|
How in the heavens did I not notice this LP for so long? At least I found it in time for the voting! Now, down to voting: Tum'rrah +1: His skills should make him a decent tank if his HP gets a boost, plus it won't be strange if he doesn't talk much out of fights. Neril +2: Hard to say how a character with a history like her would act (or develop), but we need a mage and her skills seem workable. Bendan +3: Including character who causes a bit of friction within the party isn't a bad idea; more importantly, he isn't made entirely of tissue paper. Sk'rrrrrrl +4: He's made of tissue, but since nobody seems to have made someone with both lockpick/trap and a solid weapon, this guy is probably the best choice for developing into the "thief" archtype. It's also nice to have a pair of The Ne'er-do-Weels to play off/support each other, as well as justify why people don't like the party. I also honestly don't know if mixing melee with archery is good or bad, and kind of look forward to finding out. I really wish there were a decent way to convey that this part isn't personal... Delilah -1: I honestly don't know how viable a priest/thief hybrid would be, but I'm fairly certain turning one person into a great thief instead will prove easier, if not better. More importantly, including her would practically preclude Sk'rrrrrrl from being pushed into the role he should really be taking, since two people with thief skills is simply wasteful, and voting for Sk'rrrrrrl makes far more sense if he gets to be the clear thief candidate. Nista Shore -1: Half of a person's defining traits shouldn't be their sexuality (especially with the inclusion of being suicida*l); doubly so when the other half is so similar to Ember from the first LP. A real drat shame, since her skills are almost exactly what I would have suggested myself, and would have made for an obvious canidate. thetruegentleman fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Mar 12, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
berryjon posted:1, 2, 3, 4, not 2, 2, 4, 4 please! Noted and fixed
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
LuffyVeggies posted:Second, and I found this out the hard way, for the Magical Supplies jobs - it does NOT count if you kill a monster that you summoned via Capture Soul/Simulacrum. And wouldn't you know it, when I had found that out, there wasn't a single Null Bug left in the game. Fun times! ..you were surprised that the Empire has a policy against something that could easily lead to counterfeiting? If I'm buying Mummy Dust, that poo poo better be from a Pharaoh, and not Bob's Mummy Dust Emporium: I'm paying for guaranteed quality, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Haha, same here. I thought "spiny worm" was just some derogatory name for the dervish. Don't feel bad, I thought the same thing: since he calls the Exiles "worms" in the actual game, calling him a "spiny worm" seems like a good fit for an Imperial who fought in the Exile war. After all, he would have basically became a "worm" himself, living and fighting in the caves for years, separated from the people of Exile only by his armor (the spine), which also serves to show the difference in culture and attitude.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I really like that the game actually has visible consequences over a long period of time that give you a kind of warning that you should hurry up: it's the kind of "show don't tell" that games like Mass Effect 3 seriously lacked for their dooms-day scenarios, and thus made their dooms-day dull.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Couldn't she shroud an area in magical darkness of something? Or bioengineer massive trees that block all light? She *could* probably just slap on a big robe with some magic runes on it and a pair of shades: the problem isn't so much that there aren't ways for her to get (and stay) on the surface, but that she would still be unable to experience the sun or engage in public activity, on top of the obvious dangers that instant-kill sunlight creates for someone with so many enemies. Anyone with a mirror and sufficient luck would have a chance to kill her. Getting killed by a mirror is not the kind of risk Erika would want to take.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Beyond the fact that good and evil are subjective, the biggest problem with magic is that you can't get rid of it: magic is a part of the world, and denying it is like trying to deny physics because someone can destroy a town with a trebuchet. Even burning all the scrolls and magic tomes won't work, because there's no way to prevent demons from simply re-introducing magic in the form of a cult, which simply ensures that all non-basic magic becomes evil...assuming the gods don't re-introduce magic themselves as well. Worse, no magic means less protection from monsters with magical abilities, and no enchanted weapons to level the playing field against particularly powerful ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Berryjob has probably thought of all these, so let's throw together some maxim based moral philosophy, courtesy of Kant: "I will A in C in order to realize or produce E", where ‘A’ is some act type, ‘C’ is some type of circumstance, and ‘E’ is some type of end to be realized or achieved by A in C. 1. "A maxim capturing your reason for an action": "I will use magic (A) if I believe it necessary (C) to better or protect people's lives (E)." 2. "frame it as a universal principle for all rational agents": "Magic should only be used when it can better or protect people's lives." 3. "whether a world based on this universal principle is conceivable": "Magic exists, and people use it to better and protect lives (proof: our adventurer group)." 4. "whether [one] would will the maxim to be a principle in this world": "If people used magic ONLY to better and protect people's lives, then I would be content." As 3 and 4 are both true, the use of magic can be perfectly moral, as there are no situations where I myself would not want magic to be used to better or protect people's lives. Not that there aren't problems: if I were a farmer, I would be frustrated if a mage started giving out free food to people who would otherwise have paid me, but I still wouldn't say I have a moral right to be paid merely because I want to be. Ok, so this should prove that magic can be perfectly moral/beneficial. But what if we do the reverse, like the magic hater proposed? 1. "Magic is too dangerous to use (A) in all circumstances (C) as the dangers it can create cancel out the good it can create. (E)" 2. "Magic should never be used in any circumstance." 3. "One must never use magic in all circumstances, even though it can be encountered entirely by accident (condition failed: people can, and do, use magic entirely by accident, like when they drink from a magic lake, or fix a cave full of crystals.) 4. "If people did not use magic when it could have saved my life, I would probably prefer people to use magic for my sake." (condition failed, as I would want magic to be used to save my life.) As such, there is a perfect duty (we should not act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them) to allow people to use magic, as it can be used accidentally. There is also an imperfect duty: if magic could be used to save me, I would prefer to be saved, and so the possibility of magic's misuse simply doesn't justify overlooking the immediate good, even if I'm actually a murderous thug that the world would be better off without. As such, the proposition that all magic use should be considered immoral is a nonsensical mess of an argument, as it is outright impossible for everyone to follow and still remain moral, despite their best efforts, and people would also want exceptions regardless.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Leaving mechanics aside, it seems like Arcane magic kind of is on a higher potential level of destructiveness lorewise. We have all these ridiculously powerful mages like Erika, Garzahd and Rentar-Ihrno, but we don't really see any priests of the same caliber. Erika is also the one who created Exile's staple food (and possibly Exiles books/scrolls, although I forget), and Garzahd created the only long range, permanent, large scale teleporter, on top of being the right hand man of the emperor, going so far as to take over after his death: these are people would have had massive influence even without the ability to throw fireballs. Priests, by contrast, are generally obliged not to seek things like massive fortunes, or significant political power...except, of course, for Liches, who are priests every bit as dangerous as the famed wizards.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
quote:"Those who fear the darkness just have not seen what the light can do." -Magic The Gathering. Kinfolk910 posted:So... What's the end goal for your solution for mages? Because let's be honest here. I doubt you would end this at making mages uncomfortable. First you make them look evil and portray yourself as good. You convince everyone they are evil and then what? Nothing happens? No. People will start doing stuff. From merely making lives difficult to outright murdering a mage for existing. And the worst part? They think it makes them good/It's to make the world a better place/It's a mage who cares/ECT... They don't need an end goal: they aren't asking for a magic "Final Solution" (that we know of yet), but rather, for people to voluntarily give up magic themselves. If they want to "end" magic, it will presumably be by shunning mages socially in the hopes of pressuring them to give up on magic in order to be "normal". Basically, it's Fantasy Pacifism: they aren't seriously expecting everyone to give up magic, but they do believe that standing up to magic has value in and of itself. As for why that's the case... - - - - - Welcome back to the Fun With Magical Ethics Corner, where I'll be discussing the root of Animist philosophy, Consequentialism: a basic tenant of Animism seems to be that non-priest magic *always* causes evil, which necessitates that their philosophy be based on the consequences of an action, as opposed to the intent of the user (basically, if I try to save someone who is *almost* guaranteed to die, but I throw a fireball and hit/kill said person instead, I'm a worse person than if I did nothing at all). More specifically, it seems to be Negative Utilitarianism, which is aimed at preventing actions that cause harm (in this case, magic). For simplicity's sake, we'll say that "common sense" natural rights still can't be violated to achieve Animist ends: in other words, people aren't killed as soon as they commit more "bad" than "good", and the human race shouldn't be destroyed because more obviously "bad" people than obviously "good" happen to exist. Even still, Animist philosophy leads to some VERY ugly extrapolations, the most obvious of which is, "why stop at magic": if, for example, we take the sword example of "Captain Sewer Wand" at face value, ANY weapons that harm more people than monsters should be banned, as should institutions such as the army. And yet, they still have an army, and the Animists flat out admitted that they use weapons other than magic to fight monsters. This being the case, what makes the evil in magic so much more powerful than the evil swords and armies can produce? The only logical answer is that magic puts too much power in the hands of one person (or a few people) instead of the many, and so magicians become more dangerous by virtue of power always corrupting: this, however, assumes that the power itself (magic) is what causes their corruption, rather than magic being a mechanism FOR corruption. The difference is subtle, but powerful, and we again have our Anima friends to help argue against themselves: just as the land was claimed without the aid of magic, so to does corruption arise without the aid of magic (look at Hawthorne, for example). Magic makes that corruption easier, but immoral people can still do bad things even without magic; their work will probably take longer, because they need to use people and equipment instead of magic, but evil can still be done. Thus, If magic is evil, it is because people are evil; and if people are evil, than the Animists have a duty to destroy humanity, which is itself an act of terrible evil. TL;DR: if magic always causes more harm than good, it is because people prefer doing harm to doing good. Magic makes performing harm more difficult, but doesn't prevent it, which makes the purpose of the Anima philosophy unclear.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
The Mages know drat well even basic magic is dangerous, and prepare accordingly:  So what the hell kind of spell was the mage trying to cast, and why were so many people living in a house being used for magical experiments? Sorry your cousin died while trying to make some magical version of crystal meth, or maybe an IED, but bad poo poo happens when you fail basic safety protocols. Also, be sure to tell your other cousins not to drink Bathtub Gin so they don't all get themselves killed in a similar way.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
"What a thousand swords could not do, magic brought about": is that really true though? Alchemy can be used to poison water sources and set fires, and soldiers hardly need magic to butcher civilians: yes, it takes longer, but isn't the end result the same? And what about the negative aspect of that statement: how does one fight demons without enchantments and exorcism spells, except by throwing masses of soldiers against them? To use the dynamite example, do you know what the top ten bloodiest wars are? World War 2 is at the top, but the Mongol conquests, Three Kingdoms War, Qin conquest of China, Taiping Rebellion, and Lushan Rebellion all follow before World War 1 appears. Dynamite may not have prevented conflict, but the wars preceding its invention made up for their lack of "bang" by being long, bloody affairs. The overall point is that banning magic is a lot like banning dynamite: the killing might be slower, but it still persists, which means that only the benefits of dynamite are actually lost, for all practical purposes.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Well, it's true that people can live without magic in ordinary circumstances...but there's the rub: ordinary. The people of Exile most certainly *couldn't* live without magic, since they needed it to make a food source, and it's probably safe to assume that there are going to be future hazardous circumstances where magic might be necessary in a similar way: a demonic invasion, a giant meteor/giant volcano that partially blocks out the sun, desertification, sudden years of drought that could forcibly displace entire regions of people, an ice age... And that's the problem: if the Anima had their own solutions to these potential complications, their point would stand; but it seems safe to say that if the Anima can't handle their current major regional catastrophe, they probably couldn't handle multiple ones of similar scale on an Empire wide level. The Empire, in the mean time, seems to have done just that in the past, like when they got rid of all the monsters (especially the dragons): the Anima still benefited from that, even if they don't use magic themselves, so how they would fare dealing with similar circumstances themselves is an open question.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
 “I wonder how the Anama can maintain the claim that they civilized Bigail when there's just more and more evidence that other peoples were here first.” If the peasants were starving, it isn't a stretch to think the people here didn't survive that long; seems more like they tried to live here, and failed. It makes sense, considering that the guy is ashamed of his life and that the spider's new home was cleaned out, rather than hastily abandoned.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
vdate posted:So, a question - I understand why Art and the party are interested in stopping these plagues, since she doesn't seem to be the sort to do otherwise. But apart from the slime plague (since it's in their backyard), what interest does Avernum have in keeping the Empire (at least the local arm of it) intact? Most Avernites are have either a) been burned VERY hard by the Empire (inasmuch as they got chucked into Exile for not fitting in), b) were assholes to begin with (which led to them getting chucked into Exile for being disruptive enough to want gone but not disruptive enough to execture), or c) were born to those of groups a) or b). Is it just that the leadership is worried the Empire will conclude that it was their doing? Adding to the above point(s), magical plagues are bad for everyone; who's to say Exile won't be next once this part of the Empire falls? And the connection to the Empire works both ways: while the Exiles have plenty of reasons to hate it, many of them will still have friends and family on the surface, and even those who are loners still wouldn't want to go home and find that the place is in ruins courtesy of magical terrorists. Perhaps most importantly, this region is barely even *in* the Empire, which is why the Empire hasn't bothered to react on any appreciable scale. Finally, the Vahnatai have informed the Exiles that the caves can't actually support even the indigenous people of the underground indefinitely: sooner or later, the people from the surface *will* have to return to it, and when they do, they'll be facing the Empire in full force. In some ways, the magic plague is a blessing: the Empire can't rush troops to the area and start building fortifications while the infrastructure to support such an endeavor is effectively under siege, so Exile can move about freely. Thanks to that, it can open negotiations with the local towns, who's support in turn will force the Empire into negotiations, courtesy of having lost the chance to stop the Exiles at the obvious bottleneck. So to TL;DR, Exile has nothing to gain by keeping its distance here: a return to the surface is necessary, and the magical monsters aren't making that prospect any safer. Given time, however, the plagues will *definitely* make things worse in a situation that's already china-shop delicate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:yep. most people in the U.S have probably ate Atlantic Salmon at some point. Pretty much anyone who's ever eaten Salmon in the US at all has eaten Atlantic Salmon, due to the fish being mislabeled so much: Alaskan, Pacific and Chinook Salmon especially. The best part is that "Wild" Atlantic Salmon are "mislabeled" 70% of the time in the off-season, so unless you're eating at some multi-star restaurant, you're probably paying extra for nothing. Also,  Good god Berryjon, how do you have the patience to cure this guy so drat much? I would have cheated away that crap long ago.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
I just realized who the Plague Masters are, and feel very dumb for not noticing something that should have been obvious as soon as the first actual clue was given. Now I can't help but wonder how Art is going to respond: angry at being used and betrayed, or just depressed by the whole shebang.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The way it's presented here, it gives a stimulant high (not dissimilar to cocaine, then), with a profoundly depressant low. Which is kind of odd because I would expect opiates to be the drug of choice in a place like Gale. Actually, it's pretty much dead-on for an opiate: the weaker kinds (like Hydrocodine) tend to give first time users a high kinda similar to endorphins, without any of the tiresome feeling (although the constipation is still vicious, to the point of sometimes needing a separate prescription just for that, so don't take it if Advil will work instead). Then tolerance builds, and people have to move either to heroin or Oxycodine to get any kind of high, only the depressive effect becomes strong enough to make people nod off for hours. There's a reason opiates have been debilitating and profitable enough to force a war between China and Britain in the past...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
It's painfully obvious who's responsible once you ask yourself why they aren't any Vahnatai party members; At least the party has a good reason for wanting to kick their collective asses. Also, why would they want you to escape the prison? Even if they want to use the party as anti-Empire propaganda after the escape, that's still a crazy stupid risk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Thanks for doing all this, berryjon: it's been one hell of a read.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 21:12
|
|