Zaego

Hmm. I'd argue that becoming a better person requires a conscious effort, recognizing old flawed thought-patterns and altering them. If you're thrown into a situation with a moral dilemma, you would automatically and instinctually try to come up with the best choice according to the morals, ethics and values you follow. On the contrary, if you decide to seek out a dilemma and try to solve it, then you're consciously trying to hone yourself into becoming a better person.

There's a problem with utilitarianism. Suppose that there's a railcar charging down a street, and you're standing on a bridge with a lever. Down the street, you have five people standing, unaware of the impending doom. If you choose not to do anything, the railcar will crush the five people, but you have done nothing wrong. Then again, if you pull the lever and derail the railcar, you'll get one person killed because the railcar will flail uncontrollably on the street. Ethically it isn't right to touch the lever and cause the death of a person but bearing witness to deaths of five others while you could do something isn't exactly ethical either. According to utilitarianism, one should always maximize the good things with an action, but is it a "good" choice to pull the lever and cause the death of an individual, even if you save five others?

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

I wouldn't know about that. I find it refreshing to see these kind of "deep" topics that, well, I personally don't see much elsewhere. Go to Facebook? There are people polishing their own lives and bragging about how big salary the have; or there's a sad, tragic picture which makes you feel guilty about you being you and not giving away all of your money to a charity. Go to Twitter? There's a bunch of celebs posting selfies and replying to fans. Go anywhere else? Get your face melted by the sheer amount of stupidity conducted by people hiding behind nametags. Here? Sure, you may need to leave your sanity on the door as some people might say, but at least you'll be faced by a group of like-minded invididuals who have all equally left their sanity on the door, as opposed to trying convince you that they have their sanity left and you don't. PS. Now, this was a random musing, even though I say it myself. And people are welcome to modify or delete it if it feels too ... edgy. I just get cynical like that sometimes.

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

It would consume massive amounts of time, yes, but it would be bad only in the case that something existed outside the aforementioned subject. If the world comprises of a person, whose existence is 100% certain, but nothing more, then everything, including the values of good and bad are dependable only on that existing person because nothing more can be, theoretically, proven to exist.

I have no trouble with adventurous eating, so long as the animal is not endangered. If one eats some part of an endangered animal, then that individual is funding the business that causes that particular animal to go extinct, and I have a huge problem with that. That's why I stopped eating tuna because it's basically being overfished and the tuna populations have crashed in the last years. The one good way to fight against these kind of poachers is to hit them right where it hurts; their pockets full of money, because that's the only thing they care about.

D'oh, I was just thinking of numbers. But to answer the question whether there's anything at all, be it abstract or real, that can't be used for evil, I'd have to with Alorael. Hmm. Well, philosophical discussion in excess? It propably couldn't be used for evil? When a philosophical discussion is taken to an excess, all we reach is a nihilistic point where we can be certain only of the fact that the subject itself who thinks, exists. Cogito ergo sum. But everything else outside the said subject is not quaranteed to exist. Therefore only the subject is the only one that exists for sure, and the only ethics that apply are those invented by the subject; which means that there can be no evil or bad so long as the subject doesn't perform any such deeds. Therefore, philosophical discussion in itself can not result in bad or evil; the humaine component is responsible for the evil, should (s)he choose to do so.

I must confess, I've always been kind of picky over what I put to my mouth but aside from the unimaginable potatoes and "the usual" European food, I guess the weirdest I've eaten and which also happens to be my favorite (national) food would be mämmi with vanilla sauce. If mämmi isn't a familiar one as a food, look it up, and draw your conclusions on why it is considered weird by foreigners. But believe it or not, it's really tasty. Especially with the sauce. Actually, that's the only way it can be eaten. It's way too sticky and stretchy on its' own. Then again, I've got used to mämmi and from what I read from above, eating pig ears and brains sounds completely new to me. If I had to pick which was the weirdest to my own taste, it'd be the brains. Well, then again fried croco sounds exotic, too. And I can't say that I'd have heard of kidneys being used in kitchen before, but hey, that's what we're here to do, learning about other cultures' foods. I actually just ate some liver as a part of liver casserole (I'm not sure if it's translated like that?). EDIT: (I really like editing my own comments...) One other thing. Has anyone ever eaten that Scottish food haggis? Is it haggis? The food where the lungs, heart, and a bunch of other organs are put into either the sheep's or the pig's belly-sack and cooked for hours. That is also one definite top 10 exotic food. EDIT2: I haven't eaten it, myself. Just heard of it from a British man.

Good and bad are concepts created by a human mind to conceptualize the world around oneself. Animals, praise them with all due respect they deserve, alas do not have access to excess intelligence and cannot figure out the difference between right and wrong, good or bad. They only live based on what they need, be it food, sleep, other annual necessities or belonging to a pack, which may be strengthened by being playful with other members and bonding with them further. The world in itself is neutral. If a volcano was to erupt in an excessive manner and destroyed the entirety of the earth, then it would be certainly very lamentable. But would it be bad or wrong? No. It just happened. Volcano, a bunch of atoms, has no consciousness and cannot perform ethical or moralistic choices. It simply follows the laws of physics that apply in our universe. The animals and plants would suffer, of course, but they would only know to run and/or hide from such a cataclysmic event. They do not have the concept of being wronged; their limited intelligence doesn't allow to carry grudges simply because from an animal's or a plant's point of view it would be a waste of resources that could be used on reaching some other excessively better destination, such as finding something to eat. EDIT: It cannot be evil, so long as it doesn't have a consciousness and cannot perform a choice between what humanity defines as good and bad. If an excessively artificial intelligence was ever invented, it'd be another story.

Ah yes, I forgot about the part where it needs to be excessive. I was a in bit of a hurry when replying to the thread earlier. Well, I'm not sure if being excessively happy can cause one to neglect one's job. It can certainly cause irritation in others who are having a bad day but as for the subject itself? I don't know. Then again, being excessively happy "contaminates" others, in a good way. I went to the grocery store the other day and there was this angelic girl as the cashier. She smiled at every customer and she practically radiated with genuine positivity. I consider myself very, very extremely cynical person but I couldn't but feel "tainted" with that light and positivity. After sharing a small bit of chatter with the cashier I left the shop, still grinning like an idiot even when reaching my car at the parking lot. EDIT: I'm not sure if there is anything that can be taken to the extreme and still maintaining an ethical value of being "good". (This would make for a really good philosophical discussion.)

Exercise? And I second Owenrus. (Sadly I have liked too many posts so I couldn't like any more posts in this thread. It makes a bit sad.) Oh and happiness! Smiling!

There's a lawn to be mowed already? We're still waiting for the snow to melt around these parts of the Europe...

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

I was left wondering the same thing when I poked my head back into the battleground. Breaking the fourth wall here, I know that Jeff must've coded (the Begintownscript INIT_STATE) so that whenever Party() leaves the area using a specific exit, the game increments a specific Flag within INIT_STATE so that the battleground is completely empty when entered again; otherwise the game would simply save the remaining Creature IDs and load them again upon next entry into the area. This coding serves to prove that Jeff did plan ahead in case people would visit the battleground again after fleeing the Ziggurat. Thus, I am of the opinion that Jeff intentionally didn't want to write anything, because words would've been too weak to describe the solemnity and emptiness. Furthermore, from a game-world perspective the Fort Haledon was so distant from the others that I wonder if that bastion's fate touched anyone; or if the Vahnatai simply wouldn't want to display their grief and regret in front of strangers. Whatever the case may be, the blog was well written.

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

Agreed, it's a good game, I enjoyed it too; but the problem for people who got used to the old Exiles and Avernums is that A4's game-world is cramped and weirdly proportioned when compared to the original games. While there used to be about 30 miles between Silvar and Fort Avernum, in A4 the distance is a couple of paces; same deal with The Castle and Blosk, etc. It's like the world had shrunk all of a sudden. That was perhaps the biggest turn-off. Not to worry, there could be tasks that wouldn't require coding nor scenario making. It would be good to have someone test the beta-versions, etc. ^^ And even so, learning the 3D Scenario Maker is not an impossible task because one can see the edited world just like you'd see it in the game, making it a lot easier than the original editor.

We can all dream, or we could always start a massive project using Blades of Avernum Scenario Editor to convert Avernums 4 and 6 into the old style... From what little I've seen, there have been some exceptionally breathtaking fan-made scenarios unleashed into the world, which means that there are some very skilled people out there.

I always rationalized it in A4 that there was a transition between outdoors and towns, that whenever I stepped out of the gate the party members were walking several miles with each step, but still at the same time the journey allowed for seeing the highly detailed world from their eyes. When the enemies attacked, I just thought that they had entered a fight mode and when the fight was over they'd continue walking by leaps and bounds. There's no other way I can, to this day, think about A4-A6 and the way how they handle the game world.

Yep, I second what Slarty said. When I first touched A4, I was thrilled to see the new skills and traits, but when the game started, I managed to get to either Grindstone or Formello before I had to quit it. The changes were too stronk for my tender soul and it took a couple of months to start a new, and by extension a successful, run through A4. EDIT: Yeah I know what you mean, Meri. There was a more raw beauty to the old style. Something that simply connected so well with the world. ^^

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

The story has been deleted and discontinued. Thankyou for reading.

Definitely agreed about the Thalmor. Hence, a peace between the Stormcloaks and Empire was another great thing that I did on one of my more peaceful characters. As for the lopping off the head at the start, that's actually something that someone pointed out to me a long time ago: the man who takes your name says "I'm sorry", and then proceeds to follow the captain's orders. In this case, I feel like it was the captain who just had a bad day and decided to take it out on you; while the name-list-taker-person would've wanted to just let you skitter away scot free. Yep, definitely waiting on how they deal with the ESVI and the Thalmor Question.

I know I'm super-late but I'd like to make a correction to my original statement: I was merely making an observation; in both games it is a large empire that is doing nasty things to you, both in Skyrim and Avernum. However! In Skyrim I did always either go with the Imperials or try to broker a peace because I could never really accept the Stormcloaks' racist attitude. So, they're the real devils in my eyes(, but less so than the Thalmor).

Yay, Owenrus, we're almost neighbours! Cheers from Finland! Also... 13 or 14 years? Is... Are these forums that old? Wow, that's amazing. Let us hope that this place last at least double that. *Raises a cup of coffee to honour*