213374U

Guitar Hero, indeed.

Growing up with one extreme and then seriously think that the other extreme on the far end of the scale is the solution, is pretty moronic in my book. Especially if you call yourself a philosopher. Funny that, believe it or not, the stated ultimate aim of soviet commies was the abolition of the state (when the last peasant had reached the level of a "professional" revolutionary, but still), and yet, that wasn't what Rand wanted...

Yeah, I thought my connection was acting up when I first saw the thread. ZOMG Obsidian fix teh bugs! Anyway: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=NWN2S...etail&id=99 That's Spell Fixes, but has a component for increased challenge. May or may not be compatible with different combinations of other mods and expansions.

*preorders*

Actually, that's how things are, in all but name. Whether law should be made to reflect, impose or reinforce that is a different matter. Also, for the parallelism to stand, there is a need for a notion, even if it's not stated explicitly, that the "chosen" and the rest are closed sets predetermined somehow, and cannot intermingle. This would effectively define elitism, but it's not a necessary consequence of Rand's thought, outside of the choice to act irrationally. Yep, she did despise that kind of people, though - "be reasonable or die!" Elitism may not be new, but other than that, her ideas hadn't been articulated and grouped together, so Objectivism couldn't be critiqued as a whole. I suppose "formulate" isn't the right word.

I actually find that sort of customization more of a chore than actual fun, as it ends up with me wasting time finding a combination of features that isn't hideous for something that has zero effect on gameplay. Choosing between premade heads a la KotOR is good enough for me, but even if that's not present, I won't miss it.

Yeah. Call me obtuse, but how does Karamazov Bros sum up the flaws of a philosophy that hadn't been formulated by the time it was written? Other than arguing that the average human is a weak, unworthy wretch secretly willing to give up his freedom in exchange for comfort?

Ah. So you mean "restricted" as in movement, as opposed to map continuum. I don't think that's what open world refers to. edit: slash that, "open" may very well refer to what you said. I'm just used to thinking "boundless" or "transition-less" (mostly), when I read about "open worlds".

Whoa, blast from the past.

And you aren't restricted to a predetermined set of maps in Fallout? How so?

I haven't read the whole PDF (though I intend to, is it part of a series?), but it doesn't look like a particularly solid critique, other than the is/ought problem, which is little more than the kernel of the text. A glaring hole in the system, but one that requires individuals to want other than to survive in order to be a factor. That way she minimizes (even if she doesn't really solve) the thing with the need for an ethical code. This essentially renders the "objective" aspect of her ethics not-quite-so-universal, but to me Rand rather sidestepped the issue, than outright contradicted herself. I may be wrong, but the name of her philosophy isn't important here, as it's more inspired by the epistemological take than the ethical one. *shrug* I did like the "rational choice of irrationality" thing, though. But that's a very complex issue on its own, and I don't appreciate the author forcing his very shallow and poorly explained deductions down my throat like he does. Here we go again. Read up on the comments, and you will see the author herself admit that it's the novel she has a problem with, as opposed to Objectivism itself. Yeah. And in the ultimately unregulated field that is geostrategy, can you name one single monopoly (of power) that didn't fail eventually? The idea that perpetual monopolies can exist is as loony as the idea that monopolies can't exist at all, if we look at the evidence. I don't understand. doesn't Dostoevsky predate Ayn Rand?

Yes, but to crit on a 15 you will need a weapon with a normal crit range of 18-20, say, scimitar. There are better feats to take for Druids, too (ie Natural Spell), as you shouldn't be spending too much time in human form during combat. The feats for Weapon Focus (Creature) and Improved Critical (Creature) weapons are in the game, but you can't have them without cheating, which is a shame. On the down side, Diplomacy is the only dialogue class skill Druids get. Not that you *need* more, but a bit of variety is always fun.

You are allowed 3 NPCs for the first act, and 4 for the rest of the game. I'd recommend a build similar to what MC proposed, mainly to take advantage of the huge amount of skill points afforded by the rogue levels. Spend those preferably on dialogue skills, as that's about the only thing NPCs can't do for you. In my current game I went with a Ftr/Rog/WM/BG. I chose human for flexibility and the extra feat, which went to Able Learner (MUST HAVE!). The sneak attack from BG stacks with the rogue's, so it's pretty fun. And critting on a 13 is just obscene. Other than that, straight melee characters are fairly boring - monk is a total snorefest. You may want to get the mod that allows you to muticlass NPCs, too.

[quote name='H

This. +INF/-INF notifications favor metagaming over roleplaying. At the very least allow the player to hide them. Other than that and the silly rage animation, it looks sweet. And the beards are better than FO3's!

****in' A. A shame that chunking couldn't be solved by Wish + Resurrection, though.

That's actually mentioned in the article. They even use the technical term: Diagonal reading is bad for you... you might need a hemispherectomy if you can't control it!

I know you're trying to cheer ol' Grumpy up, but I disagree. People are, for the most part, mediocre and boring. That doesn't mean one should live alone in a cave, though. Of course, your mileage may vary.

^ I wonder why. But yeah, it would be cool if they got around to getting the different class-based titles working. And enabled the BBCode for flash embedding too, while they are at it...

I thought you were older.

Sure, because it supports your POV. It's bad form to post a review of a book having read only a portion. It's disrespectful toward the author... and it shows contempt toward the reviewer's work and readers. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the content of the review itself as I haven't read the book myself. But understand that I'm not going to take Pickrel's (or your own) word for it. One is deliberately incomplete (and conveniently, it's not the first time I see it used to attack her) and the other is, quite obviously, heavily biased. Further, you aren't being honest - you are using the alleged poor quality of Atlas Shrugged (as a novel!) as a means to attack Rand and, by extension, objectivism. Her worth as a novelist and her worth as a philosopher are separate things. Have you read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"? Do enlighten us!

I think you are mistaking "good" for "lazy".

I don't go to pubs, so no worries there.

Hahaha, oh man. You really are a pop stalinist.