Kitsune Knight

I'm pretty sure there's not been an official comment.

NCSoft would have to follow the laws of every country they operate in, they wouldn't be able to pick and choose. Which means they'll likely form their EULA in a way that'll protect them in every country they operate in. So no, even if it was perfectly legal in your country (which it probably isn't anyways) or some other, that doesn't matter in the slightest.

That's a very much so losing argument

And that's why they let you appeal it.

Am I the only one that misheard and thought they were talking about Mitochondrions?

I think trying to give an explanation for the force was a down right horrible idea... Mostly because it just left me thinking that someone must have been cultivating those little buggers, growing them in a lab, then injecting a [censored] load of them into a monkey to see what happened. And someone else would have been studying what specifically give the host the abilities.

If they'd left that part out, the Force could have remained a metaphysical ability that required no more explanation... unfortunately they pushed over the first domino, making it only a matter of time before all the rest fall over (*epic spoilers* sort of like this, if the government was suspension of belief).

Take the The Operative from Serenity (I'm not sure I'd call him morally gray, but he does make a good example for my point ). He was trying to hunt down to kill a young girl because he was trying to create the world a "better place" which he believed he could do. In a conversation he had with Mal at one point, Mal tried to make him question himself by saying that what he was doing was evil so his entire plan was contradictory, and the Operative responded by saying that he knew quite well he was a monster, and had knew full well that he can never live in the world he's trying to create. He actually somewhat reminds me of what Scirocco attempts to accomplish in his patron arc (unfortunately I forgot the details), which I really enjoyed (I didn't want to betray him, either!).

The main example I was thinking of before remarked how he'd already 'signed a deal with a demon', and referred to himself as a demon on occasion. He never had any sort of (non-temporary) changes of heart about what he was doing, although the means shifted. If he did redeem himself, it was only through making the entire world see him as a demon, so that the immortal ideal would be able to arise again and slay the demon. I see him as a morally gray character (I can't really decide if I'd call him a hero or not) because of his utilitarian nature: he acted selflessly in the interest of the common good. It wasn't that the end made the means okay, it was that the character accepted what their actions were wrong or even evil, but they were willing to accept their fate in exchange for what they believed was the good they could bring about.

My point was mostly that they don't have to attempt to redeem themselves (I could have just written this, but all that other stuff was more fun ).

Even though I'm really not familiar with Red X, that's actually a great explanation of what exactly you meant and definitely quite different than the way I meant it. They're definitely better than the cliche pure evil or pure good characters that'll alway do what is evil/good regardless of the situation (unless an editor decides they should arbitrarily switch sides), it's just far more realistic and human, something a lot of the popular western media has been sorely lacking (instead, they'll do the conflicted hero that still does pure good unless an editor says otherwise, or something similar but still safe).

I just decided to use my second build on my Ill/Storm Controller... to pick up Whirlwind and Group Fly.



Yes, I am that evil!

Cimerora at release had holes EVERYWHERE. You'd be hard pressed NOT to trip over one while playing in there! (there was actually a huge hole in front of Imperious!)

Also, a few patches before the Invention system was added, the entire top of Skyway city was shifted up by enough to fly over the WarWalls... allowing you to explore the outside and underside of the zone... it was really neat looking at things from underground (there's a LOAD of crap under there!), as well as the 'city' outside the war wall.

This * 2. Although, I'd elect for the names 'Heroic' and 'Villainous' instead, as that sounds a bit more apt than just 'Hero' and 'Villain' IMO.

You know what I hate? That Visual Basic decided that '=' is used as a comparison operator. SERIOUSLY WHAT THE HELL MAN!?!?! Using '==' is a much better way, as it's far more explicit about what your objective is!




(comparison post about comparison operators, take THAT!)

Plant the traps within a Tanker?


...


I didn't know defenders got detonator!

DEONTOLOGIST!

I call those morally grey because depending on your moral foundation, they're either moral or immoral characters.

The three predominate theories of moral ethics are place their emphasis on three different aspects: the virtue of the character (think of it somewhat like the intent), the specific actions themselves, and the consequences. Immanuel Kant (Deontologist, action ethics) would say (most of) those actions are flat out unacceptable (a perfect duty not to do them), regardless of the consequences or the intent. Jeremy Bentham (Utilitarian, consequantialism), on the other hand, would say that if the consequences were good enough, those actions would be morally good (and if it was the course of action that resulted in the best outcome over time, it'd be immoral not to do it!). Aristotle's Virtue Ethics would put it on the person's character (virtue), and not on their actions or the consequences, so it could go either way depending on the character.

In one of the examples I was thinking about, the protagonist purposely made himself out to be the ultimate villain in the end (although he was pretty much a standard grade *** hole throughout the entire thing, but that was mostly unrelated to his plans), intentionally designing his convoluted plans to require his own scripted death.