Pope
-
Posts
1307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Pope
-
-
Come on Volourn, don't get semantic on me. You know (or should know) there's a difference between nature and the ecosystem which is defined by it. Obviously nature cannot be destroyed. But the conditions to which we're so finely tuned and therefore depend on so heavily certainly can. Because of the laws of nature. It's happened before. The only difference is now it's by our own doing. And that's tragic.
-
P.S. Stop crying about the environment. the environment will live on. The arrogance of humans to think they can do anything to really hurt this planet long term. It's ridiclous that sucha short live species thinks it has the power to do that to something that has been here for pretty much forever. L0LZ
You really do know nothing about nature do you?
There's no shame in admitting.
-
There's many reasons for my concern, but I'll admit that my main motivation is very selfish: the current state of the planet makes me feel guilty for putting offspring on it. Firstly because every life extra is a life this planet cannot support (at least if living by western standards); and secondly because this overpopulation (and its effects on our climate) really is reducing the quality of life. I just don't want my kid to ask me in twenty years from now why I put him on a doomed world if I knew it was doomed.
My reasons for niot caring are also selfish. I won't have children so I don't care what happens to the planet or anyone else after I did. Why should I? Several centuries from now 9and maybe sooner heh), nobody will give a crap about my fertizilzer self so why should I gave a crap about those uncaring punks? Turnabout is fair play even after I die.
Please note the important distinction between you and me. I have a lot more motivations besides the selfish one. And even then my sort of selfishness actually results in altruism.
But I appreciate you're admitting to being purely selfish. I hope you also know that people like you are what's wrong with this planet. It truly is sad that most people can't seem to look beyond their own lives and try to work towards something much grander instead. We take so much and it's only fair to give back a little. It really takes very little effort or sacrifice to be a bit more caring for the environment, and even that seems too much to ask for some. If you don't agree that humanity (and by extension all life) is precious, then please be consequential and die already. But not getting children is a start at least, so thanks for that.
-
There's so much that can go wrong in space exploration, it's a much safer bet to hang on to the only habitable place we know.
You could not be more wrong. Life on Earth and the Earth itself are fated to be vaporized by the sun as it grows ever larger. The planet's surface will be scorched clean of life long before it's finally engulfed by the sun as it grows into a red giant. The pressing long-term issue is not how we treat the planet, but how we escape from it. Humanity has to be an interstellar species if it wants to survive indefinitely.
The risks of trying to escape the prison that is Earth are well worth taking if the species is to survive beyond the life of our sun. It would be far worse for the Earth, humanity and all its accomplishments to be vaporized and forgotten by the universe. You really prefer that tragic an end for humankind?
Of course you are correct. In fact I want nothing more than humanity and its accomplishments to survive (although indefinitely is impossible as you are probably aware, since the entire universe will ultimately come to an end).
My post was more in response to the previous posts by JFSOCC and pmp10. I was reasoning in a much narrower timescale than you are. Surely you must agree that our technology is still a very long way from allowing us to colonize space. And the current rate at which this planet's ecosystem is declining seems to indicate that we'll be extinct much sooner than that.
So what I was getting at is that, for the time being, we should better focus our efforts in making our home a bit more sustainable, rather than downplaying its value to us in favor of the (still untested) hypothesis of space colonization.
-
1
-
-
There's so much that can go wrong in space exploration, it's a much safer bet to hang on to the only habitable place we know.
-
Episodes 7 and onward starring Johnny Depp as Darth Sparrow!
-
No love for Arrested Development?
-
Oh, please. not this again. The planet is not being harmed by 'too many humans' or 'too few x aniamls'. The planet will be move on barring some fantasy super weapon or some extraplanar disaster. The arrogance of humans to think we have the powetr to destroy a planet older than all of us combined is poppy****. At worst we'll send ourselves into extinction but the planet will live on.
Even if I ignore the fact that the planet is not alive and therefore cannot "live on", there is something fundamentally messed up in your reasoning here. It's not the planet we should care about, it's the life on it. You're even admitting that we might send ourselves into extinction yet you don't have a problem with that? You actually care more about this chunk of rock "living on" than the beautiful diversity of awe-inspiring life that resides on it? Yes life can be cruel and unfair, but that's no reason for not appreciating it. On the contrary, that's a reason to work towards improving it.
This is a topic very dear to me, and one I can discuss with great passion, more so in real life than on the internet. People often ask me why I care so much about the fate of this planet, knowing that ultimately it'll be destroyed anyway.
There's many reasons for my concern, but I'll admit that my main motivation is very selfish: the current state of the planet makes me feel guilty for putting offspring on it. Firstly because every life extra is a life this planet cannot support (at least if living by western standards); and secondly because this overpopulation (and its effects on our climate) really is reducing the quality of life. I just don't want my kid to ask me in twenty years from now why I put him on a doomed world if I knew it was doomed.
-
1
-
-
I seem to have missed this thread, as I don't visit this section too often anymore.
One of my favorite memories of the BIS boards involved a weird bug that made threads invisible when a post was quoted but deleted before the quote was completed. This made the thread disappear from the topic list, although it still appeared in the Last Post section on the main page. But the best part about the bug was that it made the OP an administrator of sorts in that specific thread, complete with editing rights and other weird stuff.
It probably sounds duller than it was. There was a member named Tiax with whom I shared some great times in these "Twilight Threads", exploring all the possibilities this strange world offered and eventually even roleplaying that we were the masters of this other dimension, beyond the control of even the official forum admins. On one occasion I managed to somehow take over his admin powers in his own thread. It was surreal and hilarious.
Also, what ever happend to Karzak?
-
I liked that feeling of actually traveling in BG1. The perilous journey from Candlekeep > Friendly Arm Inn > Beregost > Nashkel with my freshmen adventurers sticks out as particularly memorable.
I can do without BG1's filler areas, but I do want to feel like it actually took my party some time and effort to discover a new location, rather than insta-traveling there as in BG2.
Reaching Big City #2 should not only feel like an accomplishment, it should also feel like it's really on the other side of the map (assuming and hoping that's where it is).
-
3
-
-
Just a quote from the latest interview with Sawyer that briefly touches this very subject and might give some fuel to the discussion.
An answer which I found both interesting and pleasing, especially the last section.
snip
Translation: "We're still making this stuff up, here's a suitably vague answer that can be interpreted in one of a dozen different ways."
Isn't that what religion is all about?
-
2
-
-
-
Destroying a god, however, should have dire consequences to the world (kill the god of light? there goes the sun!). Or better yet: have no consequences at all and lead us to realize that the gods are not at all what they make themselves out to be.
Why would killing the god of light have dire consequences? He's just an egotistical jerk living off the prayers of primitive sun worshipers and and manipulating them into doing stupid things from a different plane of existence; he is entirely separate from whatever star the planet is orbiting. Any powers the god of light may have before he dies would be seized by some other member of the pantheon assuming the deity didn't have enough worshipers to resurrect him/her/itself.
At least, in the typical fantasy cliché that D&D and pulp fantasy authors use.
Well that would certainly depend on how Obsidian defines their gods and their relation to the world and the forces of nature, wouldn't it?
I'd personally love for these gods to turn out to be nothing more than (high powered) master manipulators that played no actual part in creation or the natural forces. Hence the bolded sentence in my previous post. This could eventually lead the player to the option of either revealing this god-hoax to the world, or actually taking part in it and becoming a "god" himself.
-
If the gods are blatantly real in PE (I would prefer they are not, but if), then I would very much like the option to not deem them worthy of worship. I love playing characters who dare defy the gods themselves.
(MotB spoiler)
In this regard I was thoroughly disappointed that we could not tear down the Wall of the Faithless, although I do understand that was due to IP restrictions, which gives me hope for similar situations in PE.
However, if the gods are real, they should also live up to their status and be way out of league, at least for low-level characters.
My ideal view of how PE should handle this is as follows:
- In the first game, the presence of the gods should not be felt too much. They should consider our character a petty insect unworthy of their time and thereby remain in the background.
- In later installments, as our character gains power, the gods start paying closer attention. Interventions, both in the player's advantage and disadvantage, start occurring as the player becomes a useful pawn in the game of the gods.
- At the epic endgame, we are able to challenge and perhaps even destroy gods.
Destroying a god, however, should have dire consequences to the world (kill the god of light? there goes the sun!). Or better yet: have no consequences at all and lead us to realize that the gods are not at all what they make themselves out to be.
-
I'm very glad there will be no half-races. I feel that if you do one half-race, you need to allow interbreeding all the way, which will eventually lead to some people wanting to play a half human, 1/4th elf, 1/8th dwarf, 1/16th orlan, 1/16th aumaua.
Here's one that hasn't been mentioned quite yet: can Elves be Godtouched? Or Orlan? I sure hope so. If the child of Bhaal can be an Elf-Godspawn, then so can I.
+1
Would be nice if the Godlike were a subrace of each of the 5 races rather than a separate one.
-
I had just thought of something similar. Essentially the expansion kicks off/is centred around the stronghold and the need to regain it from enemy forces at least as part of a larger campaign or because you've earned the title of 'x' by developing the stronghold you now have responsibility over region 'y' from a distance which can mean just sending troops or resources until bled dry or getting out there yourself to save the little troopses for your own stronghold and more mundane menaces. That or a big bad beastie lays an egg in your dining room and you have to vacate it for a lil while.
The only thing I dislike about this is that it would make the stronghold mandatory in the main campaign, as opposed to an optional sidequest.
-
IWD pls
I like the style of that early dwarf ranger art.
-
It'd be nice if your stronghold could attract merchants with items otherwise unavailable in the game.
And, next to acting as a money sink, it should also be able to generate money (as long as these two aspects are well balanced!).
-
I'm getting some vague flashbacks to the old BIS boards.
6'8 Italian Warlord?
Yes, I couldn't remember his name, only that he kept changing it and we eventually referred to him by his member number.
OT: jeez, I can't believe how long I've been a part of this community. I've registered on these forums over 8 years ago and I don't even remember how long I was a part of the BIS boards before that. Time sure flies.
-
Call me conservative, but I'd rather have Orcs as a playable race (from a fresh POV) than the new races they're coming up with.
In fantasy, I feel there's only two ways you can go:
- you either re-imagine the traditional races
- or you design all new races (+ human of course)
But hey that's just me.
-
2
-
-
I'm getting some vague flashbacks to the old BIS boards.
-
1
-
-
Based upon the lore we got, I'm definitely going with a "defy the gods and unravel the truth no matter the consequences" kind of character.
-
Looks like the majority here would like to be able to add modules such as a library etc, which is certainly nice to see, but there might be a problem here.
Since PE will be based on painted backgrounds, rather than a 3D engine, imagine all the variations of the same background needed to cater to all possible combinations of added modules.
-
Ooh, and I want to add a tavern and get drunk and pass out.
edit: Ooooh, and sell booze in said tavern and seeing people get drunk and pass out and making money on people getting drunk and passing out.
David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Wrath of Dagon is from Texas, can you blame him?
He's from Texas, can you blame him?