Profile for Thuryl

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Outdoor signs don't work. in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 23:03 Profile Homepage #12
You have to put the scenario in your scenarios folder yourself. Then, once you've finished the scenario you're currently in and are ready to play the new one, you can just use the Enter Scenario option and select it the same way you'd select one of the premade scenarios.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 23:00 Profile Homepage #159
quote:
THe only grounds I would bother contesting your hypothetical god is if you are saying it is "wise" but has no physical brain. Sentience is a property emergent from brained entities. Something cannot have brain functions and lack a brain.
So you believe artificial intelligence is impossible in principle too?

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BoA Player FAQ in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 22:23 Profile Homepage #8
It's probably to do with the text editor you're using. If it's BBEdit Lite, look under Editor Defaults in Preferences to turn off smart quotes.

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 22:29: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BoA Player FAQ in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 21:46 Profile Homepage #6
In the special skills FAQ, the description of the Magical Efficiency skill includes an Õ instead of an apostrophe. I wouldn't mention it, except that similar things were reported in Bahss.

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 21:46: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BoA Player FAQ in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 20:39 Profile Homepage #3
Ah, good idea. Should there also be a general guide on eg. party building or gameplay, or does that belong in a different FAQ?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
ASR- Damn statue! in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 19:46 Profile Homepage #2
One word of warning: do everything you want to do in town first. You won't be coming back.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BoA Player FAQ in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 19:04 Profile Homepage #1
Nice work. We can probably think of a few more questions to put in, but this is very helpful on its own. It probably belongs in the forum header in big bold lettering.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
No character editor in BoA in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 18:24 Profile Homepage #7
It also makes long topics take up more pages than they need to, and some people double-post when they have nothing useful to say just for the sake of increasing post count.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
I'm getting butchered. (A Small Rebellion) in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 18:20 Profile Homepage #2
Most importantly, stay in the buildings as much as possible. Try to dash from one building to another in one round (haste your party, then have them all Wait for the enemies to waste their turns before opening any doors so that you get two rounds to do the dash). If you're outside, you're a sitting duck. You have neither the time nor the power to kill everything in town; don't try.

From memory, I think from the first room I headed northeast then curved around to the west.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 18:11 Profile Homepage #156
Okay, replying to Creator now. Sorry about the double post.

quote:
Distracting you both again, if you don't mind. Let's leave aside the theological implications for a moment. Say there was an actual miracle - a resurrection, for instance. How well would it need to be documented for you to take it seriously and/or believe it actually happened? At what point would the likelihood of falsification in your mind become smaller than the likelihood of a man coming back from the dead?
Ideally, I'd like to witness it myself. At the very least, I'd want to see the resurrectee and the site of resurrection in person, in order to discount the possibility of media fraud. The person would have to have been dead for a very considerable amount of time (people have recovered days after being pronounced clinically dead.) Preferably, it'd be someone who died centuries ago, and who was able to give details about his life that were verifiable but could not have been known by any person living today.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 17:51 Profile Homepage #155
quote:
No more so than we "assume" walking requires legs or a "walker". Thought has no independent existence and neither does walking. We don't "assume" any such thing but rather we observe that entities do stuff with their own stuff. THings with legs can walk adn do walk. That is what legs do...enable things that have them to walk. Things with brains think. That is what brains do...enable things with brains to generate thoughts.
You're talking about brains, I'm talking about minds. I hadn't even reached the point of discussing brains yet. (I'm the kind of philosopher who likes to prove everything from first principles. Bear with me.)

quote:
IF the brain is not needed to generate thought then why do we have brains? WHy can't I recall anything before my birth? WHy does my ability to think abstractly coincide with my physical maturity adn health status? WHy does a blow to my head affext or even cancel my thinking? IS there any demonstrable case of thoughts wandering around sans brains?
All of this is good evidence for a relation between brain and mind, but none of it reaches the level of unquestionable proof; you can never rule out the possibility that at some future time evidence contrary to this view will turn up.

In any case, my point had nothing to do with a mind/brain distinction, but rather a more fundamental thought/mind distinction. Even if we agree that thoughts are patterns of brain activity, do these thoughts together constitute a single, coherent entity that can be called a "mind"? Again, this is linguistics rather than logic.

quote:
I'm not certain what you mean by "personal identity"(I know what i think it means but I am unsure of what you mean here when you use the term)
The existence of my mind, as a coherent, unified, definable concept rather than merely a series of thoughts and perceptions.

quote:
but I don't think direct perception itself is necessarily too convincing. If I see a dragon in the street the most likely explanation is delusion/insanity.
But you're still seeing one, even if it's not there. You can't doubt that you're seeing what you're seeing, even if you doubt that it "corresponds" to anything material. That was my point.

quote:
Yes but if someone claimed that black swans existed that would not even be in the same neighborhood(not even the same solar system really) as round squares and gods.
So there's more doubt about one than the other. It's still possible to doubt both.

quote:
Round squares are not nonsensical simply because I speak english or I don't speak sopme other language. THey are nonsense because something cannot BE(as in 100% impossible) *This* and *Not this* or 'A' and 'Not A' or "round" and "not round". The very statement "not round" is denying roundness.
As I've mentioned before, not every system of logic denies the possibility of something being both A and not A.

quote:
They MUST proceed from the "assumption" that thoughts adn "mind" are a function of phsyical/material brains. They often study how damage to said brains affect behavior and thinking.
My point is that they could throw out all of the information they have about brains and still make a science out of what's left, even if it would be a much less useful one.

quote:
Science is a method for studying reality. In order for it to have any place we must "assume" there is a reality adn that we are percieving it.
Science is most definitely not a single method. Talk to ten scientists and you'll get eleven different and incompatible definitions of what the scientific method is.

quote:
If given reason tomorrow, I would become a non-materialist faster than you could say "Flip-flopper" at a republican convention. I would also be prepared to accept that 2,000+ years of experiement and observation were wrong and I know nothing and am incapable of knowing anything.

All I ask for before I do that is a pretty good reason... [Wink] .
Seems we're not disagreeing that such a reason could at some point exist. Doesn't this mean that we're both admitting at least some degree of room for doubt?

quote:
MAterialism is necessary as an axiom FOR SCIENCE, not for you personally. No one is saying that you have to sign a contract that says you will nevere doubt materialism or some such. It's Just that, when you go to study the genome or cosmos or whatever, you can not assume the planet is just the dream of a sleeping child or somesuch(in your capacity as a scientist).
It occurs to me that we may have different definitions of "materialism". If you mean a belief in the existence of matter, I'll agree that such an assumption is necessary for nearly all useful scientific progress (although, again, I think it merely needs to be held as a premise or theorem rather than necessarily as an axiom). If you mean a belief that nothing exists except matter, I certainly don't think that's necessary.

quote:
Ah but there is the rub! Are perceptions what we start with? Or do we start with things to percieve? Materialists say the latter.
The universe may well start out with things to perceive, but we don't. We experience our perceptions first and have to interpret them as "things" on our own.

quote:
We both do. Hell... we ALL do. You could not be doing science right now if not for a base assumption to proceed from. These first principles/axioms are not the same as assuming someone on trial is guilty or assuming I can trust that salesman. We have no choice in the matter of whether we will have base assumptions. We only have a choice in WHICH assumptions/axioms we adopt.
We're not disagreeing. I just think it's best to hold as few axioms as possible.

quote:
No, no, no...I do not "choose" to see the world a certain way. I SEE the world a certain way and it is consitent with how other humans seem to see the world.
First you said that you held certain assumptions about the world because they were useful assumptions. Now you seem to be saying you have little choice about which assumptions are included in your view of the world. Which is it?

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 17:52: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 01:50 Profile Homepage #146
quote:
No. I am saying that there are certain "useful assumptions"(we often refer to them as "axioms" or "first principles") that are not subject to, for example, scientific method. HTere can be NO knowledge or understanding without these base assumptions. Logic proceeds from the assumption that what makes sense to me, does in fact make sense(i.e. I cannot run towards you and get further away from you in the conventional sense and I cannot grow larger while shrinking) and science proceeds from the materilaist axiom(though there are variations on materialism such as functionalism and computationalism etc.).
I dispute your assertion that science must be inherently materialist. Psychology (except to strong behaviourists) is the study of mental processes. It may not be a mature or orderly science, but it still has definite scientific aspects (science, in its broadest sense, is merely the systematic accumulation of knowledge -- and if you try to define "knowledge" you open up a whole new can of worms).

Certainly, these days psychology draws significantly from neuroscience, but some aspects of psychology can be retained without assuming anything about the matter sustaining the minds which are being studied.

In regard to your first point, I'm comfortable with accepting the existence of matter as a premise, or as a useful model, but not as an axiom that's beyond doubt or change. I'd rather not accept materialism at all (in the sense of every process being reducible to description at the level of processes involving matter); strict materialist attempts to explain consciousness strike me as handwaving, and since our perceptions are what we start with before we conclude anything from them, it seems to make more sense to accept consciousness as axiomatic and get to matter from there.

quote:
Ok...I will take that bait :D . Using science and logic, I conclude that there exists a tree in my front yard. I propose a theory that says that trees have an independent existence adn my theory predicts that if I try to run through the tree, I will experinece the phsyical sensation of accelerating fleshy organism meeting well-rooted wood-thing(or "pain and stitches" to the layman)
And you're right -- at least until the day you take a run at the tree and pass through it as if it isn't there. It hasn't happened yet; most likely, it never will. But you can't prove it won't. You're only confident it won't because of observations made in the past which share common characteristics. That's inductivism, and it can never be absolutely reliable, no matter how many observations you make.

(I wonder, if one day you did pass through that tree, would you be most inclined to attribute it to a vanishingly unlikely quantum fluctuation, or to some kind of hallucination, or would it make you rethink your assumptions?)

quote:
Fine. But what does this lead to? What experiements are possible adn what can we learn about OUR reality(illusory or otherwise)? The logical conclusion of non-materialism is sitting on one's hands chattering becuase you cannot even say you(not "YOU" specifically of course,. I mean "you" the general non-materialists) are sitting on your hands chattering.
So you choose to make assumptions about the world because they're useful. But the judgement of usefulness requires a judgement of the value of certain perceptions; you choose to see the world in a certain way because you predict that worldview will lead to perceptions which are judged as preferable to perceptions resulting from alternative worldviews. Once again, perceptions take precedence over material "reality".

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:30: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 01:11 Profile Homepage #144
quote:
DesCartes set out to show materilaism to be wrong with his Cogito(where the "I think therefore I am" line comes from) and inadvertently ended up proving materialism correct. If I am able to ask the question "Do I exist?" then I have to exist to do so. Therefore, if I am thinking about my existence, I must exist.
I'm familiar with the argument, but it strikes me as a linguistic argument rather than a logical one. We assume that thought requires a thinker, because we speak a language that attaches a subject to every verb. (Fear not; I'm not going to argue the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but I agree with most modern linguists that it's not completely invalid.)

Some sentences, like "It's raining", have subjects only as a token gesture to the rules of English grammar; there are languages that don't require a subject in a sentence at all. "Perceive" or "think" could be seen as a subjectless verb, not requiring a perceiver or thinker. It doesn't seem to be impossible to doubt that thought requires a thinker; in fact, there's no shortage of serious philosophers who reject the concept of personal identity. Personally, I'd regard personal identity as one of the things I'm most certain of among all uncertain things, but still not quite on the same level as direct perception.

quote:
What it comes down to is that, like it or not, when you awake tomorrow, even if you are a "brain in a jar" or living in "The Matrix", you will still be bound by gravity and inertia and the reality we percieve.
Probably. Then again, throughout millennia of Western civilisation, nobody had ever seen a black swan.

quote:
LAws and behaviors will still consistently reveal themselves in your studies and the only way for you, as a scientist to make progress in understanding this reality, will be for you to accept it(whether ultimately it is "real" or illusory).
Don't worry about me. I've already worked with people whose philosophies make me look positively mainstream. :P

quote:
If this were so then you would be able to describe how this could be so. The only things we have such difficulty describing are non-existent and nonsensical things.
Linguistics again. You seem to be assuming that ideas are inherently impossible because they can't be expressed adequately in our language. Have you never experienced something you were unable to describe to others?

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:36: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:50 Profile Homepage #142
quote:
When there is one person at a forum defending a particular position, the usual assumption is that he came onto the board, guns blazing adn looking for a "fight"(or trying to convert). If there are half a zoen people asking him questions or challenging his position and he replies to each, somehow we get it in our heads that he is some hard-headed ass.
You had rather a lot to say, and while a great deal of it was certainly worth saying, hearing it all at once over half a dozen posts in a row felt a little jarring. As far as I'm concerned, all is forgiven; I hope you feel the same way. I just hope the other readers/posters in this topic don't mind our little digression.

quote:
Proving negatives is difficult and usually impossible but my answer to the BIAJ/Matrix/Taoist "butterfly dreaming it's a man" thing is that it does not matter if I am actually a brain in a jar. If my observations and experiences are concurrent with those of the other "brains" in said jar(even be they figments of my imagination) and I cannot "wish" or "deny" my reality so that it be something else, then for all intents and purposes, reality is reality.
I agree with you, but demonstrating that the truth or falsity of a proposition is unimportant isn't the same as proving it false.

quote:
"Red" also cannot paint itself onto a canvas but this does not mean that red is not a real color. "Painting" cannot itself paint and automotive engineering cannot itself engineer an automobile.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying we ought to assess the validity of a system of logic by some other standard than itself. What standard do you propose? Merely our own intuitions, or perhaps the fact that it demonstrates no inconsistencies when applied to our observations in various ways? If the latter, our assessment that logic is consistent is inductive and therefore unreliable; it's based only on the fact that we've found many examples favouring it and none contradicting it. (You may be getting the impression that I regard inductivism and falsificationism as being two sides of the same coin.)

quote:
In MY opinion? Yes. THere is much wrong with that because if you conclude that suspect 'A' murdered victim 'B' when in fact you have no reason to infer this, then you have made it very difficult to see the truth when it is within your sight. If I conclude that Zeus causes lightning then I am not open to learning about meterology or atmospheric conditions.
I don't believe this is a problem as long as one maintains a realistic view of the possibility that one may be wrong.

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 00:53: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:20 Profile Homepage #140
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

No, roundf squares do not exist even as coherent concepts. They exist only as meaningless assertions in the mind of someone allegedly hypnotised. If you cannot describe a thing as simple as a geometric shape then it is because you cannot observe such a thing. The definition of "squre" precludes any "roundness".
All the same, people hypnotised to see square circles are clearly perceiving something, and I feel it's worthwhile to question why it's so unreasonable for that something to be called a square circle; should mental space be held to the same rules as physical space? Is it necessary for the square circle to be a "shape" in the conventional sense at all?

I suppose at this point I'd better show my hand; I'm much more of a phenomenalist than a materialist. I'm also a biology student with every intention of having a career in science; I don't regard phenomenalism as inherently inconsistent with empiricism (and modern science sometimes strays pretty far from empiricism anyway, so even if I did it wouldn't be an insurmountable handicap).

However, all knowledge of anything beyond our own perceptions is ultimately inductive, because the only way to receive information is by repeated perception of patterns of one sort or another (whether they be "Things tend to fall when dropped" or "This reference book tends to be accurate").

Inductive knowledge is inherently unstable, because there's always the possibility of a counterexample. The only things I find myself unable to coherently doubt are my own perceptions; not necessarily that they "correspond" to anything in "reality" (what does that even mean?) but that I am in fact perceiving them. They are as certain as my own existence, or perhaps even more so; there is no "I" that I can pin down as an experiential reality, whereas I find myself completely unable to entertain the proposition that I am not perceiving what I am perceiving.

Were I to perceive something that I perceived as a square circle, I would therefore be forced to conclude that, in some sense, perceptions at least of square circles "existed".

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:31 Profile Homepage #136
Except that round squares do exist, at least as conceptual objects. People under hypnosis when told to see a round square have claimed they were able to see one. They're invariably unable to describe the experience of seeing a round square to others in terms that are coherent or comprehensible, but subjectively the experience is very real. Similarly, people have claimed to have personal experiences of God. Is it really completely out of the question that such people are genuinely experiencing a mode of perception that people don't normally have access to?

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 23:31: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
THAT STUPID LIZZAED QUEEN in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:00 Profile Homepage #1
To get rid of the "votey thing", use the New Topic button at the top of the page instead of the New Poll button.

Anyway, Pythras doesn't exactly "reward" you; she just blows a hole in a wall that allows you to progress further in the scenario.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Outdoor signs don't work. in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 22:56 Profile Homepage #7
http://www.avernum.com/blades/scen_list.html

You're allowed to start new topics, you know.

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 22:58: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Root of all evil in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 22:44 Profile Homepage #134
quote:
Out of interest, what would you accept as reasonable evidence of God's existence?
I've given that some thought in the past, and concluded that it'd have to be something on the level of an obvious miracle. Ideally it'd be something on a grand scale, simply to rule out the possibility of human intervention; obviously, it'd also have to be such as to make the possibility of a natural phenomenon unreasonably improbable. A meteor shower creating a clear image of a person's full name on the surface of the Moon would just about do it, I think -- and even then, I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt over the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention.

(And even then, I'd want to make sure that a few weeks on antipsychotic medication didn't make it go away. Can't be too careful when dealing with apparent revelations; if we took everyone's at face value we'd end up with a very odd deity indeed.)

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 22:49: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Blood Glee Clan - worm caves in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 20:25 Profile Homepage #1
Did you get the horn charm from the unicorns? You won't get the message unless you have the charm.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
In this thread, we have an abstract discussion without befouling pastries of any size in General
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 16:16 Profile Homepage #46
Hang on, now you're trying to portray anyone who doesn't mind inequality as being actively in favour of it?

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 16:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Special Skills Question... in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 15:49 Profile Homepage #11
It does over twice as much damage as a Blessed Sling. That borders on cheating. :P

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Script Errors and Design Etiquette in Blades of Avernum Editor
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 15:46 Profile Homepage #2
You're right, of course. It'll save me work later if I do need to call a state even if the town is hostile, in which case I'll have to rewrite things the right way in any case. I was just throwing around an idea that came to mind, really.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Script Errors and Design Etiquette in Blades of Avernum
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 15:46 Profile Homepage #2
You're right, of course. It'll save me work later if I do need to call a state even if the town is hostile, in which case I'll have to rewrite things the right way in any case. I was just throwing around an idea that came to mind, really.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Script Errors and Design Etiquette in Blades of Avernum Editor
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 14:53 Profile Homepage #0
In a particular town, I call a relatively large number of town special states, pretty much all of which involve NPC interaction. If the town is hostile, none of these make sense and I don't want them to occur.

Now, the *easiest* way for me to handle this, rather than have each state individually check the crime level, would be to have the START_STATE check the crime level, and if it's enough to make the town hostile, run code that contains an intentional syntax error (thus unloading the town script as soon as it's loaded).

Apart from one unsightly error message when the party commits a crime and every time the town is loaded after that, there should be no other harmful side effects.

Is it bad form to deliberately cause a scripting error to save myself a little work? Should I do it the right way (that is, manually put the check into every state) just to avoid the error message? Are there any problems with unloading the town script that I'm unaware of?

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:54: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages