Profile for Or else o'erleap.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Or else o'erleap. |
| Member number | 335 |
| Title | Law Bringer |
| Postcount | 14579 |
| Homepage | http://www.polarisboard.net |
| Registered | Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Second Adventurer Trial in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, April 13 2006 11:05
Profile
Homepage
Kicking the crap out of the shade makes no difference. Letting it kick the crap out of you does. You can heal the damage, but you have to let it deal the damage first. —Alorael, who found that the most efficient way to do it was to send in a single Augmented fighter to just get pummeled. It's not entertaining, but it works. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| What instruments do you play? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, April 13 2006 11:03
Profile
Homepage
I am of the opinion that if an instrument is easy you're not playing it right. There may be a few exceptions for simple percussion, but this holds true for melodic instruments. —Alorael, who admits to imagining this to be true for some instruments. He can't picture much complex glockenspiel technique, but it probably exists. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Avernum V in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, April 13 2006 10:56
Profile
Homepage
Erika isn't exactly the helpful sort who would come back to aid others. If she's still around, it's because she hates Rentar-Ihrno and Rentar-Ihrno is not dead. Or maybe she hates all the vahnatai. Or she still has revenge to take on the Empire. Or she has revenge to take on Avernum for allying with the Empire. —Alorael, who would accept Erika's return if she returned as a non-evil undead and if she were only a minor character, neither a major NPC as in prior games nor a villain. She's Avernum background, but it's time for her to fade into that background. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Avernum V in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, April 13 2006 07:16
Profile
Homepage
A human turning into a Crystal Soul makes about as much sense as an earthworm pupating and emerging as a butterfly. Erika isn't the right species. —Alorael, who will not accept that Crystal Souls are all magic and no biology (parabiology?). It makes no sense! Please turn humor detectors to setting C. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| How did you discover Avernum? in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, April 13 2006 06:34
Profile
Homepage
Instead, both versions are put on the CD. If even the save files aren't cross-platform compatible, it would be a bit surprising if the games themselves were. —Alorael, who just noticed that nobody mentioned discovering Avernum by getting hurled through a portal after committing pety crimes. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| The favorite rating abominable photo game vs. return of the undead karma census poll! in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 12 2006 13:44
Profile
Homepage
Congrats, Diki! Oh, and undead karma census poll, clearly. —Alorael, who gives it odds of one unsellable trowel to meat. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| How many people would like spiderweb software to make a game for the nintendo DS in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 12 2006 12:22
Profile
Homepage
Isn't Playstation a console? —Alorael, who would rather have Spiderweb games stay on the computer. They'll actually make money there, and he'll be able to play them. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Athame in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 12 2006 12:16
Profile
Homepage
It's only slightly stronger than Unlock level 1, and it still won't open doors that can't be unlocked. A4 isn't like A3. —Alorael, who hopes the next trick is speaking to Houghton after he's dead. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| What does Kelner have to do with Patrick's Tower? in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 12 2006 11:45
Profile
Homepage
The keys Kelner gives you are most definitely keys to the Tower Colony, not Patrick's Tower. The first helps you get through doors in the ruins to kill the demon, which you did. The second allows you to learn Dispel Barrier upstairs from Kelner's room. There are a fair number of doors that can't be opened in the ToM, especially above X's room. Patrick's Tower also has a fair number of doors that are hard to open without doing quests. —Alorael, who hopes he interpreted correctly. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Which spiderweb software game is best? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 12 2006 07:27
Profile
Homepage
BoA requires scripting in something like a programming language. BoE requires absolutely no scripting whatsoever. All you have to input is text, SDFs (think variable), and occasionally monsters or items. —Alorael, who thinks BoA would do better if it had a BoE-like interface that hid the majority of the simple scripting. People are probably frightened away by the complexity before they learn that scripting isn't impossible. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Are fantasy RPGs inherently conservative? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 18:48
Profile
Homepage
False religion as a force of evil is an ancient cliché of fantasy in general, RPGs included. It's been established almost as long as the benevolent god(s). —Alorael, who has come to approach RPGs similarly to Kaplan's alleged approach to standardized tests. Context isn't necessary to know the answer to a question, and context isn't necessary to spot the hero, the villain, the villain who will become a hero, the hero who will become a villain, and so on. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Are fantasy RPGs inherently conservative? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 15:40
Profile
Homepage
RPGs often involve toppling the evil Empire (liberal) or preserving the good kingdom (conservative). In some cases, it's restoring the good kingdom after an evil faction or individual takes power. If the faction is simple highly restrictive and not engaging in wanton slaughter of civilians, it could be theoretically as legitimate as the preceding regime. How do you label this last case? Are the heroes liberal or conservative crusaders for bringing down the oppressors? —Alorael, who thinks most RPGs sidestep the issue by making the "new regime" a front for an organization or individual trying to bring about the end of the world in a horrible way. Liberals and conservatives by all definitions agree that the end of the world is bad. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Sudden Big Leap in Difficulty *post-Honeycomb spoiler* in Avernum 4 | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 15:35
Profile
Homepage
Thanks, Wonko. Note that you don't have to spring Rentar's trap immediately. You can have a nice jaunt through the Great Cave before tackling pylon nightmares. —Alorael, who also recommends planning. Killing everything at random is difficult. Killing things in specific orders and in specific ways is much easier. In particular, your range is longer than pylons', and preventing fear makes everything much easier. Just make sure not to let those wyrms get out of control. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Do we have a new moderator? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 11:24
Profile
Homepage
We've discovered that Jeff doesn't like threats to his family or disparagement of his games. He also doesn't like debates that range into murderous. That seems fair enough for a family board. —Alorael, who certainly thinks other mods, himself included, have made more questionable locking decisions. Ultimately, Jeff still takes the blame because he is somehow the man to hate on Spiderweb. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 07:02
Profile
Homepage
Giving street directions takes practically no effort and makes someone's life easier. You get to feel good, and it's part of our evolutionary pact of altruism. Street directions are free, so we give them freely in the knowledge that one day we'll be lost too. —Alorael, who doesn't see what LaVey ever did for him to deserve happy birthday wishes. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| I wish upon a star in The Exile Trilogy | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 06:58
Profile
Homepage
I don't quite feel like it. —Alorael, who was moved to do something more creative. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Happy pesach! in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, April 11 2006 06:53
Profile
Homepage
Merry matzah day! May your breadlessness be fruitful. —Alorael, who can more easily see Easter as the Christian Passover. Reasons of precedence and all that. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 21:20
Profile
Homepage
Littering is punished. We frown upon litterers in general, and there can be hefty fines. Many people feel bad if they litter. Enough litter makes the area ugly and harms the environment, which is ultimately bad for all of us. You say that throwing garbage in the trash can has no positive reinforcement or negative consequences? In other news, I think I need to step back and admit that the evolution argument has become apples and oranges. I've explained where our thinking and society comes from biologically. TM says that we're more than just selfish impulses. That's true; we don't think selfish thoughts, we think all kinds of thoughts, selfless among them. The primary cause of our ability to think altruistically is selfishness, strange as that seems. Because we can think, our actions are motivated by much more complex interactions of emotions and thoughts and beliefs than I've been discussing. Does selfishness still apply? Yes. Do other thiings? Obviously, or nobody would, say, sacrifice himself for an unrelated friend. Maybe our primal urges lump friends in as family. Maybe evolution just gave us an altruistic framework upon which every individual builds. That's a question for sociologists or psychologists, which I am not. I'd just like to point out, though, that saying altruism isn't altruism because it has selfish genes at its roots makes as much sense as saying imagination is meaningless because it's just a bunch of electrical impulses. Animals, even humans, are the sum of very prosaic parts. That doesn't reduce what we are as a whole. [Edit: As always, disproof of any statement by counterexample is welcome. Specifics are good.] —Alorael, who has now sufficiently recanted without actually taking back what he said. The Inquisition can just put him under house arrest now. [ Monday, April 10, 2006 21:21: Message edited by: Hors d'oeuvre or ordure+V? ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 20:30
Profile
Homepage
Of course we aren't animals, but our sociological functioning didn't come out of a vacuum. It came out of evolution, and we aren't all that far removed from grunting. TM: I think I already covered parents dying for one child. Because most sacrifices result in an average increase in chance of genome survival, we sacrifice. We don't evaluate all the circumstances every time. Altruism isn't precisely mathematical because no real situation is cut and dried and I'd be surprised if there were enough evolutionary pressure to give us instant odds of offspring calculation. Also, if a parent isn't likely to have more children, that 1/2 genome is better than 0 genome survival. Trading altruism works because we evolved complex things like guilt, shame, exclusion, and all the lovely pieces of a functioning society. If you don't save other people from the zombies, word gets around and pretty soon nobody will do you a good turn any more and you're zombie bait. Fortunately, that doesn't happen because we feel guilty about letting people get eaten by zombies. Yes, that's a simplification. We feel guiltier depending on how close the person is to us and may not care much at all for a stranger from some distant land. But you know what? Locals are more likely to have opportunities to stop zombies. Trust works implicitly because we've had millions of years to come up with implicit trust. It works for us with all our complex higher thinking, but it also works for much more primitive herd animals. Trust is a function of instinctive moral calculus: groups that trust each other do better than groups that don't as long those groups also have an instinctive urge to be trustworthy. I think the tertiary issue you're sidestepping is the most important one as a simple summation of everything else. We do things because they feel good somehow and for no other reason. Do you have a counterexample? There's nothing rational about all this at all. It's true for us, ants, cows, wolves, and naked mole rats. We're all animals. We've got more thinking lumped on top of it, more room for deviation, but that's where all our thinking comes from. We didn't rationally invent altruism because we're higher beings! [Edit: Diki, that's part of the reason why the vast majority of cultures (not all, but most) place the most emphasis on protecting and providing for the nuclear family, then the extended family, and so on. The closers the relationship, the more of your genes you share, so the more of "you" is passed on if those relatives have children.] —Alorael, who sees nothing depressing about this any more than humans having evolved from chimps is depressing. Genetic programming is part of being an organism. Use your highly developed thinking brain to work with it. [ Monday, April 10, 2006 20:33: Message edited by: Hors d'oeuvre or ordure+V? ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 18:30
Profile
Homepage
It's entropy! Every divinity is another degree of freedom, and monotheism only has one. It imposes the only possible state, which is highly ordered, upon us. As more gods are added, there are more possible religious states. Ladies and gentlemen, the Second Law of Theomodynamics states that everyone eventually has to become a polytheist. —Alorael, who likes his fast and very, very loose religious theorizing. Remember it when you take your Theological Engineering Exam. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 16:00
Profile
Homepage
Judaism may have been the first to set out in codified, legal fashion how one should live, but I think every religion by nature has to impose some kind of order on its adherents, if only in the form of when and how to worship. Judaism also is much less a moral code than a legal code. I won't argue that it's not moral at all, because that's clearly false, but the Torah as a document is concerned with history and civil order to a large degree. Spiritual well-being is only one concern. —Alorael, who is pretty sure that diplomacy has existed as long as humans have been able to talk to one another. Diplomacy means raping and pillaging without someone's permission is likely to cause problems and should be discouraged. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Are fantasy RPGs inherently conservative? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 15:51
Profile
Homepage
Not unless you're using race and species interchangeably. I won't claim that elves hating humans and dwarves hating elves and everyone snearing at those little hobbits hasn't replaced different colors of humans, but I don't think any fantasy "race" is a stand-in for a human race. We've gotten past that. Sure, killing goblins on sight might not be politically correct, but because there are no goblins in the real world people can accept that goblins are always evil and move on. There are several very good looks at goblins and other cannon fodder in fantasy, but ultimately they're only meaningful because goblins are fodder. Fantasy needs fodder, and goblins are better than humans with slightly different ears. Remember, ugly fantasy people are evil fantasy people! —Alorael, who thinks that that's one of the key points of contention between liberals and conservatives as long as you aren't considering them interchangeable for unclear reasons. Conservatives say that the terrorist bombers are evil and should be eradicated. Liberals say that the terrorists have good reasonss to be bombing, like getting bombed first. Realistically, both sides are somewhere in the middle, but those are the extremes. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 15:34
Profile
Homepage
Evolution demands selfishness. Nobody does anything for nothing. There's also evolutionary selection for selective cooperation. Specifically, your genes are better off if you help relatives and if you help each other when it is more advantageous for all involved. Here are some examples: 1. You and your three siblings are attacked by a trio of hungry and quick-stepping zombies. If you all run, three of you will be eaten and one will survive. If instead one of you distracts the zombies, that one is guaranteed a slow, painful death but the other three will live. Because you get a random half of your genes from one parent and a random half from the other, you have on average half of the same genes as a sibling (one quarter overlap of each parent's genes). Saving yourself preserves one set of your genes, but dying to save three siblings saves three halves of a set. Altruism is favored by evolution because altruistic genes differentially reproduce more. [Edit: This is why parents help children. Without children, your genes die out. Your children get half your genes, so if you can let your child live with less than a 50% risk to yourself, it's a good deal. Saving your sibling's child only worth a 25% risk. I suspect that parents are willing to go to extreme lengths of self-sacrifice for two reasons. One, evolution may not be able to instill instant odds calculation, and in most cases a parent can protect and support a child with far less than a 50% risk. Two, the social stigma of not protecting your child is crippling, and the benefits of surviving a heroic rescue are large. See the 4th point.] 2. You see a total stranger getting attacked by a zombie. You know he has only a 5% chance to fend off the attacker. If you step in to help, there's a 20% chance that you'll both get eaten. But you know that there are more zombies around and that he'll be grateful. You'll probably get attacked at some point, and then maybe you'll need him to save you. If you don't save him, he has a 5% chance of survival and you have a 100% chance of survival now but only a 5% chance later. If you save him, you have a 20% chance of dying together, but if you survive you've just improved your chances to 80% when someone saves you. That means that overall you're better off risking a little bit to save each other than you are ignoring each other. Even without zombies, this is true. Helping each other in the expectations of more help makes sense as long as you expect others to reciprocate. We're pretty well programmed to do that and to ostrasize those who don't. Human social interactions are as subject to evolution as the rest of our brains. 3. You can go kill a mouse and eat it. So can your neighbor. If you work together, you'll have to split your meat, but you can also kill a dog. A dog is more than twice as much meat as a mouse. You actually make no sacrifice in being "helpful." 4. This applies to simpler things too, in large part because of programming. Why do you give to charity, possibly anonymously? You're not expecting benefits (except maybe tax deductions). You won't win accolades, and nobody is giving you charity. But you get to feel good. If it didn't feel good to give, nobody would. We don't do anything that feels bad unless we expect some reward that will outweigh the bad feeling. —Alorael, who thinks he has covered enough ground in this post. He'll keep his signature short. [ Monday, April 10, 2006 15:38: Message edited by: Hors d'oeuvre or ordure+V? ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Satanism in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 13:51
Profile
Homepage
LaVeyan Satanism is about scratching their backs if they scratch yours. If they don't do the scratching, neither do you, and it looks to me like they're supposed to start it. It makes me wonder how LaVeyans can relate to one another at all, actually. I don't hold with "psychic vampires." Everyon deserves happiness. If some people are so needy that making them happy makes more people unhappy, they have to settle for less, but nobody is inherently not worth pleasing at all because they don't please anyone in return. —Alorael, who believes that to a certain point there's "free" happiness. You can do someone some small good turns with practically no inconvenience to yourself. Usually they'll feel better because you did it and often you'll feel better about yourself for being such an upstanding good guy. LaVey seems to discourage that kind of win-win exchange. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
| Are fantasy RPGs inherently conservative? in General | |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 10 2006 11:24
Profile
Homepage
I think RPG clichés have less to do with adoption of fairytale paradigms and more to do with knowing the market. Most players do not want ambiguity. Most players want the good guys, who are good, and the bad guys, who are bad, with no difficulty besides getting the former to stab the latter. Such a view of the world comes much closer to the conservatives' black and white, us and them mentality. Liberals lean more towards seeing both sides, which makes slaughtering the enemy more questionable, and thus sometimes less fun. There are benevolent kingdoms thrown into dark days by the evil usurper, but there are just as many plucky rebels trying to topple the evil empire. (Empires are evil, kingdoms are good!) The rule by council is always better than the rule by monarch if any council is available. —Alorael, who doesn't see much racism in RPGs. Human vs. non-human speciesism, yes, but that's not quite the same. Prevalence of whites, yes, but that's because the setting is usually taken from the traditional, idealized, wholly white world of pseudo-medieval Europe. Real medieval Europe was overwhelmingly white too. Gender roles and gender portrayals all come down to what the target audience (roughly 10-30, mostly male) wants to see. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |