Azarkon

I blame the forces that made the Columbine shooters famous, and so inspired a legion of wannabes.

The theory behind "westernization" and "democratization" is that it will bring the state into common cause with the modern world, which is dominated by the US and its allies. If this wasn't the case, I very much doubt our geo-strategy think tanks would ever contemplate an occupation & reconstruction process costing trillions of dollars. Imagine, for example, if we rebuilt Iraq and strengthened its army only to have it join Iran in opposing US influence in the Middle-East. Heads will roll in Washington and the Pentagon for that. The whole process is cynically geopolitical, and our playing one tribal group against another is simply a way of showing that those who side with us will reap the benefits of the new Iraq - so long as they dance to our tune. "Your interests lie in serving ours" - that's the message Washington is trying to send, and it's useful insofar as Iraqi identity can be understood in the same sense as Korean or Japanese identity - because those countries are prime examples of the sort of intertwined existential relationship that we're trying to build. The trouble comes when you consider the differences - Iraq is not an ethnically homogeneous or locally contained state (as Korea & Japan are); on the contrary, its ethnic-tribal groups view their affiliations as crossing national boundaries, both in terms of a pan-Muslim identity and in terms of the rivalry between Shiites in Iran, Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, and Kurds in Kurdistan. There is, as such, the very real possibility that reforming Iraq itself will not be sufficient, because the larger forces at play, to which Iraqis owe various degrees of allegiances, will remain untouched and return, once the occupation weakens, to retake Iraq for their own purposes. This is why the US is trying to play up Iraqi nationalism - in the hopes that they can avoid a division of the state along ethnic lines (which would place each ethnic fragment under the influence of their respective parent states), which would obviously run contrary to US interests as it'd force us to negotiate with those nations for anything we want in Iraq. But to preserve Iraq as a single nation, or even to deal with it as a divided nation, we must find a point of commonality between our interests. This is where secularism comes in - the idea that if you follow US interests, your people will achieve the same sort of expensive life style that the US is known for. Business interests, in other words, unfettered by Islamic strictures. After all, it worked for Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Why not Iraq? But then, of course, you realize that there is no real love for the US in either country, and that Turkey, despite being a member of NATO, is not keen on serving US interests, especially now that the US is knee-deep in regional politics in which Turkey has a real stake. And so the seeds of discontent are sewn; even if a secular Iraq indeed emerges, and Washington celebrates its "victory" over Islamic extremists in Iraq, how long, I wonder, will that "victory" last?

But our goal isn't to stop extremism. It's to attain dominance in a region destined to become a geopolitical hotpoint between the great powers - namely Russia, China, Europe, India, and, of course, the US. Consequently, I really don't think that the US cares whether the Middle-East is Islamic or not, so long as it's pro-US. By the same token, I don't think you should assume that secular nations are "natural friends" of the US, either. There are deeper links than secularism between the US and its Asia Pacific allies; something about them being home to a number of our military bases and being dependent upon our exports... In other words, I regard combating extremism to be a front. The deeper reasons for our involvement will become clearer in the coming years as sectarian violence decrease (hopefully) and the Iraqi people test the limits of their autonomy against US geopolitics.

The insurgency groups in question only have so much manpower, and they've not been in the business of winning alot of hearts and minds, lately. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if a prolonged military stay brings temporary security to the region. Of course, this means little, because our goal in Iraq is not to bring temporary security. No, we want the country to become pro-US and to serve our regional interests, much like Japan and South Korea in the Asia Pacific; that this can only be achieved by stability is just icing on the cake. To this end, the reconstruction of Iraq must proceed at pace, a permanent US military presence must be established, and its people must be willing to become, like the Japanese and the South Koreans, willing participants of Western market capitalism. They must be, above all, willing to cast off the yokes of Islam and thus, in part, their traditional identities to embrace a new, US-centric one. This last point is an important one, as both Pakistan and Turkey have shown, as of late, that just because you enforce Western pragmatism (by, ie, suppressing Islam) and an alliance with the US does not mean that you will succeed in converting people's fundamental allegiances. Ultimately, Islam and the Middle-East must reform itself to make peace with the West; any attempt to reform it from the outside will only leave deep-seated resentments that shall one day turn against the perpetrator.

Bioware: taking RPG romance to the next, logical level

Undeath to Death with high DC is the way I got through most of the undead heavy fights in the game. Kills death knights instantly and you don't even have to empower it. Only elder vampires gave me trouble, but then they're a pain for just about any caster-heavy gtroup.

I think I beat it with maximized IGMS. Yay for overpowered Bioware spells :D Vampiric Feast can also kill it.

Where are the other countries? I'd like to see the replay!

Did K2 have deeper companions than MoTB, though, or is it just Kreia? My impression of most of the other K2 companions was that they were pretty gimmicky and underdeveloped. That could've been the cut content, though. At any case, what I'm curious about is why Kreia was such a better character relative to the rest of Obsidian's creations sans Torment. Was it because she was necessary to the plot and could be assumed to be in the player's party wherever he went? Was it because she doubled as the villain and could thus, like Irenicus, benefit from plot development? Or was she simply better conceived, written, and presented, so that we could potentially have a full party of characters just as interesting?

Curious, is anyone else in KOTOR 2 in the same category? Or is it just Kreia? I ask because Kreia was integral to the plot of KOTOR 2, whereas in MOTB all the companions are optional.

I think you're asking too much from my argument. Fundamentally, a logical proof of moral relativism is extremely difficult, if not outright untenable, because this is - after all - abstract philosophy and not symbolic mathematics. However, that a correlation exists between vehement differences of opinion and the validity of moral relativism is a reasonable hypothesis, and that's all I meant by "goes out to show." It is by no means a proof because, as you said, difference can merely be explained by error. Of course, I am severely skeptical that difference is only error, but by no means am I going to claim that I have the answer to one of moral philosophy's most profound and controversial questions based on how people view alignments in games. That would depend on the definition of objectivity. My view of it has always been that moral "objectivity," insofar as it exists, refers to a shared sense of morality derived from fundamental symmetries in human experiences, and not because there is intrinsic moral value to the object of attention. Thus, my perspective is - indeed - that morality is principally relative, but that it can be functionally "objective" with respect to a group due to similarities of embodied perception. As the size of the group increases and its differences compound, however, this "objectivity" includes less and less universally shared values by virtue of statistical variation - until, at last, we arrive at humanity as a whole, which certainly still shares some values (much more so than if we were to start including other species), but in a much less capacity than, say, a single nation or culture. But of course, this is only my personal, subjective view, and as a relativist I can say that and be consistent

Difference of opinion =/= lack of objective fact phi 101, kids. MotB shows a pretty strong thomistic undercurrent in the D&D universe. The curse is unnatural, using it disrupts the natural order, thus it is evil. The presence of objective facts =/= a counter-argument to moral relativism. Alignment systems never reflect the moral complexities intrinsic to real life, and that's why players feel restrained by them. You'll have to do better than that, pops

This is why alignment systems suck... For every rationale you invent with regards to the shifts an action should produce, somebody will argue the opposite. It just goes out to show that in the real world, morality truly is, to a large degree, relative.

I think you're right. All I'm saying is that a developer should always try to bring something new to the table, not that he must strive to be as different as possible. If you want to tell a traditional, humble-farmer-becomes-epic-hero story, fine. But present it in a new way, put a slight twist on it, bring in unconventional NPCs, etc., so that those of us who's played dozens of games like those won't yawn through the whole thing predicting everything that's going to happen. That, incidentally, is why I love Obsidian games so much - because they always bring something new to the experience.

I disagree. A "good" clone (in my mind, there's no such thing) is the one that'll taint further endeavors to explore similar ideas. In fact, that's arguably the biggest problem facing the entertainment industry today, with companies like EA pumping out sports clones by the dozen that, while quality products in and of themselves, offer nothing new to their respective genres. Yes, if you change a few names around in FIFA, add a tweak here, fix a bug there, it's still a good game. Problem is, it's still the same good game, in which case there is no inherent value to what you've done. The tragedy is that sports fans will lap up these "re-releases" and justify their perpetuation, thus stifling the need for innovation, resulting in stagnancy. To me that's far worse than trying to be original and ending up with a dud. At least then you'll have learned what doesn't work, which is itself useful knowledge and helps advance the genre. And who knows? For every ten bad ideas you might get a good one, at which point it all becomes worth it. So to reiterate, I'd rather play a bad, but original game, then a clone of any quality. The former is, at the very least, a toss-up, whereas the latter is inevitably a waste of my time because I've seen it all before. That's not to say that you should never re-release titles, because game companies are, after all, businesses, but it is to say that these re-releases have no actual worth outside of the financial realm. Careful with the terminology, though; re-tellings are a bit different, since they typically are innovative in at least some ways. That makes them interesting and worthwhile to go through again, unlike clones. And you're right, with respect to re-tellings, that it's likely better to tell a good story somewhat differently than tell an original, but bad story. But that argument only works when there's enough originality to make the experience fresh; otherwise you can just replay the original game, which is what makes clones worthless.

Well, to be fair, he doesn't just steal from Star Wars...

The camera is indeed horrendous, and I agree - NWN 1 did it better by default. With the NWN 2 camera you have to tweak it in order to get something acceptable, and even then it hiccups at least once or twice per hour due to loading a new area. Just to give a specific example - why is it that when loading small indoors areas the camera zooms right by your character? If I'm in strategy mode I expect the whole thing to work like it did in isometric games, where the camera stayed at a certain distance and a certain angle consistently throughout the game, unless I change it. Yet, in NWN 2 and MoTB the camera jumps all over the place depending on which area I enter, and in some cases this forces me to switch to character mode just to be able to move since my vision in strategy mode is blocked by a huge clipping wall. The rest of the game is great, though.

Different does have intrinsic value, though, even difference for the sake of difference, because it represents something new. That something new might not be very good - in fact, it maybe trash, but it's still an addition to the body of tried ideas; at the very least, it shows what not to do. By comparison, a clone is... Worthless. It adds nothing. Sure, you might enjoy it, but if the work is really a clone, you might as well replay the source. It'd have the same effect. Of course, most works considered "clones" are not actually clones, but re-tellings with various degrees of originality, whether they be in plot, writing, graphics, or what-have-you. But if you simply write Star Wars and change the names of characters, what's the point? The worst of new ideas contribute more than the best of clones. So yes, while it's not generally a good idea to be different for the sake of difference, if you can't manage anything else, then at least be different.

Nothing at all! How's Satan doing, btw? I hear from the Bio boards that he's EA's majority shareholder

It's no surprise that Morgoth, Lord of Darkness, would champion EA

Personally speaking, the only game that I was really looking forwards to from Bioware was Dragon Age, and the fate of that game was never quite certain. So, like before, I shall wait and see. Hope Obsidian doesn't get acquired any time soon, though.

They could call the result 'Eurabia.' I kid, I kid. Or do I?

So, assuming I want to play these oft-praised games (Final Fantasy Tactics & Tactics Ogre) where should I start? (as in, what console, what port, etc.?)

When it all began? The opposite (think the Beatitudes). Christianity took root under the tyranny of the Roman Empire, and many of its early leaders were martyrs. They preached messages of faith, hope, and peace - for those were the messages that the oppressed understood. Things changed, many would argue, when Christianity rose to prominence, though my impression is that the change is less that of the religion and more those who represented it. The attitudes of the oppressed are one thing; the attitudes of power are another - and once Christianity was adopted by men of power things like the Crusaders and the political authority of the Church came into being. At the apex of the Crusades and the glorification of the Christian Warrior, it's not clear to me how different Christianity was from traditional warrior culture in terms of its views on war, but presumably there has always been the separation of "for God" and "for honor," the latter being more relevant to other warrior cultures.