Elerond

This election seems to have everything and we are still in primaries

Hope died when Paradox said that they can confirm that it isn't WoD related on their Facebook page.

Matt Rorie comes back to Obsidain

It is evil genius 2 obviously

Its not available in my country? Elerond please post links people can access....not everyone lives in Europe You need to blame Americans for this iniquity, as it is on official Saturday Night Live channel, meaning that it is NBC that has decided that people in South Africa can't watch it.

SNL sketch about Clinton's adaptability

However, he's a communist, even if he doesn't realize it, so he get's it wrong even when he's on to something. Here's the correct way to do it: She is smoking hot ....Vampire cult sign me up Vampires suck. I would that is whole point in vampirism

You can't use the same definition for atheist in a world where gods are a matter of faith (ours) and in a world where gods are a matter of facts (Eora). Pallegina's belief that kith can (and should) create their own principles and aspirations is as close as an atheist as one can be in such a setting. Of course you can use same definition. There is no point to change definition of word like atheist for fantasy world just so that you can have somebody that is called atheist there. If people can't be atheist in fantasy world because of nature of gods there then there is no point to claim that characters are atheists. Pallegina is quite far from atheist in said setting, as she blames gods for her misery, which itself make her very non-atheistic person. If we want companion that don't really care at all about gods then Devil of Caroc is probably closest and Kana second, because they don't really have passions or motivations that are linked to gods. But undeniably of existence of gods in PoE's setting makes existence of atheistic character near impossibility. Only Iovara style reason to deny Gods godhood or not knowing about existence of gods can make character really be an atheist or non-theist in such setting. Otherwise it is just character's stance towards authority of gods. Characters can be ones that believe self reliance over asking help/permission from gods or they may be ones that don't do anything without blessing from gods or most likely something from the middle. But everybody is free to define words like they want, but if you go against common definitions it is usually better to mention such thing in one's post so that others know what definition one is using.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio aren't authoritarian? And they would respect limits of the office? Are you sure about that?

Sometimes there are moments that bring glimmer of light in this darkness

That isn't automatically true. You also need narrative arc and mechanics need to be made in such way that playing game again don't become uninteresting work where player hunts those reactivity nodes. For example Walking Dead and other Telltale Games' highly reactive adventure games aren't interesting to play again because their narrative arc mainly same regardless of what you do and seeing results that are caused by different choices have hard time to keep player's interest up. And things aren't helped by fact that their mechanics aren't something that interest player without story and they have high change to become blockers for players who aren't immersed by the story.

I would say that Pallegina is quite far from atheist as is those druidic orders in Twin Elms. Pallegina for example resents gods, especially Hylea who she seem to blame lots of misery in her life. (So she may not worship gods but she accepts their existence and don't even argue against their place in world) Druidic orders in Twin Elms not just accept existence of gods, but they disagree with them how world should be run. So categorizing them as people who don't believe existence of gods is bit too much. Raedric would not work that well if he was character that didn't accept existence of gods. Or his story line should be much different.

When we divide character to 6 attributes that describe them then possibility for system that can simulates real world in any meaningful degree is lost. But it is always possibly come up simulative rationales that explain what said attributes can give character abilities/bonuses that rule systems says that they do. Priority in PoE's attribute system's design was not make system simulative, but to enable as many builds as possible. Although they didn't succeed in some cases that well. Like for example they failed to make constitution attractive attribute overall and for some classes some attributes are just too important. But maybe they get closer to their in second try if they make PoE2

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/13/11214140/trump-is-terrifying https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/708983126601682944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Trump tweets something that could be understood as threat to sent people to disrupt Sanders' rallies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-beachy/the-wto-just-ruled-agains_b_9307884.html USA used WTO to block India from building massive solar farm because India gave governmental subsidizes to manufactures that used Indian labor and produced their goods in India. EDIT: This is of course interesting thing for US to do as they offer similar governmental subsidizes for renewable energy manufactures that use local manufactures in US.

Those violent anime lovers again harassing good people

Actually rangers have had animal companion from the first time Obsidian actually defined the class. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/732064 Before that update only thing they have told about rangers (at least in KS updates) is that rangers are most likely better in ranged combat than fighters. Picture they use for Sagani was first shown in KS update #3, where they explained basic concepts for the things they had planned. That picture most likely lead creation of Sagani as companion as people liked very non traditional fantasy style of dwarf (they didn't yet even had boreal dwarf locked as subrace) from boreal region of the world (that didn't yet have name). https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/310512 Although I think you are right that Sagani's character isn't based on Binabik and his wolf

I am pretty sure that lead designer would have any problems to accept your canonical gods. As he is big cat lover.

It was Sanders supporters and other leftists disrupting Trump's rallies, I've never seen any Trump supporters trying to disrupt Sanders rallies. As far as cancelling, it was the right call, there was a near riot inside as it was, and apparently they were planning to rush the stage if Trump showed up. Sure, there are elements of people disrupting some of Trumps rally's But aren't people allowed to do that...freedom of speech and the US Constitution ? Trump seems to be big supporter of political incorrectness and direct action, so I am not sure if he should be angry for those supporters that just take his word and act instead being politically correct

If you want to split hairs, it was SS that cancelled the event. That CNN article said that it was Trump's campaign that canceled the event not secret service (which I think you are referring with SS). "Some 300 officers were on hand for crowd control, according to Escalante (Chicago Interim Police Superintendent John Escalante). The Trump campaign didn't consult with authorities before calling the event off, he said" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html

2:00 in Finland EDIT: Wrong time as I forgot that US moves to daylight saving before Tuesday.

Trump cancelling his rally gives bit premeditated feeling. As he is purposefully used rhetoric that is known to bring protesters and as soon as there is bit bigger protest his campaign cancels the event, even though official deny recommending such and claim that everything was under control, which brings even more media coverage to him and obscures disagreements against what he has been saying behind claims how he is silenced. So to me it seem like obvious tactical move that seem still somewhat work for him at least in media .

Final Score: SENSIBLE Your capacity for evil is minimal, and you seem like a rational, reasonable sort. That’s good! As long as it doesn’t get you killed... What kind result is that? And I even picked quite evil choices .

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make. Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in. One thing that I find strange in Ljubisa Ristic claim that Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic is that said threat happened in meeting where he was to present the NATO/Russian proposition for Milosevic. So anything presented there was result of negotiations between NATO and Russia, although Ahtisaari was mediator in those negotiations. And of course Ahtisaari is cold war era politician who is willing to use hardball tactics to get results.

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he forwarded NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.