegades near ex-Myth Drannor ,but thats not a nation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NOPE. Dambrath, waaaaay to the Southeast in Faerun. The drow came up from the Underdark and consorted with the church of Loviatar to enslave the population. I was kinda wrong in that the place was originally run by the drow, but now that it's been a few hundred years the place is actually ruled by half-drow clerics of Loviatar and Lolth. The FR campaign setting states that most half-drow originate from this area.

pretty good assessment, meta. seems you pay attention to such things. i disagreed with pop's assessment that an objectivist cannot consider others. on the surface, this is how objectivism comes across, though there is a subtlety that you won't get simply from a little reading. concerns for others are very important to an objectivist, though his motives for said concern are based on self-interest. i think ayn believed that _most_, if not all, people were actually sort of "closet objectivists" simply because their motivations are rooted in their own self-interests more often than not. the difference being that someone calling himself an objectivist openly admits his motivations (most of this my own opinion, btw). for example, people that do a lot of charity work often talk about how good it makes them feel to help others (not all, of course). that said, most of my "roleplaying" in games is based on a similar philosophy. as a result, i have a very hard time playing any alignment on the extremes (lawful good), or evil (evil deeds to not make me happy). i usually end up either chaotic good, neutral good or true neutral. that way, i don't mind walking into an empty house in the wilderness and lifting the potions of cure critical wounds out of their chest! taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ayn Rand argues that as soon as a person accepts altruism, he becomes beneath contempt. "If a man accepts the ethics of altruism", she writes, "his first concern is not how to live but how to sacrifice it." Rand is focused on the individual, such that she demands that one not practice altruism. Thus, a man must focus on himself, and never consider others. A man who denies a beggar coin because "they should pull themselves up" is concerning himself with others' welfare. Rand calls this "sacrificing one's life", in that one's life consists of goods earned and created. To Rand, when one even acts in a way that benefits others by not helping them, he has no longer concerned himself with the betterment of the being of ultimate value: himself. He has become an altruist, and is therefore a scumbag. A true egoist would not recognize the existence of the poor. This is where Rand parts ways with other egoists like Hobbes. The claim that all people act out of their own self-interest is made by Hobbes, not Rand. Hobbes was making a descriptive claim, saying "this is the way things are". Rand's argument was "this is the way things should be". Hobbes is much more flexible, as he says that people can include others into their own self-interest. Let's say I have a family, and I'm an egoist. If I'm a Hobbesian, I can care for their well-being, because if I'm not a good husband and father, I won't value myself. This makes some sense, but it still runs into a problem that I won't get into in that there could be a point at which I'm willing to die for my family, at which point the principle of self-interest breaks. If I'm a Rand objectivist, I cannot love my family. Rand dictates that I cannot care for my family, as I am the only morally important being, and investing in their well-being is being altruistic, which I cannot be if I am a true individual. Rand disregards the is/ought fallacy in this way, and her philosophy is greatly weakened in the process (see my signature) There are 4 parts of Rand's argument. (1) Each person has one life to live. If we value the individual, that is, if the individual has moral worth, then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance. It is all that one has, and is all one is. (2) The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as something one must be ready to sacrifice for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of an individual. (3) Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value, does take the individual seriously - it is, in fact, the only philosophy that does so. (4) Thus, we have no choice but to accept Ethical Egoism as true. *those 4 parts and the Rand quotes taken from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" This argument is bull****, as it's oversimplistic. One can only choose between altruism and egoism, and there's no in-between, as I've demonstrated with my family example. It makes assumptions that altruism gives individual interests no value and that altruists must be expected to sacrifice their lives totally and unquestioningly whenever asked. Which is idiocy. There is a middle ground. One can seriously consider the interests of oneself and that of others. This is why Rand's brand of egoism is not given serious consideration by the vast majority of ethicists. It's a big bad sponge of a philosophy. *addendum - And this is why Rand works so well with the Sith. One of the things you can say to Kreia to piss her off is "A jedi's life is sacrifice". Jedi in Star Wars are the ultimate Rand antagonists Sith are concerned with bettering themselves, and since they're sociopaths, they don't consider others. Everything they do, even apprenticeships, are done with the interest of the self in mind at the expense of all else. Perfect egoists.

Any Half-Drow there? :D ...there are normal half-elves, I do hope they included the drow variant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That would be cool, but they've never done half-elf derivative races before. That and in the FR half-drow are restricted to the waaaaaay south, in the only surface nation run by drow (I can't seem to remember its name)

but is he FTW?

Freddy from the Friday the 13th series but is he FTW?

Is Robert Englund FTW?

Well, name us some B-Movie actors. Join in the fun!

Ron Perlman FTW. And and and Mark Hammill FTW!

Micheal Ironside FTW. Lance Henriksen FTW. Casper van Dien FTW America FTW!

Hollywood exists a lot like a pyramid scheme. The A-listers at the top are in no way indicative of the acting profession. Hell, 95% of A-listers can't even be persuaded to make cameo appearances on television, let alone ever show their face in a video game. The best you can hope for is an actor lending his voice to a game based on a movie they were in, ala Ian McKellen in the LotR games (the ones based on the movies, heh) We should embrace our B-listers. They provide a valuable service, and they're much more numerous and available. Who can hate on Micheal Ironside after he got his arms chopped off in Total Recall? That was indisputably awesome.

Apparently mods can't be arsed to use the "edit" button either " But regardless, we love our mods, don't we? Yes!

I dig the Fray, just because they're local, and we don't usually get too many hot new things coming out of Colorado. Tweaker - The House I Grew up in Mellowdrone - Oh My DJ Shadow - Best Foot Forward (alternate version) Revolting **** - Big Sexyland

Really? A lot of people hated hated hated Oblivion's face creation system, including myself. Really, you were given a face and were allowed to adjust how fat it was and what hairstyle they had. That was pretty much the extent of it. Everybody looked related :\

I don't know. A casual gamer will surely look at a paladin and see a fighter + tons of abilities and immunities and the obvious tank potential, but a roleplayer will probably see all the restrictions attached to the alignment and feel stifled. We don't want to be forced into being the hero all the time. I personally just don't happen to think most fighter classes are all that interesting to play. Cept monks, of course. Love monks. Skirmish fighters. Also kind of limited in their own way, but nothing I can't accept. I would have actually liked to see an evil paladin-type class (that isn't the "crusader" fighter class) or at least had paladins that were restricted in their alignment like monks were, on the law/chaos axis only. That would have put some much-needed spice onto the character concept.

You know, I've never been put in this situation, and I'd never want to (that I can think of), but I sincerely believe that I am of better character than to punish the school for my child getting injured (even seriously) for doing things that I did as a child. This is actually discouraging children from being active. I mean, who wants to really let loose and have fun if you have to have a teacher hovering over you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Probably the kids who get the **** kicked out of them and robbed, which is common enough when teachers aren't hovering around. Kids are kids, and the idea that we should expose children to social Darwinism is about as drastic to me as coddling them. Simple solution: Get somebody to supervise the ****in' games. Nobody seems to have thought of that, though. Like bringing daddy's handgun to school. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, I've seen some special logic in my time, but that's pretty out there. That's some serious "what"age, right there.

I was rather bored by PST. I guess that puts me in a minority.

Boo egoism! Boo hiss! Not workable! Ayn Rand bad! It's kinda odd, because a supposed egoist like Kreia would not be able to even consider the beggar. Objectivists ("objectivism" being that name which Ayn Rand gave to her own system) are only supposed to be concerned with themselves. To say "we can't give money to beggars because they must better themselves" is not Rand. It's a big problem with her ideas. She makes it explicitly clear that an ethical egoist cannot consider others in any way. Your reasons for not helping someone in need can only concern you. So Obsidian kind of goofed on that one. Silly Obsidian. O rly? *edit - I will give Obsidian big credit for trying, though. Throwing Rand into a soft Eastern-philosophy-good! oriented universe like Star Wars is like throwing your kid in the deep end of the pool. If anything, it helped to serve the idea that the Sith are western individualists and the Jedi are eastern altruists.