FlintlockJazz

I get the feeling that the St Elcga lot started off as just the guys who defended that bint, who then set up their Order or had people set up the Order in their honour, and it just grew from there. So they wouldn't have been an official grouping I guess, but would have history with Aedyr at least. I'm guessing even the orders set up to defend a nation are not actually part of the government, though the ideal they are following may drive them to join the government on a personal level. The Five Suns one though seems to have actual orders from the Ducs, and disobeying seems to have consequences, so it sounds like they are a part of the Vailian Republics government in some official way at least.

You have my axe!

I approve of this news.

Did Korea set us up the bomb? I'll get my coat.

Not on a first date! Well, okay sometimes, but dinner first!

My responses to these points can already be found in my prior posts. I have no desire to repeat myself. No they are not.

Woosh If that is all you can say then I think we are done here. Nice chatting to you.

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism Really? So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then? Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)? On reincarnation. (Also, isn't the Dalai Lama considered to have ascended to Buddhahood?) They may have a different method for it to account for their beliefs but it is still unprovable. Also, some people may believe the Dalai Lama has ascended to Buddhahood but then some people believe that they have been abducted by small, grey, aliens who then proceeded to anally ravage them, so who knows? I'm sorry but even if I believed in a god does not mean I have to believe that he said X just because a religion says that. As it is all unprovable, you can quite easily believe in for instance the Christian god but not believe in half of what the Church teaches or not follow it because you are unsure. God may indeed exist, but I have not been convinced that he takes attendance at Church. If you hear your family was killed in a terrorist attack but it is not proven yet, would you carrying on with your job indicate you don't believe that they might have been? Or are you just acting on what you know while waiting to hear more? As to religion requiring a god, what about the tribal religions? Native American religious beliefs don't include gods, but they include spirits which in other religions would be classed as gods. What about Scientology? While many claim it is not a religion that is due to political reasons, it so is a religion. Religion is define as a system of beliefs, doctrine, ritualised behaviour, ethics, and world views with a cultural structure and hierarchy. Does this make it easy to mistake some philosophies with religion? Of course, but then many religions started out as philosophies and then gained the doctrines and ritualistic behaviour to become religions. Actually, lets look at it another way: if you had two mentally ill people both claiming to be hearing voices, but one says that the voices he hears are from the FBI trying to mind control him and the other claimed that he was receiving messages from a god, would you consider the latter to have a religion because they believe their voice is coming from god? Or would they need to start collecting fellow believers first?

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism Really? So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then? Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)?

What ...don't tell us now you also don't believe in the Greek gods? You are such an " atheist cliche " I am open to their existence... I am also open to the possibility that they were little gray aliens who also disguised themselves as the Norse Gods and were called the Asgardians. Of course that then raises the question: does being aliens mean that the Greek gods were not gods or does it mean that aliens are gods?

When it comes to a belief in a god or gods this is almost entirely the case. I have already stated why. You stated that if you don't believe in something then you disbelieve it, you have not provided anything conclusive to prove that you can only believe or disbelieve. How does it fail to meet the traditional definitions of a religion? Because it doesn't have a god? "All religions must have a god because the definition I use to define religion is that they must have a god, therefore they must have a god..." Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation, whereas philosophy is more theoretical, it makes observations of the world and people then tries to make meaning, they are not making superstitious or spiritual claims though they can be wrong as with any theory. Buddhism has holy sites, temples, etc. If Buddhism is not a religion then what about Sikhism?

While I don't go to Church every Sunday I do make special effort not to use a Church building as a urinal when I'm drunk, to not step upon graves, and when I am in a desperate situation I might beseech if there is a higher power to help me though prior testing indicates that if a higher power does exist it does not respond to verbal requests (or there is some other requirement needed for it to do so). I am willing to believe that there was a man called Jesus and that he spoke to some higher power that could be defined as a god though it may not take the form or capabilities that we think it does. It could be the sum collective consciousness of humanity, it could be an super-intelligent AI that we will create in the future that has the capability to reach back in time to influence events to ensure it's creation. What is a god anyway? Does it have to be all-powerful and omniscient? Because the Greek gods definitely were not, Zeus was pretty much a horny bugger who could throw lightning bolts, and what of the Norse gods? Loki tricks many of his fellow gods, and Odin got stuck on a tree and lost an eye. If we can't define what we mean by a god then it's pointless to even discuss whether they exist or not since we don't know what we are talking about. I will continue looking at the different religions and points of view, until I can decide whether there is a god or not.

If you don't not believe in some other religion then you are not agnostic. Depending on the sect some Buddhists do believe in a god or gods. Buddha himself was largely indifferent to the question of the existence of a god or gods and considered it irrelevant to his project. This is partially why Buddhism was so adaptable and was able to spread as well as it did. Broadly speaking however its points such as this that highlight how limited the concept of "religion" is. It effectively communicates a general idea when speaking of the Abrahamic belief systems but when you apply it to the rest of the world it begins to get a lot more messy. Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It doesn't believe in or actively worship a god so its a philosophy. But it believes in superstitious things like karma and reincarnation so its a religion. But Socrates believed in and worshipped a god and he's considered a philosopher. etc. However like I noted before, most religions will require you act in a specific way in accordance with the wishes of their god which you presumably do not. This means you are not in a state of neutrality on the existence of their god (whichever one it may be) but a state of actual disbelief, i.e. you act on the basis that the god does not exist. Frankly I'm not attached to either label I just find the "atheists are too absolutist I'm an agnostic" mindset to be as equally obnoxious as euphoric atheism. Frankly your premise is based on a false dichotomy. "If you don't believe then you disbelieve." Atheism is defined as someone who believes there is no god. If you are an atheist you don't believe in a god. Buddha was an agnostic: he didn't care one way or another. It is always the atheists like Richard Dawkins who push the 'either/or' perspective because they realise the power of labels: once someone starts identifying themselves with a group that person then takes on the other beliefs of the group. There is no confusion over Buddhism being a religion or not: it is a religion, certain atheists just play upon technicalities of the term to muddy the waters. Buddhism requires belief in spiritual or magical effects, it has doctrines (which varies from group to group but so do the Christian doctrines vary between it's branches), etc. It is the desire by certain groups to expand what atheism means to co-opt other groups to their 'side' that causes the confusion, atheism purely means someone who believes there is no god.

If a religion demands you do an action and you do not do this action due to a lack of evidence of needing to do it this would qualify as "disbelief". I too entertain there's a small possibility of there being a god or gods but seeing there is no evidence for this I act on the assumption there isn't. Call it what you will but I find the "I'm not an atheist I'm agnostic" to be less about philosophical accuracy and more about tip-toeing around people's religious beliefs and not wanting to look like one of those nu-atheist types. Disbelief in one religion, does not mean I don't believe in another religion. I think trying to claim groups like Buddhists are 'athiests too!!!' like many do is intellectually dishonest. Someone who does not believe in god because they believe only the material world exists is more different from a person who believes there isn't a god but there is reincarnation than someone who believes there is a god. As an agnostic, I have decided that there isn't enough evidence to discount one side or the other, I will go by current scientific understanding. Athiests are those who have already decided to believe there is no god, that is the original intended meaning for them, and the only reason why there is confusion now and people calling themselves athiests who are really agnostic is due to certain individuals with agendas trying to coerce people into 'their' group. You act on the assumption that there isn't, I act on what I conclude is right for each particular moment.

Wouldn't that be agnosticism, not atheism? Yep, I hate it how some athiests try to coerce agnostics into believing they are athiests, as an agnostic I am very fervent in my beliefs, even if it is "We don't know either way."

Awesome thanks devs, some of us have been asking this for a while. Would it be pushing it if I asked for the lady elves to also have a beard option? ....................................................................

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, Your God!!! Me. Now get off your knees and get worshipping me you slags!

Then why the hell do you need unlimited time and money then? Who doesn't?

I would stop you with my army of trained coyotes. Your army of trained coyotes is no match for my fully armed and operational battle-station! You may fire when ready...

Found some more recent news about it all, apparently Onyx Path has been named a 'future partner' whatever that means, so they are still going to be involved in whatever Paradox decide to do with it all. http://www.geeknative.com/53951/one-world-darkness-white-wolfs-future/ The last quote is interesting, potential for a dark game that is actually dark and not some teen-angst power fantasy with lots of swearing and ****? Anyway, I spammed this thread enough for now, better get back to work.

I would destroy you all.

More info from about a month ago, they mention that they are in talks with Onyx Path but not what about... http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/11/09/white-wolf-interview/

Given that everything Onyx Path has touched turned out to be solid gold, I'm somewhat apprehensive about that course of action. Of course it's Paradox's IP now, they can do with it however they please, especially considering they've decided to keep the new World of Darkness line (renamed as Chronicles of Darkness), which I've personally always liked more. Wouldn't surprise me if they try to get the guys from Onyx Path back into WW (considering they are mostly ex-White Wolf employees anyway), or at least into a consulting role. It also wouldn't surprise me if they completely cut off Onyx Path, instead desiring to put their own stamp on the game and not be bound to the old guard. From Paradox perspective In house development of new version of rule system is only reasonable path to take. As we speak about IP and rule system that they plan to license forward to other companies, so putting its development on hands of third party isn't just sensible thing to do from business point of view. Of course ensuring quality and loyalty of fan base of said IP is also important. But developing core rules in house don't mean that Onyx Path loses their licenses (at least I would guess that there is no point for Paradox to cancel those licenses) to make stuff in Classic World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness universes. Yep, though I wouldn't be surprised if they do cancel those licenses, especially with what I have read: they have indicated that they want one World of Darkness, and want to put the fans of both back together. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/10/29/paradox-white-wolf/ Sounds to me they not only don't want to support Classic WoD they actually wouldn't want to leave it running elsewhere either as it goes against their goals of uniting the community. Then again, there's no guarantee they will be supporting the nWoD either, instead going for a third option of a whole new WoD, a third WoD.

The nation will just have to annex new territories. Befare Canada and Mexico! I think Canada will be fine, they saw off the US last time and even burnt down the White House (before it was the White House, in fact it is painted white to cover up the burn marks from when Canadians burnt it down).

Did you get burned by Jade Empire too? :DI liked almost every BioWare game pre-DA2, and I've hated all (aside from DAI which I thought was alright if underwhelming) post DA2, but bought them anyway because of the company logo (before I knew the games weren't that great). Many have high hopes for ME:A, but not I. I got lucky: I was off-put by DA: O and the characters in it, and wound up waiting for the demo instead of 'trusting in the brand name'. Played the demo and realised that I was 'done' with the Bioware characters and dialogue, that I not so much hated but just could not get emotionally invested in them anymore and just could not stand to deal with the same bollocks again. My gf got a preowned copy of DA:I on the PS4, which let me watch the first bit of it while playing on my laptop, and I have to say the dialogue seems even worse, it is absolutely dreadful, I mean I not only had no idea what was going on and did not find the characters believable but I found the actual dialogue genuinely atrociously bad. For a company that writes a ton of dialogue for their games, that is really bad. Considering the amount of games out there right now that have not only damn good writing but really rather stellar writing by other companies, Bioware cannot now continue to rely on it's reputation as a storyteller anymore, especially since they have pretty much used up and squandered their credibility as it is.