SkeleTony

Sorry about that. I actually wondered aloud if typing that word that way was going to be a problem. I should adopt the rule that if I have to wonder about it I probably should not do it. Also, sorry for the multi-post thing. I got spoiled by forums that automatically combine such posts.

Okay let me put it this way: There is a disturbed kid sittin in his basement, refusing to take his meds for the last week. He eventually comes to the 'realization' that the only thing for him to do is to head over to the school/bus station/grocery store/daycare and kill a few dozen people. This kid is going to target the place where YOUR kids/family will happen to be. Now, which of the following places would you want to be living when this occurs: 1)The USA - Where you not only have to worry about the psycho-kid and the ease by which he has access to military assault weapons, but also possibly a dozen paranoid Ted Nugent types sitting around in their cars (with their guns) in the parking lot looking for 'suspicious people' and on edge over the Newtown school shootings. 2) England - where just getting a single gun can be difficult and for the kid to get an assault rifle is next to impossible. Not even the cops have guns. 3) Austrailia - Where, again the disturbed kid MAY be able to get ahold of a non-automatic rifle or shotgun. ? People always claim that more armed citizens leads to people being better protected from such tragedies but this is simply FALSE. What it leads to is more bar fights ending in death and severe injury. More spousal disputes ending in death and injury. More kids shot by their parents because they were mistkaen for a criminal. More "Well ****! How was I supposed to know he was an undercover cop?! He looked suspicious and when he reached for his gun I thought he was going to shoot up the 7-11!" deaths. Etc. etc. First of all, false analogy. Second of all: straw man. No one is arguing that anyone who has a gun is "more liklely to commit a crime". What some of us are arguing is that uncontrolled preponderance of guns = much greater propensity of homicide in the form of mass shootings, armed robberies, assassinations, drive bys etc. If gangsters have to get out of their cars, chase me down and stab me to death then killing me becomes a much more difficult task (especially trying to do so without getting arrested) than if they can just drive by spraying bullets all over. Drinking alcohol does not necessarily lead to getting drunk (but you are already much further along than the guy who does not drink) and getting drunk does not necessarily mean you will be a violent a$$hole. But we do heavily control drinking/doing drugs in the forms of minimum ages, times in which alcohol can be purchased and what you are allowed to do if you have been drinking/drug using. You cannot drive for example while impaired. THAT is what gun control advocates are asking for. You have a funny definition of "punish". Are we punishing people by not allowing them to enrich uranium in their warehouses? Are we punishing people by not allowing them to drive a Boeing 787 down the freeway? Are we punishing parents who force their children to die of easily treatable diseases becuase they don't want to believe in medicine in their religion by insisting they take their children to doctors when they get the measels, flu, pneumonia ? What about the guy who wants to place land mines on his property then order a pizza delivered or have an ambulance come pick up his wife when she becomes ill?

I know I will somehow catch Hell for this but I will try to say it, maturely and without insulting, anyway. 1) The Second Ammendment not only applied to a time when we had NO MILITARY aside from the typical citizen with his musket/rifle, but also at a time when the founders could not even imagine a day when fully automatic assault rifles, Uzis, etc. existed. If they could have seen what todays guns can do to (a LOT of)people in mere seconds, they would surely ask us if we had lost our minds in not enacting severe controls on who could own and use what guns. We have a real military now. The most powerful in the world. If any other nation's military gets past ours then you and your AR 15 will not make any difference at all. 2) Re: " But what if our government becomes a tyranical dictatorship to which we must take up arms against to preserve our liberty?" - This is as silly a hypothetical as I can possibly imagine. It has as many holes as 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let's say for the sake of argument that Obama (or whomever) gets this bright idea to enslave America (for whatever reason...). Okay that's the first step and it's all uphill from here! Next he has to "psst. Psst. Over here...you guys. I got this idea to oppress America and turn this place into the Fourth Reich. Everyone with me? All of you Dept. of Defense guys, Justice Department folks and what not? Good...because if anyone of you go to the CIA or Pentagon or media with this then it is all ****ed up! Not only will YOU become the hero that saved America but I will be killed by firing squad. So nobody tell on me...okay?". But the silliness does not end there. Next the conspirators and Generals and such have to convince American soldiers to turn their arms against their own families, killing them should they decide not to accept the new government. Hard to imagine soldiers not wanting to shoot down their own parents, wives and children to support a mad scheme destined to get us invaded by some U.N. coalition of nations once it takes effect (/sarcasm). 3) England probably has the strictest gun control laws in the civilized world. They have less gun-related deaths per year than we have per DAY. I don't know if they have ever had a mass shooting. Austrailia has in recent years went with very strict laws controlling gun ownership and usage. They did this in response to a rising tide of mass shootings that did imense damage in terms of lost lives and general psyche. The result? Thety may have had one mass shooting since the gun buy back and other parts of their gun control packlages were enacted (assuming the wikipedia article I read was legitimate). Gun related crimes and death have dropped by 50% (though some on the Right will claim this is not true and cite sketchy sources to support such). 4) The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. it does not become non-fallacious by repeating it over and over (this is not directed at Harehunter who never advocated such. This is directed at a certain someone in this thread who does keep repeating this fallacy. It does not stand to reason that restricting guns in any way (i.e. banning assault rifles etc.) leads to absurd prohibitions regarding gun collectors, hunters, paintball players etc.. Anymore than prohibiting the construction of 'dirty bombs' leads to Warner Bros. cartoons or Michael Bay movies being illegal due to the explosions contained therein. I am surrounded by gun owners in my neighborhood. If someone were to try and break into any house on my street he would be signing his death warrant. Every one of these people are balanced, sane and trustworthy to own guns. I have no objection to them doing so (most are former military or law enforcement). I would be a hypocrite if I did have such a problem. But for the love of honesty people can we have at least as much regulation as we do for driving big rigs?! In order to drive a semi truck or some such you need to earn a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) and to get that you have to be thoroughly tested. IMO if we are going to license people to be gun owners (and we should) then we should have a battery of tests for psychological stability as well as gun safety and proper use training. I don't think we will usher in the apocalypse by doing so.

Hey, though some of that stuff is undoubtedly outdated, I am wondering if anyone has those old articles that Spiderweb used to host in the "Scenario Workshop"(BoE) area of the web site? I used to learn a lot from those articles and now there is no similar source for such information. I wonder if the BoE community may have resigned themselves to thinking the only people designing or planning to create scenarios already know the editor inside and out?

Just a quick note/observation/question: I see this rationale for not correcting certain game-balance issues or adding features which might alter game balance because old scenarios will not work(as well) because those designers, way back in the day designed their scenarios with these bugs/balance issues in mind. Correct me if I am wrong(I probably am) but if someone wants to play the old scenarios shouldn't they do so using the original BoE instead of new open source updated versions? I mean I myself have both versions on my hard drive(they are ridiculously small in size in this day and age of 500 GB to multi-Terabyte hard drives.). I mean isn't this kind of like the coders on the new Duke Nukem 3D versions NOT doing what they have been doing(3D High Resolution packs, Windows and Linux ports etc.) because 'Map makers who created their maps back in 1997 did so with the limitations of the OLD Duke Nukem(DOS/Win 95) and their maps won't work with these new proposals...'?

Was watching a Pat O'Connel video a while ago where he lamented people voting for ANY of the big three parties in England. He made the case that all of them are 'Pro-Islamicization' of Britain and said he was going to vote for whom he felt was the only party not being cajoled into voting FOR Islam out of fear of terrorism(I believe the part he was endorsing is called the British Independence Party" or some such). Need to dig up link but what say you to this? I cannot have a very valid opinion because I don't live there and am not all that well informed obviously.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves Yes, there have always been lunatics, but they haven't always had national platforms from which to spew their lunacy onto the gullible and under-informed. Sure we have, we had them before World War II on the radio stirring up the masses against Roosevelt. We have them now on radio, TV, and the internet. We will have them in the future on whatever comes next to allow mass communication. While this is true, I think the point here is that since the removal of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan(a payback to the Christian Right as he was leaving office), we see more and more of this sort of irresponsible behavior from "News media". It used to be that as a matter of principle, Newscasters and reporters kept political views out of their reports but if someone DID decide to feature an editorial from the Right or the Left then they would follow that with the counter-point. And even when they did this they were not trying to trick people into thinking the editorials were just NEWS reporting. Fox takes things to such an absurd extreme of distortion, lies and 'stealth Conservatism'(that is not so stealthy except that it apparently fools a bunch of rednecks). There is really nothing comparable to them in America.

I think we are mostly all in agreement here so I will try to keep this short. Master Ackrovar above tried to make the case for Beck being just as radical as Carlin(or vice versa really) by citing Carlin's denial of a supreme being/God. Maybe I am not reading you right here but if I am then...REALLY?! THAT is now a "radical"/extremist assertion? I will stop there because I don't want to drum up the theism vs. atheism thing here but that is quite a stretch. There is no such thing as being "too opinionated" in stand up COMEDY. And I cannot see any problem with a commentator being too opinionated(or not) in his own show. My issue with Beck is that there is "too opinionated" and then there is "shouting crazy [censored]!". If you are saying something on par with 'The Earth is flat' and blaming the political Right/left for the rest of the world not agreeing with you, then it is not that you are too opinionated that is the problem. it is that you are saying bat-[censored] crazy things and the sorts of followers you are trying to rile up are exactly the sorts of insane bastards that will create atrocities. Everyone watching Carlin do his comedy either laughed or did not laugh but they all recognized he was doing comedy and he spoke truth(as comics are prone to do), exaggerated at times for the purpose of making it funny. That was what Carlin intended. Beck is an altogether different beast.

Originally Posted By: Triumph Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: boggle what is this Great Pumpkin of which you speak? PHILISTINE! QFT Also, see this for a decent explanation.. Decent but fails to take into account or even mention that Charles Shultz was, in his own words "A secular humanist". It seems unlikely to me that he did not intend for the Great Pumpkin to be a metaphor for Christianity(though one can easily see why he would deny this charge decades ago when it could have cost him his career or worse).

Originally Posted By: Master Ackrovan He isn't any more of a radical then George Carlin was. Woah. I guess that depends on what you mean by "radical"? The extent to which Carlin stretched the truth was that he was a stand up comedian and that is their JOB. It is a necessary component of comedy. Beck is acting as a serious analyst of politics & the news and he is saying things WAYYYYYYYYYY more untruthful than anything Carlin could have imagined! He is not just exaggerating for comedic purposes(as John Stewert or Stephen Colbert might). He is literally asserting that Obama(and pretty much every other Liberal) is trying to MURDER all good Americans through a variety of impossible conspiracy schemes.

How does what Glenn does = entertainment though? That seems a lot like saying "Fred Phelps is an entertainer, not a Christian preacher.". Not really disagreeing with the gist of what you are saying(that he is no journalist and ideally should not be given the credence of such) except to say that I think it is imperative that people debunk, ridicule and expose such people whenever they open their mouths. Will rational minds be swayed by Beck or our criticisms of Beck? No. They already know he is an imbecile. But the general public is another matter. When the average person is surrounded by Glenn Beck fans and he or she is not exposed to John Stewert, Lewis Black, etc. then they are likely to become activists for Beck's causes. This is because when people fail to reason to a conclusion they are apt to follow the trends they perceive. When the trend they perceive is that Beck is a moron saying insane things then they will be on that bandwagon. But if the trend they perceive is that Beck is a crusader for our civil liberties against a Nazi-like Liberal attack then they will be on THAT bandwagon.

This is seemingly a moot point since the coders do not seem interested in such alternatives but Goblins do not have to be uninteresting 'adventurer-foddder' and such and even at their least interesting they are still more interesting than humans, cat-people etc. IMO. RPGs have always been full of humans,lizardmen, cat-people/furries, elves, munchkins etc. I just think it is high time someone thought a little outside of that box. Goblin PCs could be a cut above the goblins one encounters as enemies in scenarios. For example allowing PCs to select one of several possible 'mutations'(extra arms, fluctuating attributes, etc.). There are infinite ways to make ANY species an interesting playable race. But of course that takes coding skill if it were to be done in BoE so until some programmer gets tired of the same old, same old...

One's personal subjective opinions about which races are more interesting are fine and good but should not be used to LIMIT the game's potential. Ideally creators should have a checkbox type option for which 'extra' races would be included in his/her scenario as PCs. Personally I am not much impressed with so called 'original' fantasy races that generally turn out to be the same old fantasy races we have seen a thousand times(i.e. cat people, lizard people, strange bulbous-eyed aliens etc.) only with ugly names(re: Elves that are in some game called "Venrila k'thasians" or some such nonsense) and am much MORE impressed with new twists on familiar fantasy races(such as the dwarfs, elfs and trolls of RuneQuest who are ten times as original and interesting as any race this side of Talislanta!). But to each his own. I would be happy with just Vahnatai added even as something is better than nothing.

I am not a programmer so keep that in mind as you read this... I don't think that weapon bonuses(to hit) are necessary or even sensible for the Vahnatai. Even if Jeff scripted in one game or another that they were superior swordsmen or throwers of edged weapons or something I think that could be ignored(BoE sliths has a bonus to Intelligence but Jeff wisely did away with that in BoA didn't he?). What seems to make most sense in my mind is: +2 Int Bonus to Spell Points(+%25?) Penalty to Hit Points(-%25?) Experience penalty -15%? That is assuming the current code is not dramatically altered to allow for greater variation on what can and cannot be done. Ideally having bonuses and penalties with specific weapons, armor, spells, etc. for different races would be great if it could be done. Though I have played BoE since it was first released, I have not played enough BoE to understand(or remember?) what the problems with archery and such being alluded to above are. But my response would be that the code/design should be altered to fix this. For example, having archery attacks benefit from 'aiming'(ala Jagged Alliance 2) in some way. I would not stop at the Vahnatai either. I can see Goblins as P.C.s: -1 Str +%5(or +%10?) Exp bonus. or -2 Str. +1 Dex -%10 HP +%10-%15 exp bonus And ogres: +3 Str -2 Int -2 Dex Etc.

1)The Elric saga by Michael Moorcock: Beginning with Elric of Melnibone'(and now up to like 9 or 10 books I am aware of), these are action packed, fast moving books but they are also noted for the Gothic and political drama(as well as the most famous/imitated sword in all of fantasy fiction and gaming(with the possible exception of Excalibur ), Stormbringer). Series includes Elric of Melnibone'(an older version from the 60s was called The Dreaming City), Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Weird of the White Wolf, Stormbringer etc. Moorcock is considered the Godfather of 'Dark Fantasy'. He did not like Tolkien and sought to be the antithesis of that author's(and the slew of imitators who followed him) work. 2)The Newhon series by Fritz Lieber: Featuring the famous pair of sword and sorcery icons Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Each book is a collection of short stories that were originally published in an anthology magazine so they are an easy read. A must-read for any fantasy enthusiast. Leiber manages to strike a balance between light fun and dark gloomy tales in a way that only a great writer can. 3)Thieves' World by various(edited by Robert Asprin): A series of anthology-stories by various authors, all set within the fictional city of Sanctuary. Full of compelling characters and vibrant adventures. Series includes Thieves' World, Tales from the Vulgar Unicorn, and Shadows of Sanctuary. Tales range from fun adventure to dark fantasy. 4)The Majipoor Chronicles by Robert Silverberg: Not as compelling as his sci-fi classic Tom O'Bedlam but pretty fun and engaging from what I remember. Series includes Lord Valentine's Castle, Valentine Pontifex, etc. Light reading and also, unlike Moorcock and Howard, not 'dark'. If Moorcock is The Punisher(or Faust) then these are The Fantastic Four. 5)Dirshan the Barbarian series by Gene Lancour: The main character is a fantasy barbarian not unlike Conan. Nothing terribly innovative going on here but has excitement, fun and interesting supporting characters(re: Handlig the Artificer) and is still ten times better than ANY of the dreadful Forgotten Realms or somewhat less dreadful Dragonlance books. Series includes Sword for the Empire, War Machines of Kalinth and Man-eaters of Cascalon. 6)Brak the Barbarian series by John Jakes(yes...THAT John Jakes!): Most don't know that Mr. Jakes got his start writing a Conan clone named "Brak" before he got into mysteries and dramas. If you want something 'Robert E. Howard'-ish that is NOT Robert Jordan then these will do. Series includes Brak the Barbarian and The Fortunes of Brak. Light reading to be sure. 7)The Berserker series by Chris Carlsen(IIRC this was a pseudonym for an established writer of SF/fantasy): Pretty well written Viking saga about one of Odin's shape-shifting berserkers. Did not get a lot of attention but deserves to be read if you can find them. Series includes Berserker: Shadow of the Wolf and The Horned Warrior. Light reading but well done. 8)The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe: Wolfe is wildly considered to be the best American writer of science-fantasy(or best writer PERIOD!) and this series is why. To call this tetralogy 'brilliant!' is to cheapen it by severely understating it's value.There are entire web sites and clubs dedicated to analyzing, enjoying and discovering all of the not-so-obvious clever things going on within. The story takes place on "Urth"; our own planet possibly one million years in the future. Terraforming has altered the geography considerably and the sun is about to go nova. The books are told first person by Severian, a man who is blessed/cursed with perfect memory of every detail he has ever observed. It begins with Severian a young apprentice in the torturers' guild and from there goes to places you can't imagine. Towers, citadels and various other structures are made from the dormant spacecraft/rockets of a bygone age. (largely forgotten)Technology IS magic. Severian's sword, Terminus Est was largely responsible for inspiring Fred Saberhagen's Swords books IIRC. Series includes Shadow of the Torturer, Claw of the Conciliator, Sword of the Lictor and Citadel of the Autarch. Heavy reading in a sense(in the same way that Alan Moore's Watchmen was 'heavy' for comics...in that there is so much going on inside you can't possibly catch it all on one read-through). As far as comic books go, there are a lot of great books you may or may not know about. 1)The Adventurers: This was a three volume series of B&W comics published by Aircel and later Adventure Publications in the 1980s. Both the art and writing are sort of...average and the whole series was pretty much D&D re-re-revisited but if you like indie comics and/or fantasy then they are worth a look. 2)Maelstrom: Another B&W series published by Aircel in the 80s but this one was VERY well done by artist-writer Jim Somerville. Follows the adventures of a wandering headsman through both comical and gloomy escapades. Only lasted eleven issues. The artwork ran the gamut from airbrushed to 'finished pencil' styles(and even used photographs of actual Aircel staff in one issue where Mael' escaped to the real world and wreaked havoc!) and the story went from straight fantasy to 'science fantasy'(at the end). 3)Elf Warrior: By Peter Hsu, this one started as a back-up feature in The Adventurers(which Hsu also did some art for) and lasted four issues as it's own title. Beautiful airbrushed B&W artwork made up for a somewhat lackluster story. I could list and discuss hundreds more but I will stop. I mostly tried to stay away from books everyone already knows about for the most part above(Moorcock & Leiber being the most obvious exceptions), such as Elfquest(comic book) and Conan.