Jump to content

Frozen Feet

Member
  • Posts

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frozen Feet

  • Birthday 12/21/1989

Frozen Feet's Achievements

Ineffable Wingbolt

Ineffable Wingbolt (11/17)

  1. Didn't realize there's more than one dead bug. Time to go back to those caves, I guess.
  2. Ah yes, I was in the Chamber of Swords but I only grabbed one sword. If there were two, that'd explain one disperancy. The Gremlin amumet is something of a mystery to me. It just popped into my pack early in Chapter 4. I think I got it from an outdoors special encounter in the Eastern Gallery area, but I'm not sure. It's a magic necklace with value of 500 and ability "cursed". Also found another puzzling item - dead bug, from the Vahnatai lands, the diseased caves.
  3. Hey. After a very long break of playing this game, I find myself puzzled by some of the rarer items I occasionally find. I tried to search through some walkthroughs but did not find an explanation or purpose for these. I suspect they are quest items, but I have not found the relevant quests: Gremlin amulet (may just be a fancy cursed item - does it do anything?) Bars of Mithral and Chunk of Mithral (found in Vahnatai Lands and Fort Kothar - is there a smith accepting these?) Various mushrooms wines with ability "good wine" (bought from Almaria, stolen from Patsy's home) Geodes (found along a river coast) Rare books (pillaged from Empire safehouse in Almaria) Fine Rum (pillaged from Empire agents in Vahnatai Fortress) Drake Egg (found in the fire lizard cave, amidst fire lizard eggs) Flame egg (pillaged from Tower of Elderan, I think, casts quickfire. Supposedly a barrier somewhere needs quickfire to take down, have not encountered any such barrier yet.) Somewhat related, I've been reading a Let's Play as I've passed through game areas to see how another player has reacted to same area. Said Let's Play found a Nethersword below Fort Kothar, along with bars of uranium in the Efreet forge. However, I found mithral bars and a magic greatsword in the same location. Is this a version difference?
  4. My answers, in order, are "other", "other", "no", "other", "prohibited under all circumstances", "Yes, in the event of terminal illness", "other", "upon rape, incest and defects that endanger the health of the moth (physical or mental)", "conception" and other. As a general commentary, either people here do not know the particulars of what "human rights" mean, or did not think it through. "Human right" carries with it a connotation of inalienability - an inherent right that cannot be revoked, sold or transferred. It should be obvious how some of the rights discussed cannot be inalienable, but I'll detail them later on. As a note, though, I'm not a big believer of human rights in the first place. I adhere to a secular version of dependent origination: nothing is the way it is by its own virtue, all things are emergent. A corollary would be that nothing and no-one can have rights based on what they are; instead, rights are granted and revoked based on what a creature has done, is doing and can do. Human rights are, to me, an useful heuristic, a default starting point for the discussion of rights of a creature when it emerges. Commentary of specific questions: Question 1: healthcare is a ridiculously broad term. Some basic level of healthcare could properly be considered a duty rather than a right; the difference being that right is something I should allow (and maybe help) you to do, where as a duty is something I can demand you to do under threat of sanctions. For example, vaccination against common diseases should fall within health duties, to upkeep herd immunity. So should a health check-up at the start and during pregnancy, upon taking an insurance etc.. Some other facets of healthcare could be considered positive rights, meaning they should be provided by the state free or nearly free-of-charge. Emergency health care, like in case of traffic accidents, falls within this category. Positive rights like this primarily derive from RIght to Life. But beyond emergency care and means to retain a level of societal balance, right to healthcare is primarily a negative right - meaning no-one should stop you from seeking care, but no-one is obliged to provide it either. And most of these are not inalienable. If you cause yourself injury, I shouldn't be obliged to help you without fair compensation. If you are a threat to me or someone else, I should have the right to withhold treatment from you and sometimes even kill you. The specific examples of euthanasia and abortion, both of which fall under the broad term of "healthcare", will get better treatment below. Question 2: Here too, the answer varies depending on the type of education. Primary education, the sort that is administered in Finland between ages 7 and 17 and which includes skills like reading, writing, basic etiquette and knowledge of law, isn't a right - it is, once again, a duty, because without this education, a person can't reasonably be part of the social contracts that make up society. It is also a positive right, because a society that fails to provide primary education to its residents is doing harm to both them and itself. Secondary education, though? Highschool, vocational training and up (universities, polytechnics etc.) exist to allow for specialization and prepare for a joblife. Unless we also make the (frankly, insane) statement that having a job is positive right, these can't be positive rights. They also can't be inalienable. Why should an institution of learning accept a student that is dangerous to other students and perhaps the institution as a whole, for example? There's also the fact that with certain jobs and certain sorts of information, a person will become increasingly dangerous if they go haywire; hence, those jobs come with extra duties and obligations, and failure to adhere to those extras should lead to banning from those topics of education. Question 3: This really should be a no-brainer. Internet is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for weal and woe. If you cannot think of a single case where a person's access to internet should be restricted or revoked alltogether, you haven't thought about it long enough. Or go read Elizier Yudkowsky's papers about the "Friendship problem" in strong AIs. Questions 4 & 8: These go together like a horse and carriage. Let me preface my commentary with something that will upset and potentially enrage a lot of you: if you unironically answered "yes" to question 4 and "upon request" to question 8, you are a moron at best and a hypocrite at worst. I will neither amend nor revoke this statement until someone invents an artificial womb that can be made available to all. To understand this, we have to look at the actual declaration of human rights and what it says about reproductive rights. It says: "no person should be forced to parenthood." So under the current imagining of human rights, a person has the negative right to not reproduce. There is no positive right to reproduce, nor has there ever been. You could go and say there's a negative right to reproduce, meaning people should abstain from stopping you from trying, but this falls apart when we look at reality and notice that only (somewhat below) half of the human population are capable of bearing children. If you go ahead and say the demographic in question, healthy women of fertile age, have inalienable bodily autonomy that trumps the right to reproduce, then it logically follows that they can stop you from trying. Consequently, the demographics that cannot bear children on their own can have neither positive nor negative rights to reproduce. To all people that are not healthy women of fertile age, reproduction is not a right, it is a privilege that they have to earn by adhering to and satisfying the standards set by the child-bearing demographic. Consequently, reproduction can no longer be considered a human right. It is neither universal, inalienable nor inherent to humanity. On the flipside, a right to reproduce would by necessity have to be a positive right for everyone who cannot bear children - meaning that for every such person, there should be a member of the child-bearing demographic who is obligated to produce at least one child for them upon request. Consequently, abortion could no longer be inalienable - it would be conditional on the consent of the non-childbearing parent. Consequently, abortion could no longer be considered a human right. This should be enough to prove that right to reproduce and right to abortion "upon request" (read: "without further justification") are mutually exclusive as human rights in practice. If one is a human right, the other cannot be. You cannot have two rights occupying the same priority order when their implementations directly contradict each other. The sanest answer, as far as I'm concerned, would be to consider neither reproduction nor abortion as human rights. The choice to have or not have children should be a contract law issue, not a human rights one. The laws concerning it should be subservient to right to life and right to avert cruelty. I consider the "bodily autonomy" argument for giving the sole right on these issues to the childbearing demographic to be void of any merit. Bodily autonomy is already restricted along multiple axises, because without restricting it we couldn't actually enforce the very same rights restricting it is supposed to harm. Non-violence can't help you when harming you is a goal. Question 5: This one was easy to answer, because "torture" means causing excess pain is the means towards a goal or even the goal itself, rather than just a side-effect. Sometimes, we can't avoid causing someone undue suffering (such as when we employ incarceration to isolate known antisocials, or when we hunt for food), but in those cases measures are typically taken to minimize it (or rather, the ethicality of such endeavors is contingent on such efforts). Torture, as a method, doesn't have many merits to it. The only things it serves well are to satisfy primal urges of sadism and vengeance. As a means of interrogation and coercion, it has been proven to be inefficient. Classifying forms of torture as "enhanced interrogation methods" is on the same level as labeling homeopathy and hypnosis as "enhanced medical treatment". It doesn't achieve the things it's claimed to achieve, so it shouldn't be done. Question 6: it kinda undermines the idea of "inalienable right to life" if you can, you know, alienate (as in: surrender) your life to any person for any petty reason you wish. Euthanisia implies someone else has to do the killing. Tell me, why the Hell should a person with two working hands have the positive right to ask me to kill them? Why should others be obligated to kill those who wish to die? Juan Carlo, Nalyd and others who amended "euthanasia" to "suicide" are in the right here. The right to kill yourself is a much saner thing to grant as a negative human right, and "right to die" is perhaps the only natural "right" that fulfills all the criteria for one even in my books. Death is, all things granted, pretty inalienable aspect of life in the long run. A conditional right to being mercy killed is a valid topic of discussion when a person is in pain but unable to commit suicide, but a human right it cannot be. Question 7: I don't believe in death penalty as a punishment for certain types of crimes. I consider it a means to remove proven resource sinks from the human population. If I were to implement a death penalty, it would not be attached to any specific crime (or even group of crimes), but rather, to a life of habitiual crime. It shouldn't be considered part of the justice system, but rather filed under human resources. Crime roughly follows the Pareto Principle: majority of events are caused by minority of actors. 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of people, and 50% of crimes are committed by 1% of people. This "hard core" of crime, as cops put it, consists of people who have been proven (or can be proven) to resists all known means of rehabilitation. They can never be reintegrated into the mainstream population without them resuming their criminal actions, and so they have to be kept incarcerated practically always, which is a resource drain to everyone else. It could be said that their continued existence is a burden and a rights violation towards both non-criminals, and particularly those criminals who can be rehabilitated, but have to put up with being put in an enclosed spaced with them in order to do that. Even if death penalty's general prevention rate is 0% (meaning the concept of being killed does nothing to prevent emergence of new criminals), its special prevention rate is 100% unless proven otherwise (meaning an executed criminal will not commit the same crimes again due to an acute case of death). Now, there are problems with implementation, especially in ensuring that these people would be killed swiftly enough once the pattern of crime has been verified. If it takes 20-something years from being sentenced to being executed, the executioner isn't doing it right. The habitual criminal is costing resources for all that time and often there won't be a meaningful difference to just keeping them locked up until they die of old age or decide to commit suicide. Seriously. If there's to be a death penalty, it has to be implementable fast. Otherwise, the point is lost. Question 9: Any imagining of human rights that purports to be inherent, inalienable and universal kinda fails its intended purpose if it doesn't cover the first 9 months of a human's natural lifecycle. Seriously here. We're talking a subset of natural rights here. Humans are a mammalian species genetically encoded for sexual, in utero reproduction. That's the default, natural way for humans to come into being. If you argue the fetus has no rights at conception, that's practically equivalent to saying no human has the right to exist, because that step is necessary for natural human life. If that's your starting point and you still argue there are such things as human rights, I want to know what you're smoking. Question 10: I consider this a strange non sequitur in contrast to all the other questions. To understand this, you have to understand my opinion of war: war is what happens when the rights of two organizations conflict, and that conflict cannot be solved without violating rights of both. Because of this, "just war" is a paradox, and no moral truths can be derived from observing people at war; war is amoral. An ethical choice in war, if there even is such a thing, is whatever makes it end quickly. To that end, nuclear weapons could be useful... in some hypothetical scenario that hasn't provenly occurred in known history. I do not believe in MAD - rather, I believe anyone smart enough to acquire nuclear weapons acknowledges that their interests are better served by annexing the land and resources of their enemy, rather than blowing them all to Hell. Even without MAD, victory by nuclear weapons would be a Pyrrhic one at best.
  5. Frozen Feet

    This is it

    Me and Spiderweb Software go back a long way. I was around eight when I first tried Exile III, and was hooked. Jeff's games greatly and positively influenced my imagination and were largely responsible for sparking my interest in roleplaying games both on computers and on pen and paper. They were also pivotal in my journey to the internet. I got my first (and still active) e-mail address just so I could join these boards. Through these boards, I was introduced to great many things, from play-by-post roleplays to debates and logic, complex math and how to use AIM. However, I recently realized it's been ages since I played one of Spidweb's games, and when I did, the magic was no longer there. Unfortunately, it seem I've outgrown them, and as a result, these boards as well. I acknowledge I've never been a very active member of the community. I've long since lost track of who is who, and I guess many newer members have no idea who I am or was. But instead of fading from memory without notice, I though I'd announce my departure. For old times' sake, you know. If someone still remembers me and wants to stay in contact, feel free to try and catch me on AIM with moniker Tuulentekija, or on Facebook. But besides that, this is it for me. Thank you and good bye, Samuli Suominen
  6. While humans are sexually dimorphic species and that must have some effect on our basic psychology, it's been noted that learned behaviours ("culture", though use of such specific term is not even necessary) can and do override instinct. It's visible in every other animal as well. Vast groups of animals are capable of adapting to their surroundings, and depending on their surroundings, two groups consisting of same species can act very differently. Historically, the role of women and men has been influenced more by economics than biology. This thing about women "staying in the kitchen"? It's pretty much comes from the industrial revolution. You see, when agriculture was the main form of living, both men and women stayed home, and did the same things. But when industrialization came about and work moved away from home, men had to leave the farm or "home" - and as someone had to stay behind to take care of it, it became the job of women. You can easily spot that there's a fair bit of arbitrariness going on here - if women had gone to work in factories instead, men would've assumed the role as primary "homemakers". Besides, the whole idea of women being "homemakers" falls apart when you try to apply it to hunter-gatherers or other nomafic societies. Bluntly, there were no homes. Men moved in search of prey, and women moved with them. There might have been some predilection for ment to hunt and for women to gather, but when you think of the circumstances, it's clear the roles can't have been that set in stone. If a human tribe was short of men, why wouldn't women have taken up their roles, hmmm?
  7. Yeah, it's kind of absurd how female characters in video games look like they're straight from Playboy when the males can look whatever. Ask yourself, when you've last seen an honest-to-god ugly female character who was a protagonist or at least held important role in the story or game play? Because I can't think of any. The closest I can think of from the top of my head is Meg in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, who is stoutly build and round-faced, making her stand out amidst a score of other female characters who are supermodel thin (still far from ugly, though). She also wears full-body armor on the field, being near-indistinquishable from male characters of the same class. On the other hand, she's just a side character and playing her is mostly voluntary.
  8. I said "very much resembles", not "is identical". Yeah, I misremembered. Had to actually look up a video to see how it really went. You first have to dodge the genie's fireballs, then hit the jar, pick it up and throw it. Repeat until it breaks, then hit the genie. A better analogy could be Flaaghra from Metroid Prime. In that fight, you have to knock off solar panels to stun the enemy, then turn to a ball and bomb its roots. If you're too slow, the boss will recover and knock the panels back on.
  9. "The fact that you have to hit Aquamentus in the head while dodging his fire breath, rather than just standing next to him and hitting his immobile body 10 times, is how battles work in action games." Hold that thought. When I claimed CRPGs inherited "gimmick fights" from action games, I meant in part that CRPGs have come to emulate action games. Let's take a fight from Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. In it, there a genie boss that hides in a jar. To defeat it, you have to pick the jar up and throw it, so the genie will come out. You have a chance to get few blows in, then it gets back in the bottle. Rinse and repeat. Now translate that into a turn-based combat, and you have something that very much resembles the Redbeard fight. Like the OP said, the reason why fights like this are "gimmicks" in CRPGs is because for that one fight, the game "breaks" its ordinary rules for combat. And it specifically "breaks" them by shifting closer to the manner action games work.
  10. Those "can only be damaged at a certain part at a certain time" and "need to use item/weapon X at proper time" are precisely what I'm talking about. And then there was that one midboss Moblin you had to feed in order to get past. Looks pretty straightforward, but it's the clear precursor both mechanically and spiritually. You, as the player, have to X things in Y sequence to get past the boss, and bossess often are unique in some respect. Once you get to Zelda II and later, it becomes even clearer, with bosses being even larger deviations from ordinary enemies and requiring increasingly more imaginative and specific sequences to beat. My experience with early Metroids is limited, but didn't they too have "shoot this part first, then that second, rinse repeat"?
  11. ... MMORPGs? Yeah, you admitted yourself it's untrue, but the whole idea is just so absurd I have to adress it. There was a time when bosses in MMORPGs were just slugfest too. The real culprit for dance routine boss fights is action games, and those go back to early Zeldas, Metroids and the like. (Potentially even further into the past.) Though the idea of puzzle boss fights was present in p&p roleplaying games from which the whole CRPG genre inherits many of its mechanics. The whole idea is to make a fight more involving to the player, so it isn't just "click button X times" and/or "roll dice X times until you win or lose". I support the movement whole-heartedly, though I admit it's possible to create basic combat mechanics that will themselves be enough to provide enough tactical challenge to make further "gimmicks" needless. (See: Chess, Space Hulk)
  12. Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black Frozen Feet and Wiz could go on the Quiet Long Presences. Quiet what now? I swear, you did that just to add to me feeling old.
  13. Originally Posted By: Goldenking An extensive retelling of the Mountain of Shadows RP, perhaps? Hee hee hee. Someone else still remembers it. God damn reading this has made me feel old....
  14. Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet ... Or well, it would be down to three, if one of my long-distance acquitances hadn't expressed the desire to see me in romantic circumstances. Life is being weird to me right now. If I'm reading that correctly, starting a long-distance relationship--from a distance--would be odd. Most people carry the pre-existing short to the long. No, what's odd is that someone who knows I'm seeing three other women expresses desire to date me, practically on the instant I get rejected by one of my previous dates and am still picking up pieces of my self-esteem from the floor. Long-distance romances, though? Nothing odd there. My first date lived in the next big town, 50 kilometers away, and the girl who doesn't want to see me anymore just finished moving 100 kilometers away from here. Though as far as LDRs are concerned, those distances aren't actually very long. At least we were still in the same country and continent; one of my friends in USA got together with a Norwegian girl (Male to female transgender, to boot) he got acquianted with online, and he's now thinking of moving to Norway to live with her and marrying her. That's the unlikeliest match-up I've seen in my life so far.
×
×
  • Create New...