FlintlockJazz

This isn't today, but over the weekend I ran a tabletop game for friends, it had been on hiatus over Christmas so had been a while since the last session. Went well, I got to cyberise one of the players against their will when they foolishly went to the crazy Cybernetics expert they were ferrying on their ship. They are only implants not limb replacements so they can get them removed and be normal again if they want if they can find a doctor that they can trust not to just add more cybernetics to them. The irony that the only other doctor around at the moment is the one who got cyberised amuses me. What have I done actually today? Well, aside from arriving at the place of my employment where I am writing this, I have been farting again. Damn bowels.

You remind me of the babe.

I have to say that in fundamental gameplay terms then yes, ME2 was better over ME1. If ME1 had been structured more like Deus Ex, providing alternate methods to accomplish your goals depending on the skills you had taken, then the gameplay mechanics it used would have worked, but regardless of your build all encounters in ME1 boiled down to Space Marining it. There were no stealth paths, there was a single case of high technical skill allowing you to kill some aliens in an airlock and that's it, everything else was a case of shooting stuff with your guns, most of which you couldn't use because you didn't have the skills available to use them for most classes yet you still lugged them around for no reason, or using either biotic or tech skills to kill people, the difference between them being pretty much aesthetics and which units they were best used on, while having a cover mechanic that pretty much came across as an afterthought and wasn't of any point once you levelled up enough. Honestly, the game felt rushed and unfinished, especially with a lot of the locations. This isn't to say it was rubbish: I vastly prefer the visuals of the armours in ME1 (I have a thing for the tubes in the back of the helmets) over the Space Footballer/Standard Space Marine look of the later games, now that we have the trilogy to look at I can say that ME1 had the better and more coherent plotline of all three of them, though that doesn't say much as the writing was atrocious and full of plot holes in all three (ME2 could have been better, if ME3 hadn't pretty much made it redundant). I'm also one of those sick bastards who loved the Mako, it's main problem was that it wasn't developed enough and needed adding to it, not stripping from the game. Essentially, ME1 needed to either utilise it's system more like Deus Ex or be more like ME2 if it was gonna do the space marine thing.

Or the greatest man ever, Brian Blessed!

My beard won't let you down!

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.