Ceiling Durkheim

@BMA: For future reference, it's considered impolite to "necro" a topic, i.e. comment on a thread that hasn't seen any activity in years.

@Harehunter: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of the reasons people in the middle east have for disliking America make sense to me. That in no way justifies atrocities like the 9/11 attacks, but I think some measure of distrust and antipathy toward the US and western Europe makes sense. The example that comes immediately to mind is the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran: while he was not a perfect ruler, he was one of the best in a region plagued by hereditary autocracies and military dictatorships. The CIA (at the behest of the British government) orchestrated a coup, and reinstated the powers of the Shah, a hereditary autocrat. A hereditary autocrat that the Iranian people hated, because he had dissenters imprisoned or executed, and was more interested in pleasing his American backers than his people. The coup was entirely self-serving: Mossadegh had no ties to communism, and had only made an enemy of the British because he had stopped their expropriation of Iranian oil. Is it any great surprise that the people of Iran instituted an anti-American theocracy when we'd ruined any chances of them having a secular democracy? Granted, Mossadegh is one of the most egregious cases of destructive American intervention in the middle east, but hardly the only one. Dealing harshly with Nasser and the other members of the Arab Nationalist movement was more understandable, since they aligned themselves explicitly with the communist bloc, but it's also understandable that many Arabs hold a grudge against America and its allies for frequently undermining their countries. As for the groups that would become the Taliban, we gave them a substantial amount of support, but only because and for as long as they were fighting the Soviets. And while I think Israel deserved support in the conflicts of 1967 and 1973, which were threats to its existence, the US has also supported Israel in much more draconian and less defensible actions. In conclusion, America has demonstrated time and again in the post-WW2 era that it will pursue its own interests in the middle east and southwest Asia, regardless of the collateral damage this causes. Not all of our interventions have been selfish or malevolent, but we've done enough harm to make ourselves justifiably hated. The invasion of Iraq has only made this worse.

Penta's requires mechanics and leadership to access, or you can just complete Learned Dominic's two quests (I think that's his name? It's been a while). For Kaz you can either sneak in, or fight your way through if you don't mind making the town hostile. The Kaz route takes you through a large pylon field, so mechanics are a must. The Penta route take you through a more traditional dungeon full of mid-high level enemies, most of which can be pacified if you have a passage stone equipped (you can get one from a storeroom near the Penta entrance to the Shadow Road, or from a dead body in the pylons near the Kaz entrance). Both take you to the middle Shadow Road, which allows you to access the Secret Laboratory.

Quote: Likewise, Battle Fury and Adrenaline Rush make these effects essentially useless while they are active (unless you stack a ton of them together in which case that's a lot of effort for a small reward). Regarding Adrenaline Rush: how so? AR isn't a flat 12 AP bonus like it was in A5-6. In that system, going from 10 AP to 22 only gave the character one additional (9 AP) action. In EftP, AR sets AP to 20. This means a character with 10 AP can take an action, trigger adrenaline rush, then take 3 more actions. As such, I'm not sure why AR's mechanics would make starting out with 10 AP any less useful. I'm with you on Battle Frenzy (and equivalent item effects), though.

Archers aren't great, but they aren't terrible either. In A5 and 6, archers were consistently worse than pretty much any melee fighters (assuming similar levels of build optimization and equipment). I'd say they're better than pole fighters (they do a bit less damage, but they have more ancillary benefits, can attack at range, and can use shields). They're weaker than dual wielders, especially in the second half of the game, but so are most builds.

@Ravenwing: Only the young die good.

@Slarty: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeartIsAnAwesomePower

@Frozen Feet: Lucky you. I'm only seeing two, though on a more serious basis than it sounds like you are. Am thus far the only person to throw my hat in the "open relationship" pile (it's the closest thing to polyamory on there), hence my initial question about the quotation marks.

@Necris Omega: yeah, with Alorael and Lilith on this one. I'm sick to death of that silly libertarian canard: "If you don't like your job, just work somewhere else!" Anyone who thinks this argument holds water for most people has not read any news about the economy in the last...4 years, let's say? Many people have skill sets that are limited, or at least relatively narrow, and the labor market is pretty unfavorable at the moment. Even assuming one can find a new job, there's still the issue of lost wages and benefits. And since the employee in question is quitting rather than being laid off or retiring, the chances of getting a severance package aren't great. There are limits to this, of course. Some jobs and people are just really bad fits (very shy salespeople, belligerent customer service representatives, etc.), but I'm tired of businesses and their advocates using "So find a new job" as a prophylactic against having to make any concessions to their employees.

@Gon: Five years pass between the assassination of Emperor Hawthorne and the beginning of the Empire-Avernum war, according to the Encyclopedia Ermarian*. This makes it unlikely that the war was intended as part of a power grab by either Garzahd or some ambitious general. If anything, it seems more likely that it worked the opposite way: other elements within the Empire, wishing to get Garzahd out of the way, had him assigned to the ass-end of the world so that they could serve unopposed as Prazac's regent(s). They probably didn't expect him to die, but two years is a long time for one's political opposition to be out of the way. And if winning the war made him popular...well, it's not as if the Empire is a democracy. *It's possible that this is out of date with the reboot of the series, but there's no positive evidence for that claim.

Quote: Is the spell instantaneous, or would we have to "lead" any moving targets? It travels quickly, but not instantly, and it's definitely possible to dodge. I don't think we've seen it fired from more than about 20-30 meters, and certainly not hit from past that distance. In modern terms, battles with wands most resemble battles with handguns. That said, I agree that the most powerful option (and interesting) by far would be a combination of magic and technology. Unfortunately, wizards are isolationist, eccentric, and unscientific to a degree I find frankly unrealistic. The whole business with the Department of Mysteries (and the seeming lack of anything resembling technological research or a means for generating new spells beyond the occasional visionary) is, to my mind, a pretty serious world building failure on Rowling's part.

Quote: Wikipedia has a nice article on school prayer. The U.S. section sums it up as follows: "Thus, anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disrupt others from doing their work." Yep. In this, as in many other issues, reality has an unacceptable liberal bias. I find this whole business depressing. I know Republicans/conservatives who are intelligent, honest, and deeply principled people. People whom I respect despite differing with them on most political issues. They just don't seem to be running the party. Not that the Democrats are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it feels like most of them are at least trying to be reasonable, honest, and non-fanatical.

Quote: Yes, but generally we Muggles consider killing another human to be a pretty big crime, so it makes sense for it to be a big deal to wizards too. (Plus, Avada Kedavra is an instant kill if it hits. Surviving a gunshot is fairly common, and even a fatal gunshot may still leave the opponent able to retaliate, so an amateur gun user certainly doesn't have an advantage over a trained wizard.) If you compare a handgun to a wand, yes. If the English government had really wanted He Who Must Not Be Named dead, they could have sent an SAS squad with sniper rifles to shoot him down from a kilometer away (he wouldn't have stayed dead, but it took him over a decade to return to human form last time). That is to say: military-grade firearms have an overwhelming range advantage over offensive magic in Harry Potter. Also, as we constantly hear in debates over gun rights in the US: there's a big difference between killing someone, and having the ability to kill someone. Granted, England has substantially tougher firearm laws than the US, so it probably seems a bit less absurd to an English reader (or at least one who isn't very well-traveled). In either case, internal consistency isn't exactly Rowling's strong suit, and the way magic is governed, and muggles react to it, are good examples of that fact.

Quote: Anyway, if a superhero wanted to off me, they could just use a traditional weapon like anyone else (an approach which seems to have escaped Lord Voldemort). That was something that always bothered me in Harry Potter. That unforgivable curse that can kill with but a few words and a flick of a wand? I can use that too. It's called a "gun." As an adult without a criminal record, I can buy one at my local department store. This isn't to say that Avada Kedavra doesn't have its advantages: e.g. I don't think the TSA checks for wands. Nevertheless, I found it pretty silly that the big nasty second worst magic ever thing gave its user (if they had a substantial amount of training and hatred) the ability to kill another person at short range. Humans have been doing that for millennia.

Quote: Public school prayer is just fine, among consenting participants (or in silence.) As far as I can tell, the debate over "school prayer" revolves around whether teachers can lead/mandate prayer in schools. I've never heard of a school disallowing individual students from engaging in (non-disruptive) prayer.

Telepathy. All the way.

@Gon: That's a pretty interesting interpretation, actually. I disagree with some of your points, but I think the basic argument that Garzahd was pulling Hawthorne's strings is a good one. Especially in this edition, in which Hawthorne couldn't have beaten Garzahd in a straight fight, and has to rely more on subordinates for personal protection. That said, Garzahd's dialogue in the Royal Spire suggested to me that Hawthorne still had some substantial control over the Empire: he ruled in part because Garzahd allowed him to, but he still ruled, and letting him die seemed like a momentous and difficult decision for Garzahd. Also, if Garzahd were really and truly in control, and this was all archmage infighting, why endanger his position by leading the invasion of the underworld personally? Even with magical communication (which the series shows to be complicated and taxing, else the Empire would just scry all over Avernum rather than having troops and people like Thantria monitor it), he couldn't be as effective a regent/power behind the throne in Avernum as he would be on the surface. Manfred Redmark in A5 had trouble with that, and he seemed to move between underworld and surface more often than Garzahd did.

So...what Lilith said. If you can make a fyora that can beat up an Unbound on torment, then you might impress someone. Or, to put it in less snide terms: this discussion isn't about whether a fyora can beat any given enemy on any given difficulty, it's about whether it's better or worse at doing so than various other creations. As Ackrovan says at the top: Quote: This does not mean [fire creations] are bad creations. This is something very important to take note of. It is completely possible to play through the game only using Fire Creations. I have done this. It's just harder to do than using the other creation branches.

@Gon: why would an automaton under the control of a loyal wizard (presumably Garzahd) be less trustworthy than the wizard in question? Yes, it could malfunction, but it couldn't plot and engage in evil chancellor antics. I mean, it could support them, but a golem servant seems more logical to me than having a powerful court wizard (who would, after all, be a valuable resource in him/herself) guard him night and day.

Dare I ask what the quotation marks around "Open Relationship" signify? @Slarty: And now I am confused.

Yeah, I think I'm with Superba on this one. It's a departure from the original, but it makes sense. Anyway, it's not like the actual fight with Hawthorne was easy, just the part at the very end when his shield finally cracks. Those four golems in tandem had very, very high damage output, and that's without considering all the other adds that come at you. I still found Grah-Hoth harder, but Hawthorne was no pushover.

I'm with Alorael on Geneforge having the strongest PCs. The narration and dialogue really hammer home the point that every Shaper is an army. Shapers have access to just as much magic and combat power as non-Shapers, but they have access to an additional power which the plot makes out to be better than the former two. By comparison, Avernum and Avadon characters would rate as powerful outsiders: no slouches, to be sure, even late game boss material in some cases (Bennhold from G5 comes to mind), but still weaker than Shapers of comparable skill and experience. As for the strongest single character, that would be the G1 PC augmented by the Geneforge. Both plot and mechanics (+8 to all primary stats!?) imply that this augmentation makes the PC truly superhuman, even compared to other Shapers. The runner up would probably be the G5 character, who reaches a higher level than characters in previous games, does the most impressive things (assassinating Ghaldring, or a large part of the Shaper council), and seems to have been enhanced a great deal with canisters and/or a Geneforge even before all the canisters s/he can use in the game. In comparing power levels between Avernum and Avadon, I think we have to distinguish between A1-3 and A4-6. A1-3 characters are more the legendary hero types: they fight against nastier enemies (compare the prevalence of high level monsters like haakai, gazers, dragons, etc.), and more dangerous villains (compare Dorikas or the slith triad with Garzahd or Rentar-Ihrno). Both groups start out with very little, but the A1-3 PCs make more out of it. Both A4-6 and Avadon characters are more 'plugged into the system' than characters in A1-3 (Avadon somewhat more so), but Avadon is known for picking those with the very most talent and potential to serve it, so I'm inclined to give it to Avadon. All in all, I'd rank power as follows: 1. Geneforge series. 2. Avernum 1-3. 3. Avadon. 4. Avernum 4-6.

@Gon: It's not like you have to. I didn't, and favored Kyass's people in the Pyrog and Drath quests. I think Houghton's concern is understandable (not wanting to have to contend with another, potentially powerful sovereign state in maters economic and military), but I agree that the desire to maintain a monopoly on power in the underworld* narrows the moral divide between Avernum and the Empire. While I think Avernum are still basically the good guys, things like their reaction to Kyass and cooperation with Thantria make them a bit more morally ambiguous than they were in E1 and A1.

Quote: As if you don't do equally annoying things, Slarty. Slarty?

Quote: Thanks to his outrageous past comments on homosexuality, his last name is now a Google bomb. I say deservedly so. Gay rights are human rights. The scale is tipping, as the electorate grows younger. Yeah. If it were just about Santorum vocally opposing gay marriage and homosexuality more generally, I'd call the Google bomb a bit excessive. What got Dan Savage et al really pissed (and rightly so), was more that he equated gay sex with sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and "man on dog." If one is willing to be that nasty about the issue, I think one has no right to complain when one's surname becomes a widely-used slang term for a substance whose nature I won't discuss on an all-ages forum.