213374U

I'm in the same boat. In my case it's just that I'm lazy as ****. Can't get any sort of work done that involves any degree of boredom, at all. Physical work I'm fine with, though. Anyway, when things are looking bad, I resort to ancient wisdom: "Hard work often pays off after time, laziness always pays off now"

How are you gentlemen !!

I'm sure you could have found these yourself... Got them from the official site. I've been a bit too quick to jump to conclusions before. This isn't a strategy game from what I've seen. Apparently there's no ground combat whatsoever?

Yep. While moral relativism is right that there are no universal, undisputable moral truths, this is completely useless from an utilitarian point of view. That's how I see it, too. Yeah. Playing a true "by-the-book" Paladin is leaving yourself wide open for "exploitation" from the DM...

Ooh, so it's that time! Okay, lemme try: Why was six afraid of seven? Also: what the *** is wrong with the :ph34r: emote?? (asterisks added for DRAMA)

Spandex, actually. :ph34r:

Perhaps he objects to not being tortured properly? That must be it. I mean, if you're going to go through that, the least they can do is be professional about it. There's only one thing worse than torture: not being able to brag about it afterwards.

Don't you try to deny quite open facts!

Armies and ethics don't get along well.

After kq3's (and gabs') comments, I couldn't resist to give FOT another spin, Tough Guy style. And you know there just ain't nothing tougher than a big, bad, green mutie. I'm playing a mod that allows you to start off as a Super Mutant, and it's pretty cool. I'm disappointed the game won't let me dual wield miniguns or even rocket launchers, though! Also playing the awesome TIE Fighter Total Conversion for XWA, and a coop game of Civ IV - Warlords with a friend. Yep, the AI cheating is still at stupid levels, but now they gang up on you if you refuse to be their bitch!

After purposefully joining the Armed Forces and willfully giving up a good portion of his personal freedoms?!? Yeah, I guess he could.

No, that's not what I meant. By a "set of rules" I implicitly meant a moral code. "Morality" is one of those important sounding words that stand for something much less grand and often simpler in concept. I wasn't talking about legality specifically either, as laws themselves (at least in a democracy) stem from the prevalent moral code in that society. As for the examples you brought up, they don't really deal with moral relativism, or even with morality itself, since those are all discussions of details. Everyone will agree that killing a human being before it's born is wrong. The question in that particular issue is, when exactly does the embryo become a human being? The question of gay marriage is a question of semantics, mostly, as some feel that a same-sex union shouldn't appropriate for itself the name "marriage". Global warming? Well, the scientific community itself can't seem to agree about that. And as for wars... that probably deserves a thread of its own. No, not really. Does watching sunrise make you automatically understand how the Solar System works?It is apathy because by claiming "respect" towards other moral outlooks that might be in direct conflict with yours equals to shrugging and walking off. It is also the easy and convenient thing to do when confronted with a situation that puts your integrity on the line. This brings up the point of the meaninglessness of integrity in moral relativism as well. A moral code is not something that just you will go by. It is something you believe in and will try to uphold regardless of circumstances. If you won't fight for your principles, what is there left to fight for? This is a flawed example. It's the same as proposing we have sharks be prosecuted for attacking and eating swimmers. Human moral codes are meant to apply only to humans, since as I said before, they are just a set of rules meant to ensure that mankind can ultimately progress as a whole. But yes, regardless of all that, I wouldn't allow a female to devour a male in my jurisdiction, because under my standards, killing a sentient being for no good reason (you haven't stated that there is a biological or sociological need for this... just inertia) is wrong. Sentience entails being able to overcome and control one's bodily urges. But I digress. Yes, stating the obvious is a central tenet of moral relativism. Unfortunately, it doesn't go much farther, so as to avoid being proven wrong in the future, maybe. Something that you don't define can't be wrong... but can't be right either. Therein lies the apathy of the theory. Good and evil have changed through time, and will continue to change, but should that stop us from defining them? Mind you, I'm not debating that good and evil are arbitrary notions, entirely dependant upon the circumstances. What I dispute is the idea that because they are, they have no value and shouldn't be upheld to the best of one's ability. If we do not, it's chaos. Those are moral dilemmas that have nothing to do with moral relativism, since they are internal conflicts within a given set of moral values, and they do not take other moral outlooks into consideration. Moral dilemmas predate by far the idea of moral relativism. Sorry for for the rambling and possible incoherences, but too much coffee and too little sleep prevent me from doing being more concise.

But don't get to become famous that way! It's like attention whoring on a message board, only this guy's a pro.

Yo Alan, what's the strategy element in this game, exactly? I've been to the website and it looks like a BF game only bigger... edited: - Disruptive comment removed -

Didn't you make the exact same thread a few months ago?

:'( :'( Why do you hate freedom?

Links. A "thousand" details you have failed to point out. That's called bullshitting, and I'm calling you on it. Translation: "Fallout needs to be what I want it to be or else I'll flood the boards with the same boring rants over and over until everyone can't resist the urge to kill themselves anymore".

Rape?

I think this warrants a "R00fles!".

Hades, repeating to yourself that 2+2=5 ad nauseam won't change the fact that 2+2=4. Sorry bub, but Tactics is part of the continuity until the owner of the IP says otherwise. No, that isn't you.

Um, it's been some time since I played Tactics, so I may be wrong but, did they explicitly state that their vehicles were powered by fossil fuels? I always assumed they used "micro-fusion cells" or something along those lines. Aside from the fur thing, Deathclaws weren't mind-controlled by the Beastlords; they worked for them willfully so they didn't kill Mother. And since the Master himself showed some kind of psionic abilities, I don't see how the Beastlords mind-control is in any way inconsistent with the setting. I'm surprised there is so much debate over the Deathclaws' fur, and nobody has mentioned how ridiculous (and different) Supermutants look in Tactics. Non-canon...? Well... since none of those supporting these alleged breaches of canon are actually officially accredited spokespersons for whoever owns the FO IP, I'd say canon contradicts them. Which automatically makes them wrong. It's like Star Wars canon. A lot of the EU went down the drain when Lucas went and did the prequels. I'm not dismissing anything, though. I just haven't found any of the typical complaints and arguments about Tactics irreconcilably contrary to the canon established in FO and FO2.

General Barnaky would agree with you. Unfortunately, I splattered his brains all over the place.

No, it's about how if the kids had been armed, they couldn't have been kidnapped. ...right?

I didn't know that. No official language for the country? What a mess.