Community

Herrozerro wrote:

so to apply it to our discussion here a specific example could be that in pre 3e there was alot of roll low = good and roll high = good. In the light of doing it one way the flaw could be the confusion of weather high or low is good or not as it can be seen as overly complicated.

Well, beyond the fact that THAC0 was overly complicated was the fact that it was constantly contradictory. The Tarrasque had negative THAC0 despite the initial rules stating that THAC0 can never go below 1 (it also had ridiculous rules in the context of negative THAC0... the initial book release stated it could never miss on anything except a 1, even if you had a very low AC that would otherwise render it a miss).

A bigger flaw to me was saves, which were bizarrely structured and largely made little sense. Worse off, certain things would break the usual rules for saves: there were spells that used saves vs breath weapon or staves, despite there being a "saves vs spells" in the friggin' book.

That said, both were flawed, but also fulfilled the fanbase's expectations for the game. Just because something fulfills the expectations of the fanbase does not mean that it isn't flawed.

Decivre wrote:

For the record, other than the obvious moral implications there is nothing particularly wrong about cannibalism. That is simply the act of consuming human flesh, which is only wrong in the context of our culture putting value in all human life. The difference between the issues of cannibalism and human sacrifice is that cannibalism works... you will not starve to death if you eat people. Human sacrifice does not work... you will not change the weather if you kill people.

The context I am using is that the initial post I responded to implied that something isn't flawed if it meets people's expectations. It's an incorrect assumption based on false logic. I'm not going to get into a religious debate here because I have too much fun with them and they violate the CoC, so I say we drop the larger religious topic... largely because not all sacrifice was religious in nature (the Greeks sacrificed slaves for good luck on certain occasions, and it wasn't always directly motivated by their faith in the Greek gods). However, my statement still proves the point that just because something meets the expectations of a group of people does not magically invoke the idea that the concept is flawed, perhaps even exceedingly flawed.

The below is written as if I am from another culture than this one and are not my real opinions.

Cannibalism is not morally wrong it is a bad idea as it can cause diseases similar to mad cow.

Killing one person will not change the weather but killing half of the earths population would effect weather patterns.

Killing one person from your village won't change the weather but if done right it can really cement a small groups resolve to work together for the future.

Rustmonster wrote:

Well, yeah, if you ate diseased meat. But that would happen regardless of species. A well cooked and healthy human body would be perfectly edible to humans.

As Fallout 3 proves*, Human Meat is healthy and delicious.


*: It's probably as reliable a source as the Wikipedia!

johnhansen wrote:

But you can not always tell if the meat is healthy and if you have one animal eaten by a 100 and then a year later have one animal eaten by 99 plus new off spring you are building up a concentration of what ever was in the first years meat. No big deal if the meat is healthy but as large fish studies prove if you keep adding mercury via food sooner or later it is dangerous. And that is not even getting into poorly understood ailments like mad cow.

You get exactly the same problem with any form of meat, regardless of source.

Large segments of the animal kingdom regulary practice cannibalism, and any animal (humans included) will do so if the alternative is starvation. There's no more danger in eating human meat than there is in eating cow meat, in fact there's probably less danger as we tend to look after our own health more than we look after the health of our livestock.

johnhansen wrote:

But you can not always tell if the meat is healthy and if you have one animal eaten by a 100 and then a year later have one animal eaten by 99 plus new off spring you are building up a concentration of what ever was in the first years meat. No big deal if the meat is healthy but as large fish studies prove if you keep adding mercury via food sooner or later it is dangerous. And that is not even getting into poorly understood ailments like mad cow.

Trivial. Human meat is no more risky than meat from any other source. Humans eat meat, it's a fact. Human meat may have moral implications depending on the culture, but the practice is no more a bad idea than the consumption of any other meat.

And all of this is completely trivial to my prior point, which was the fact that "just because something is acceptable does not mean it has no flaws".