|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
Laurence Fishburne was in Mystic River Directed by Clint Eastwood. I most indignantly call foul -- actors only! Otherwise we go from Ben Hur to Lucky Number Slevin in one jump, through MGM Studios. No directors, camera men, producers, scriptwriters, grips, gaffers, studios, agents, makeup artists, plot elements, filming locations, or other non-actor links will be recognized by the Drunken Satyr Committee.
Would it be fair, then, Kirth, to suggest that science is in fact your religion? It actively shapes your worldview. No; I picked the profession because my world-view made me admirably suited to it. I was a skeptic long before I was a scientist. In terms of religion, I consider myself a Zen Buddhist (albeit not a very good one!).
The big bang, (which I accept by the way) is a belief Let me preface this by admitting that I'm a scientist, by training and profession. For me, the Big Bang is not a belief. It's a provisional hypothesis to account for a number of observations. Gravity is likewise not a belief, because although the math isn't too hard, that still leaves me with no idea how it ultimately works (and assigning "gravitons" to it doesn't help that). In fact, I have no beliefs at all -- only more or less confidence in certain models and hypotheses. I tend to provisionally accept the ones that demonstrate greater predictive power or general utility, and reject the ones that lack these qualities, but that's as far is it can go. Being a scientist properly means leaving beliefs at the door, and accepting that while better approximations are possible, certainty isn't. If you can't grasp this mind-set, then science will always be a mystery to you, and the type of atheism that I and many others (Dawkins, et al.) ascribe to will also be incomprehensible.
Caspian and Cricket are hung over and goggle-eyed as they approach Jarnell's Forge* -- a conical tower of what appears to be gray ceramic tiles, about 40 ft. high, and open at the top, from which orange, nearly smokeless fire roars in a column a hundred feet into the sky. You can feel the heat emanating from the thing from a hundred feet away; up close, it must be nearly unbearable. Squinting, you can see that the center of the column of fire burns white-hot. A number of people in leather aprons are working along the base of the tower, which has been built outwards into a series of shops and work areas. Behind the tower is a maze of warehouses, carriages, and so on, heavily-idustrialized and with signs of great activity even at 8:50 am. If your sense of direction is working, the docks should be about a third of a mile behind the tower and to the left. Wyvurn and Jaegr are already there.
If a rogue villain uses Knowledge (Local) to find the PCs safe house, do they get extra XP if he uses this knowledge to ambush them (in addition to the XP for defeating that opponent)? Or is the ability to use skills considered part of the basic "package" of a rogue, and included under the XP for that rogue? Summoning allies is a class feature, which is presumably preventing that NPC from having some other class feature more useful in some other area. That said, summoned allies should be part of the total XP package for that NPC, not added on in addition. Or, if you award extra XP every time an NPC uses a class feature against the PCs (in addition to the XP for that NPC), then do so consistently, not just for summoners.
...assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code... This is another assumption I object to; see my edited post above. There's a reason I mentioned bees; queens aren't genetically different from drones; they're just fed a different diet as larvae, causing them to develop differently. Homosexuals don't appear to be genetically different from "straights" -- they just have different prenatal exposure levels to certain hormones, causing slightly different development in parts of the brain (Google "fraternal birth order effect").
Personally, i think slow fall needs to stop being wall dependent at minimum I just replaced it with the ability to choose feather fall as a 0-level ki power/psionic power/"spell".
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end. Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive. The reference to bees is intentional, insofar as drones aren't genetically different; they're simply given a different diet while developing as larvae. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be a gene for homosexuality; rather, prenatal hormone exposure may be responsible, at least in large part. Seriously, if you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.
I don't know anything about Final Fantasy, and have no idea what the class is about. I'm fairly good with class design and rules, though, for what it's worth, and here are some issues that immediately caught my eye: 1. Blue Magic -- not only is this not magic, but it emulates what you can already do at will with a Knowledge check... and yet you're charging "blue points" for using it, making it a per-day mechanic. But that's his main schtick! So why play this class, if overall I'm better off being a bard, taking all those knowledge skills, and doing "blue magic" (aka using Knowledge skills) all day long? Edit: Or, when you say "learn abilities," do you mean GAIN those abilities, vs. learning what they ARE? In that case, no GM will allow this class because it's totally not worth the headache it gives him -- he can't use hardly any monsters with special abilities, without assuming you will acquire them, and then weigh that against the rest of the campaign (because of your "bestiary" thing). 2. Advance Blue Magic -- I'm not seeing what dice you're talking about. The description for Blue Magic doesn't tell you to roll a d4 anywhere -- it tells you to make a knowledge check. Likewise, I have no idea what you're Maximizing, for Maximize Blue Magic. Etc. 3. Use of the term "evasion" for a class feature that emulates Slippery Mind (et al.), etc. is a no-no, because there is already an Evasion ability in the game (Rogues get it at 2nd level). If you want an ability that emulates that, call it "evason." If you don't want it to do the same thing, don't name it the same thing (even sticking "Blue" in front of it doesn't help). Same advice with everything else. If you call it a "mage," people immediately assume "full caster." That's a bad thing, and calls for a name change. "Bonded weapon" implies a wizard's bonded item, which it isn't. 4. Ability types -- none of your class features have those useful (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) tags, and they desperately need them!.
I have always associated "Ki" with "Chi" which is life force, not necessarily "mental" energy which is what Psionics is. Monk is the only class that actually uses "Ki" and I would like to keep it that way. What's in a name? Mechanics and fluff are not inextricably wed to each other. Call them "snergs" instead of spells or ki powers or psionics, if you want. Claim the power is from ethereal dilithium crystals instead of life force, for all the difference it makes in the game mechanics.
I think I prefer them with psionics, though; which is purely because of personal preference rather than quality of your monk. What you call our monk's "spells," and what the text describes a "ki powers," are in fact psionics, just with a different name. The only thing Vancian is the fact that, for the sake of making multiclassing actually work, we use standardized tables for all spells/psionic powers/etc.
Dawkins frequently refers to himself as an atheist -- but he also clearly states he cannot prove god doesn't exist, meaning he really isn't an atheist in the strictest sense of the word. Though I could (and have) argued that any definition of atheist pedantic enough to exclude Dawkins is nigh useless, certain parties hold that such an assertion is evidence of profound ignorance and a complete unsuitability for the discussion at hand. ;-) See my post above, regarding 99-point-whatever percent being as good as it gets. To a theist who thinks that absolutes are real, those of us who subscribe to an evidence-based worldview are agnostic about everything.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
I ask that you take the monk... give him the psionic progressions (Power Points, Powers Known, Power Levels) of the Psychic Warrior. In addition, allow him to choose Powers from the Psychic Warrior Power List. My home group spent the last 2 years playesting that, more or less (again, see this monk). Ask TOZ how he likes it so far!
So, the foundation of science rests in a useful fiction? That's a lot better than the alternative, which is resting on less useful fiction, or on totally useless fiction. Scientists don't peddle "The Truth(TM)" -- we leave that to the preachers. We deal with describing how things work, with as much predictability as possible, knowing in advance it won't be 100%.
I would call that agnosticism. By your standards, those of us who adhere to an evidence-based world view are "agnostic" about everything. Human knowledge is imperfect. 99-point-whatever per cent certainty is the very best that can be achieved. We're OK with that, and at a certain point, describe it as "more or less definite." We leave absolute claims, and the idea of "The Truth(TM)," to you religiously-minded people. Calling science "only a useful approximation" is a compliment, inasfar as the contrast is "a lousy approximation." There's no such thing as a perfect one! This also ties in with the speed of light thing you mentioned earlier. Say it does vary slightly, and the universe is 14 million years younger than the 13.75 billion we estimate (note the term: "estimate," not "believe"). That's an error of approximately 1/10 of 1%. That's amazingly awesome. It's well within the +/- 0.11 billion years that astrophysists commonly estimate as the margin of error for the age of the universe. As a scientist, I don't look for absolute certainty. I don't believe in it.
I also agree that atheists tend to get sh!t on from all sides. This really pissed me off. That was my experience in the Army. My squad leader announced to us, "Legally, I am not permitted to require you to attend Chapel. Now hear me well: Each and every one of you WILL attend Chapel!"
Belief that God does not exist is a belief about God. Only if you use "belief" in the broadest possible sense. I'm an atheist, but I don't "believe" there's no God -- I provisionally accept it as a null hypothesis until a preponderance evidence supporting one comes to light. So far that hasn't happened.
because humanity has never done anything unethical with scientific advancements before... Sure they have -- the same amount as the horrifyingly unethical stuff humanity has done with religion, I'd wager. (The only difference is that science doesn't claim to be the field of inquiry that supposedly encompasses all morality -- a claim religion is often vocal in making.)
but should everyone just have things handed to them without having to work for it? I wish we didn't have anyone who just had it handed to them without them having to work for it, but that's a different problem, isn't it? Equal opportunity =/= equal outcome.
Yet, people born poor can end up living, if not fabulously rich lives, then certainly comfortable lives - if they work hard enough. It does happen. I've known several that it has happened to. And, by 'poor', I mean actually poor as in living on the streets, not this 'I have AC, a three bedroom apartment, and cable tv' 'poor'. Sure, but their statistical likelihood of doing so is a vanishingly small fraction of that of someone born wealthy, and who works less hard.
1. It's the exact (reverse) corresponding strawman position to "ultimate." 2. Tell it to all the "militant" anti-atheists who constantly bring it up, like Ben Stein and the Pope, and their zillions of followers.See how this works? As long as you lump people into a bloc and make exaggerated caricatures of their positions, it's fair game to do the same with you and yours. If you dislike it, it's easy enough for all of us (you included) to stop doing it.
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists. The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.
Or maybe you meant this McCloud, since he's equally cool. I have to admit, riding a horse down a city street around that kind of traffic is way more impressive than living forever and cutting people's heads off with a sword.
in this economy? You must realize she was incredibly lucky to quit one job and have another one lined up like that. No -- that's free-market awesomeness. If you are born into wealth or have a stroke of luck, that obviously happened because you're so much better than everyone else. People who seem to be working ten times harder than you are, but who don't get the same breaks, are clearly putting on a show and are actually just freeloaders, deep down.
the atheism I've seen most common in 21st century America. And THAT is a religion. One of its tenets is claiming that science is the ultimate authority. Though, it takes on faith the concepts of parsimony and repetition of results. One of its rituals is getting on internet message boards and claiming that religion is toxic. Sure. It's a religion opposed by the followers of Anti-atheist Strawmannism, an equally publicly obnoxious cult with tenets such as (a) science is a giant conspiracy of lies; (b) Hitler's blend of Catholocism, wingbat neopaganism, and personality cult is somehow representative of atheism; and (c) atheists are therefore "militant" and must be opposed, lest they take away all our freedom.
When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors. If you're making that claim with a straight face, you're either kidding or uninsured. Seriously. Try to do it sometime -- your employer offers the option: "insured or not," and private insurance costs enough that not even Mitt Romney can afford it (and no one can qualify for it anyway unless they lie about every trip to the doctor, cold, cut, or scratch they've ever received).
I was going to say Goldeneye (Sean Bean), but he was a villain in National Treasure and Patriot Games, so maybe he doesn't count as "normally cast as a good guy." Have to think on this one. He was an incredibly horrible bad guy in Red Riding.
How else do you think we smoke the reefer? I figured you just ate the seeds. (Ducks for cover)
If making me pay for someone's health care means that I have to cut corners somewhere (perhaps not live in as nice a neighborhood - so increase my chances of being the victim of a violent crime), then shouldn't I have the right to demand that that person eat healthy, exercise regularly, and generally reduce their odds of needing expensive health care? I think so -- but then people gripe about bans on saturated fats, and it's not considered kosher (heh) to rail on overweight people the way everyone rails against smokers.
I've found that pizza is better if you cook it. "Frozen pizza" isn't a serving suggestion. He's a goblin. They haven't quite mastered fire yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
