Rostere

This reminds me a lot of the thread about how Saudi Arabia was depicted, which was locked (I think?).

LOL. There are some seriously funny ideas here. I'd be glad to help you to turn this into a NWN2 module, if I only had more time on my hands.

lol?

Obviously because nobody claims these are not atrocities. There's no sense in arguing unless you're arguing against someone, right? Oh, come on. What was ever wrong with "Victorian-era prudery"? On a side note - buying a used computer increases the demand for (low-end) new computers, since they are both target the same market (low-end users). That is, assuming not 100% of the people who buy used computers do so out of moral convictions and would not buy a new computer with the same specifications/ benchmark stats.

Create a new partition and try out the RC if you have any doubts.

Yeah, or both

nope, just an insult. ad hominem literally means "to the man," which is somewhat meaningless, so "ad hominem" and insult aren't really synonymous, though i do realize the phrase is short for the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. however, calling an insult an ad hominem (or even argumentum ad hominem) is actually an ad hominem fallacy fallacy, i.e., insults such as these are not even argumentum ad hominem fallacies. here's a good description of the whole thing. now, some rewording and reorganizing to "you are wrong because you are an arrogant trolling sob," and it would have been an argumentum ad hominem. taks You are of course correct in what you write, I percieved T_Ns comment as trying to strengthen his position by accusing LoF of being a troll (a rationale for ignoring someone). Writing "ad hominem" instead of "argumentum ad hominem" and expecting everyone to understand is definitely something one could argue against, but it's nonetheless something I tend to do for some reason.

Ad hominem? I find it fascinating that (some of) those who are arguing against LoF accuse him of being a troll, yet keep their own comments on this kind of level. Could this subject be so hard to discuss in a civilized way?

Oh but there will be, in October

I agree 100% with the OP. I sincerely don't care about whether a dead person is famous of not. Of course it is a different thing if someone you think is important would die. For example, if Michael Jackson, Tina Turner (lol! trying to come up with celebrities) or an to me unknown person in africa would die, I probably would not bother to read the news. If someone like Obama would die, I would probably read about it but I guess I wouldn't feel it was a great loss in any way. Then if a close friend would die I would be sad, but that is of course another story. To be honest I don't really understand this "celebrity thing". Why do people care to read about famous persons?

[quote name='H

I see only one similar feature worth mentioning: skills are represented by squares/ boxes with distinct "tiers". Everything else is either trivial or superficial.

Why? Beacause they are both blue? Come on, if they have anything in common it's only superficial...

I think they're mostly intelligent people, but they're also horribly egocentric. If you can just see through their bias, you can get a decent discussion out of some of them.

As action RPGs go, MEs and APs character sheet screens are actually not very similar.

Then we agree. I don't know of any fantasy world where a playable race by rule always has lower intelligence than another race. I'm sorry about nitpicking whenever you post, but it's hard to restrain myself when you write all that crazy stuff. Also, if you agree to that some beings are more intelligent than others (not saying any specific race or group of humans is more intelligent IRL), a race within a species theoretically could be smarter than one other given race. (and if you want, exchange intelligence for any other measurable ability) Fine, if you say that there is no way to measure intelligence, that would end our argument. However if you do believe in a measurable intelligence, the you must necessarily have the same viewpoint as me. That is, there are no big problems with how races are treated (rules-wise) in DnD (or, most modern role-playing settings, for that matter).

"This is like some great fantasy!"

"Number of orphans created" LOL

I hope they get fired as well, because then they can get hired by Obsidian.

Since "half-halflings" would be expected to be taller than their halfling cousins, I must say that "three quartersling" would be a more fitting (if less aesthetically sympathetic) name.

That's a shame. I bought two copies on release Zeno Clash

I fear you're missing the fact that in many fantasy worlds, these so called "races" can actually breed with each other. We've all heard of halfbreed yuan-ti, half-elves and half-orcs, for example. I bet the only reason for there not being any half-halflings is that the name sounds so silly.

I don't know, but one would assume it takes more than that to win such a prestigious contest as Superstar: Kazakhstan.

I hope he was serious here, because that is a pretty good answer to the question. In order for a player to be involved in a game, he (or she) must be faced with important issues and questions they're able to relate to. Choices in a RPG can and should be about much more than just "should I do the fetch quest or the kill quest and get item X or item Y as reward?". I agree almost completely, except that it doesn't matter if the theme is done with proxies. If the player doesn't get the lesson with pointy ears, then s/he won't get it with darker skin. And the elves don't exist thing keeps the moron guardians off everyone's backs. I think Arcanum was a pretty good example of how you can raise such questions by usage of proxies. It's a very satirical game, take for example Gilbert Bates, the orc workers, the gnomes and lots of other small details... I understand that not every gamer wants a mass of text rivaling PS:T, but that is no excuse for not writing high quality script and fluff, however small that amount of text may be.