Kveldulf
Members-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Kveldulf
-
So tell me what we have to do to get....
Kveldulf replied to Vicentegrev's topic in Computer and Console
I actually liked arcanum stat/skill/combat system. Maybe a disengage mechanic would have made things a bit better? Though, I'm really jaded with most stat systems increments anymore. It's so boring - no extra incentive/reward when capping a stat. I liked the element D&D 2.0 had, for this reason alone: 18/00 or a 19 felt like you were amazing than just the usual 5-15% better in a stat. Arcanum had this mechanic and it really defined a character. Guess systems have tended toward not hurting players feelings (or pushing very biased opinions) than trying to make certain game mechanics truly pronounced. -
Why the hype?
Kveldulf replied to SKull's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
To the OP - because apparently a lof of people like this type of game. I'm enjoying it. The few let-down/gripes I have are fairly superficial; that there is no physical brawn/strength and there's a playable mermaid/avatar race. Seriously, Aumaua look/sound pretty dumb, though I don't mind Kana. His portrait reminds me of a fantasy version of a toked out Jamaican - so its iconic enough to give him a grace card. -
Hard mode is too easy.
Kveldulf replied to Mazisky's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I'm thinking there's a difficulty bug or something. Or, perhaps our computers just know how to play the game versus the humans better I'm no newb to tactical rpgs either, and it feels like I'm barely able to keep the faces on my party members from melting ( on normal). I even went to a trainer to 'fix' things with my barb, and still had problems until I grabbed another fighter. Oh my, that helped.... a lot. Two-three fighters changed things dramatically. I sandwiched my barb in the middle/back and gave him a pike. -
This is true. I probably don't use them enough, but at the same time, non encounter abilities can only be cast once per rest. I guess in the end, what I'm ultimately saying in this thread is, I thought the barb would be decent at OT (with some hybrid gear), when in reality he's not. And, that 2 fighters seem to reduce party down time (and reloading) so much more than any other tank option - imo
-
Huh, well how often did you have to rest? Either way, I think the game seems so much easier with 2 fighters than only 1 fighter and 1 OT. Particularly when some jump around and swarm your clothies (and healer is getting interupted/pounded). I do wonder if some people have their difficulty setting functioning differently than mine. When I changed it from normal to easy, it felt like it made no difference, and I'm not new to the tactical rpg genre either (since 2000). I put it back on normal after this realization
-
Taking a paladin wouldn't seem to cure my woes. I tried making one, and after looking at the stats and utility, they fall too short compared to a fighter or priest. I may as well just slap on plate (which I've done with my barb). I understand that the barbarian is AOE melee but I want to use as many scripted NPC's as I can, without having to resort to the custom ones. That and I feel a bit pigeon holed into having at least two fighters - to be fluid. Easy or normal, it makes no difference. And yea I took 'Hold the Line' 2-3 fighters seem like the go-to paradigm for the game. ANything else, and its micro management + reloading
-
So, I started the game as a barbarian.... and further decided I didn't want to take any non-scripted characters. I wanted to experience the fullness of the story. Oh boy that was a rough decision, one that eventually led me to alter my barbarian with a trainer.... My frustrations started in the catacombs in defiance bay, when I reached an area of paladins that pummeled me agan and again... and again. I got real tired of it, and eventually came through but it was a struggle from then on. Some encounters were easier than others, but the average encounter usually meant gritting my teeth and reloading. I don't think this had anything to do with level difference, but had more to do with my group composition. I needed an additional fighter/tank, to utilize the collision detection in the game & reliably soak damage. My barbarian just wan't cutting it. So, I downloaded a trainer to change a few things I didn't like what was going on, like the barbarian, and camping equipment and a few other things Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of making rests strategic (and making rests less convoluted in nature), but at the same time, this is a single player game: I'm not competing with anyone else, so the mechanic of having camping equipment is sort of too novel, imo. I digress though. Back to the barbarian, I just felt like, he was too dificult to use. It would be much simpler to replace him with a fighter. It honestly felt like the barb was lack luster role wise - particularly with the collision detection. 2-3 tanks seem mandatory for smooth pace in action. So, I mainly altered his stats to be 16+. I thought this would help improve him his performance enough to compensate for only running with one tank (that and open some dialogue options). Wrong, it just wasn't enough, and I wasn't going to make him a demigod and break the mechanics of the game. I succumbed further and swapped the Chanter (Kana) for a dwarven fighter. Things are so much easier now, and even the mobs that like to circumvent the defence line, are much easier to manage. Anyone else notice or have similar sentiments? Any advice?
-
Strengths and flaws?
Kveldulf replied to amycus89's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
I think Lephys' point is still valid. In the end, it sounds to me like a matter of flavor. If a game really wants to balance the creatures around making trade-offs more 'genuine' then it would sound very legalistic; a trend that would probably seep into other elements of that system and thus jeopardizing immersion (imo). Usually this mind set is for online gaming companies (and newer pen and paper) that placate to 'qq' so they dont risk losing x amount of noobs. I believe trade-off perks should be more about the amusement than the authenticity. After all, it is a game, and immersion in rpgs is more about amusement than emphasizing "how genuine" the mechanics are. Not saying everything should be on the table for matters of amusement, but keeping it tasteful - which usually will hurt the feelings of 'x' amount of the player base, regardless. If some gaming mechanics are really amusing, there will always be 'them' that have the hard feelings about the balance and authenticity. -
Strengths and flaws?
Kveldulf replied to amycus89's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Meh, I thought the 'overpowered magic' wasn't all that breaking. Some spells sure were powerful, but so was melee or ranged for that matter Running around with a +20 some strength character or one of the vendigroth pistols sure had a feeling of OP'ness. Yes... and in any game not explicitly balanced around that trade-off, you won't miss the other, and balancing a game on something as trivial as a perk is a stupid idea. How many times do I have to repeat this? How do you suppose balance should look explicit then? Why can't a perk be a valid idea - in context to trade-offs (Add x attribute minus other attribute, or add x ability but subtract x attribute)? If we are talking about initial character creation, and background choices, there is already an inherent feeling of 'what could be' (missing out) IMO, The player is probably going to trivialize what they are missing, until after they exhausted one mode of playing. No system (usually) forces you to take trade-offs.... they are typically voluntary. Even if you came across a sword-immune creature, why can't you use a secondary weapon to defeat? If the game is built to be balanced with uber min/max efficiency in mind, then I can see trade-offs being a problem. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Indeed -
Strengths and flaws?
Kveldulf replied to amycus89's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
IMO, Sword, mace and related misc, by good design, should be under the same umbrella. Specialization to a particular weapon is a different story, but shouldn't be ground breaking - if you happened to choose/use a weapon you are not specialized in. Sure you may not be as effective, but can you get by in comabt? I think you should. Effeciency in character design shouldn't be the emphasis in game balance, all the time. Single player games, such as Pillars, can really neglect perceived effeciency (min-maxing) for the sake of player immersion. Will some players finish this game with X uber stat, X effeciency? Yes, but why should we care about this in a single player game? Will some things suck in certain situations? Yes, some things should, if the game was designed well. Like what another poster said, "between mace effectiveness and sword effectiveness is only bad if the game doesn't make you miss one or the other." - which I agree to. Weapons should be, in general, useful; they are tools after all, and should carry that same logic. Leveraging its use more so, is a matter of specialization and shouldn't be a choice of simple proficiency, imo. I think specialization should bring some just rewards, but its perceived benefit shouldn't feel like a mandatory choice for any 'effective character design'. I live for the times in RPG's where I am utterly not equipped to handle something, only to find a creative Macgyver like scheme to win. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
My thoughts to this: 1. I agree to some extent. However, in a fantasy setting, hypothetically there could be some materials, or simply 'magical' ways to manufacture armour - to stop even contemporary bullets; the question of how exotic these materials/means would then come in question. I think this could look contrived or tasteful: in the way of its implementation. 2. I believe you could mix this is in a setting: one culture over nyah is bent on manufacturing, the other over nyah being focused on craftsmen. 3. This is true. No matter how mutated firearms will be in a setting, there will always be the perceived connotation of firearm history and mechanics. This doesn't mean that an attempt to incorporate firearms will always look the same, rather it will always be a variable; like any other invention in human history. The origin of most fantasy substance is rooted from some real world concept; it's application to a mythological setting is a matter of its synergy; the setting and the appearance of intent. In the case of Pillars, it's obviously a bastardization of some recent history: contrasting a variety of anachronisms, for the sake of variety. You should ask yourself: Wouldn't it be interesting to see our world in such an diverse state: successful medieval kingdoms, rivaling industrial, technological and colonial era empires? -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Essentialist thinking is fundamentally flawed. It is applicable to nothing. Apply it, and you end up counting angels on pinheads. Deductive reasoning is applicable to some things, but because of the inherent limitations of knowledge, it's useless without some independent way to validate the conclusions to which it leads. Without it, they're just cathedrals in the air. I just did. Quantum events are uncaused, or self-caused if you will. Or can you show otherwise? (As Yonjuro pointed out, of course, that link in your chain is already invalidated by your posited causeless First Cause.) I take that as conceding the point: that you believe, on faith, that the Universe has a beginning. Thank you. In a closed system. That does not preclude order arising from disorder locally. We see that happening all the time. It just means that the total entropy in a closed system rises over time. Uh... right. I didn't actually understand a word of that. Me neither. We have a lot to answer for. I agree to disagree - regarding your prelude 1. Observer effect 2. You're welcome 3. Closed system is subjective to the entire environment it is in - in this case, at least the universe. 5. Man I don't know what happened there (sorry, it made sense up there), re-reading it now I see I probably should have made a few paragraphs from it. What I meant to say is: a first cause either implies reason, or the irrational. Choosing which one of these is either reasonable or irrational. If there be a God, the meaning of the word has to contain an aspect that is rational and one that is unknowable - the unknowable being the perceived irrational, really being purely rational (entirely effecient), from our purview. If there be no God, there exists no reason, or higher meaning (outside of the observer). If there is no meaning, nothing is absolute; why then, do we first have to acknowledge with meaning that there is a signifier, God , to then denounce there is no God..... to then prescribe to the meaningless? It simply does not make sense. Even so, if everything is meaningless, then how is it that what Im saying is meaningful? You can try to throw around 'signifier' as a relative fix, but that doesn't take away the glaring positve in such a negative view. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
P1: A universe exists independently of any observers. (Premise I accept on faith.) Quantum mechanics says otherwise. See "Observer Effect" P2: Consciousness exists as a quality of the Universe. (Premise I accept because I possess it.) How do you know its from the universe? Is the universe everything? Where did it come from (really the situation at hand)? If it's always been then how can you explain the physical laws (signifiers) limiting that idea? "2a. Categories like "self" or "mind" or "rationality" or "sentient being" are also signifiers associated with chunks of the universe, nothing more." This is an absolute statement I cannot agree with, and I doubt you can confirm. "3. The only noumenon is the Universe." Carl Sagen would agree with this; it's still a statement of faith. "4. I can know it in only two ways: direct experience and categorization." Aka Empirical or Theoretical. Which both of us have been using thus far. "Therefore, absolute truths and certain knowledge is unattainable. At best, we can have approximations of it. Sometimes good approximations" Except this statement is absolute -the matter of approximation isn't probable or improbable - there would be no way to know an accurate/best approximation under this, therefore it wouldn't mean anything. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Well, you can call them outdated, doesn't make them so. Groups of people can label it as such.... doesn't take away from the validity: those fundamentals are still applicable. 1. Logically, you provided no example other than: there is an event that has no effective cause. You provided nothing other than a proclamation. The statement alone will show itself contradictory - to say an event had no effective cause, first requires the observer to have cause to gauge the 'no cause' of said thing; therefore giving cause to the thing that supposedly had no cause, because you observed it. The real question is where did the first cause in this situation come from? If there was no cause, then why quantify it; you cannot make the statement without logically getting into deep problems. Abstractly you can get away from this logic - as an idiom. Literally, logically you cannot. 2. I'm not sure what answer you are wanting? To what exactly? Time? The proof of a linear nature to the universe? I don't need to concede anything regarding this, because I haven't asserted anything other than it requiring faith. If you are refering to the nature of infinity vs eternity, then yes those are both distinct words to be used appropriately. If you believe the universe to have always been, then you believe that the universe is eternal, not infinite. If you believe there is a point of origin and the universe will alawys exist from that point on, then that is infinite. If you are wanting proof regarding whether or not the physical universe is finite, looks to the theory of expansion. 3. Entropy. Things have a tendency to go from a state of order to disorder (that hiearchy is congruent with effecient cause). Order precipitates chaos everytime its even talked about (im not talking about Warhammer ). 5. You stated from a premise that it comes from disorder; the scope is localized to (i wager) the event rather than all of the preceeding causations; being: content measurement, weather patterns, location, planetary magnetics (real important to weather formation) - coronal hole stream interactions at that time, cosomological interactions ...... this keeps going. The irrational cannot make something rational, otherwise it would be rational, unless, what we perceive is irrational is really rational because we lack the rationality to gauge it. You can try to inverse it, but you should end in it being rational - ie coherently true, or coherently false.... You cannot make an incoherent statement, and it be coherent. If we did that, we wouldn't being having a conversation. And one day, I wouldn't be suprised if current works get lumped in with the middle ages.... or even called the new middle ages.... age of regression. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Exactly, that's the leap of faith I mentioned and it's why the Aquinas argument is bogus. In a logical argument, when you have a universal quantifier, it really means everything. If it doesn't, it ain't logic. In line one, 'everything' doesn't mean everything, it means 'everything except for this one thing that we are tacitly assuming exists and has special properties'. Like all of Aquinas' attempts to prove god it says : god exists therefore god exists. He was given an impossible task by the pope (prove that god is knowable by reason unaided by faith) so he did the best he could. Nobody should buy any of his attempts as logical arguments from first principles, because they aren't. Everything cannot be an independant cause, thats illogical. The argument distinguishes that: everything has cause, and nothing cannot have cause; nothing is not everything. Nowhere does it state The First Cause, is without cause. Rather, it qualifies it as the 'first' rather than 'effecient' cause (dependant to the first cause). It seems with your assertions though, you are super imposing a logical sequence - If you make something, were you not the cause of it? Do you become it because you made it? No, of course not. Ultimately, the effecient cause argument is merely pointing to a series of causations to an origin. Modern physics tends to concur with this line of logic: 'evolution', thermdynamics, quantum physics. -
Attribute theory
Kveldulf replied to Sensuki's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Agreed. Attributes and augmentations are different but related. I wonder if some other agenda, other than brevity, is afoot; making intellect the new strength alludes to someone who had/has issues with jocks, bullies, movie indoctrination or perhaps living in their own kingdom for too long. . Really though, I'm not opposed to all stats affecting damage. As a matter of fact, I think in one way or another, all attributes should govern some aspect of defense and or offense. The borders of "gamist" and "simulationist" have to overlap somewhere or we get really confusing rules. In the sense of nomenclature (in this case) forgoing something so typical, for whatever reason, isn't a matter of effeciency/balance, but is looking more like a matter of mere distinguishment (from other systems), for the sake of it. Balance wise, it might sound good, in its own ecosystem, but for the player, its unneccessarily limiting. If they think physical strength-damage can be abstractly represented, then okay, its their game to design. To me, thus far, the representation of stats look too fudged/contrived. Though, the interactions between some of the stats (or promise of) sound interesting.- 483 replies
-
- 1
-
- attributes
- stats
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
playing "evil"
Kveldulf replied to Michael_Galt's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
^ Yes -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Err, I don't see how we got here in a discussion about guns, but anyway - Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God all have a leap of faith. Here's one of the problems with this one: 6. Therefore something exists that doesn't have an efficient cause. 7. Therefore, it is not the case that everything has an efficient cause. 8. Everything has an efficient cause (repeated first clause of line one). 9. Line 7 contradicts line 8 - done. now, about those guns... Too tempting.... you might want to look at your wording regarding 'something' (it doesn't fit, or equal first cause) and replace with first cause - to maintain the logic (and associated grammatical changes). This falls in line with the logic - unmovable mover and quantum physics (due to dualities). As far as guns go, it would be amusing to see at least one large caliber equivelant, over .70. Something like this (but a blackpowder equivalent): maybe even something like this (swivel cannon) but hand held (wouldn't be a swivel anymore), requiring a skill: -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it..... The Argument from Efficient Cause: There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes. To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there be no first cause then there will be no others. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God). So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching. Oh, jeebus. That's a broken chain of logic if I ever saw one. Philosophy has advanced a bit since Plato and Aristotle, y'know. (1) Consider a lump of uranium ore. Observe a nucleus decay. What is the efficient cause of that particular nucleus, rather than some other nucleus, decaying? (2) Why is it not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes? For example, what if the Universe (in some sense) is infinitely old (in some sense?) (2b) How about a circular chain of causes. What if time is circular rather than linear, and the Universe's ending is the cause of its beginning? How do you rule this out? (3), (4), and (5) follow from your flawed premises; therefore they are necessarily flawed. (5b) Why is the First Cause necessarily God? Edit: your first statement is also incorrect. You do not need to have an absolute point of reference to be able to value or assess information, or anything else. You can always value or assess it relative to other, relative points of reference. Which is what we all do, even Platonists like you -- the only difference is that you mistakenly believe your relative points of reference are absolutes. I'll add another few cents and then railroad the topic back (kk with you responding to this, but I'll refrain responding for the sake of everyone's mood): First, I'm not sure why or how ancient Greek philosphy or even Thomas Aquinas (who wrote effecient cause) are antiquated, obsolete? If you know so, I would love to hear your rationality. Is it just because modern logic is superior; from awareness, discovery? I don't think so, if anything, in a lot of areas its regressed. Sure, we may have many new propisitions (many allusive, vain ones) in this 'current age of science' and some theories we've picked up along the way; being tested but not absolutely definite in all cases (otherwise it would be a law). Modern science is still a realm of observation; being subject to the essence of faith or probablity - depending on the conscious observers' initial premise before observation. Even physical laws disentigrate within the origin of the expansion theory. Also regarding your counter propositions: 1. Not sure what point you are trying to make other than: an exception must exist for x because of x. This is illogical if so, and is exactly what the statement Thomas Aquinas was trying to make: you can't prove something with the same substance (or essence): it requires something outside of it to prove anything. 2. This is a presupposition, and it doesn't assert anything; what you are attempting to theory craft is an idea that is much deeper than infinity, into the word eternal. If things regressed or digressed in both directions without beginning or end, that would be eternal. Infinity has a fixed point and continues. If you are attempting to say that the universe is eternal, then what has led you to that conclusion? This presupposition requires faith. 2b. How do you rule it in? If the universe is everything that will ever be, then its own laws are self limiting and show that this cannot be the case. This statement would require a lot of faith (a lot of trust), as there is no indication that this is the case. 3-5. Nevermind effecient cause is also congruent with thermodynamics - fyi 5b. If we are to agree that an origin exists (unomved mover) it is either irrational or rational. If it be irrational, how can something rational come to exist from it? (I'm keeping this train of logic short, for your brevity) Therefore, it must be rational. Can parts of this being be irrational? Well to us it can be perceived that way (doesn't make it absolutely true). I believe therin lies a duality: There is something unknowable and knowable about this originate: in christianity (what the bible actually alludes to), God the Father is the unknowable (omni-whatever), the son is the rational interface of the Father: being the only thing truly rational, and being the only point of reference we will understand of God. The Spirit is the thought and will carried out through in his design (reason): reflected in anything understanding it. The other part of this coin is: the originate, perceives everything without time; the intelect of this being is without knowledge, so therefore, in his mind everything purposeful must be carried out. If anything is purposeless it would go against the very premise of a God. Think of ripples in everything having a dependency, essentially. Sure facts can be relative in a form, but from as I see it, they can not escape fundamentals - a hierarchy of dependencies leading up to, in a more progressive sense, that which is more and more unmovable/unchangeable. _____ Railroad Beginning _____ Guns are indeed kewl. I'm particularly fond of the archaic, vendigroth weaponry in Arcanum. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
You can't imagine how much i agree with you. I felt it was a problem to say it here, so i did not. But it's so truly true... As an example, in France, we were teached long ago that colonialists saved poor countries and poor people. And now that we have some... "problems", colonialists were just killers and robbers: one extreme or another. France is just not at peace with its history, Japanese can sometimes convince themselves that it was China who attacked them during the Sino-japanese war, and so on... I've not an extended knowledge of all that matters, but i really think that it's hard to just learn "facts" at school, in a pure cold way, and with no political matters/interests. USA is not different and has, i think, a really huge problem with this too, as it seems they learned really exagerated things (as an example, i don't know how many americans know that more than 80% of Germany casualties during WW2 were against Russia. However, just wondering, not judging). The biggest problem here seeming to be that people (in whichever country we could speak about) just "trust what people say"... I spoke with ancients... The way they learnt history was (at least) different. Indoctrination is really the right word, but, to me, it's just one more way... The first: TV. So many lies, so many things that are just "silenced"... And what gives me a shock day, after day, is just that people end to have an opinion on whatever subject they were talked to, without knowing even a few about it, just because "they said it on TV/at School..." Like Hildern said in Fallout New vegas: "The less people know about things, the more opinions they have. I'm a scientist, and am not about political matters" (or something like that). But hey, i wonder if it is really possible to speak frankly and calmly about these matters. This is really interesting to me because there are people from so many countries here that maybe i'll learn something/discover i'm wrong all along and so on... PS: Had a hard time to write this, and i expect to be misunderstood quite a bit because i miss so many words to explain me well. EDIT: To me God is not a cause, but a consequence: people who don't understand something just seek for an explanation. God has the same source as sciences. A response to needs of understanding and explaining. Your list may be true if you assume that faith was a "start point" to think about the world thousands years ago. Well, it's my opinion, and faith is not about logic (and i have a hard time to explain exactly what i meant here ). I have no problem with people who "believe", even if think that faith is an obstacle when people just try to "think", "listen", "understand in a pure logic way". But it's not really about history here, i guess. It is your liberty to believe in 'X'. You may believe and by proclamation, that God is a consequence, but making the statement doesn't make it true. Equating God or the belief there of, as merely a way to explain something not understood is a bit narrow too, don't you think? I'm not sure what you mean exactly with 'God has the same source as sciences'. I could presume you mean he follows his own design (he wouldn't be a creator if he didn't). Logical deduction has to be used in finding the essence in material substance. If you really think faith is without logic, how can you logically say that? Can you prove it is without logic, even empirically? In the realm of apologetics, I don't believe so.. I'm not saying logic is faith, but rather, logic (reality) naturally leads to faith; which logically, should lead to an ultimate, rational interface (opposed to the unknowable aspects, omni-x); whom I believe is Jesus Christ. Trust is a different story; that involves faith again but without the knowledge to gauge entirely. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it..... The Argument from Efficient Cause: There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes. To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there be no first cause then there will be no others. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God). So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching. -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
The premise "all truths are relative" is contradictory because the statement is not relative. You can proclaim it is, but it's a logical fallacy. If truth were relative, is that statement really meaningful - since truth would be ultimately relative? if there is no true meaning, then what are you trying to say? -
why guns in such an epic time
Kveldulf replied to okey231's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Truth is a highly problematic proposition. If you believe there is such a thing in a final, absolute sense, you're already mistaken. It's worse if you get that at school. From my understanding, that statement becomes mistakenly contradictory (law of non-contradiction). To label truth as having no absolute sense, would require an absolute statement, therefore qualifying truth to become absolute in at least one circumstance. Also, to label no other possibilites of truth being quantified would require faith - since I or you are probably not omniscient. A final absolute sense of truth, from what i figure, becomes the essence of faith. To some naturalists, they call it probablity, but still have faith in the probablie or improbable. One way or another, again, from my understanding, you cannot logically seperate the premise of 'faith' from any perogative (or the element of truth).