I talk to God often, and ask him questions. "Are you an atheist? If not, then you admit there is yet a higher power. And who are you to say who lives and dies, who succedes and fails, who wins, loses; why the innocent die and the guilty go on spilling blood. Just WHO do you think you are?!"
To which I receive the response, "I AM."
"Touche."
Actually, I'm an atheist.
Much to the chagrine of many, and the amusement of some, I am a devout atheist; I do not believe in the existence in a higher power, at least one as defined by any worldly religious institution. In our limited capacity as mortal humans, beings who resort to the likes of war to settle disputes -- a practice that literally dates back to the advent of our species, perhaps even well before -- and harbor an innate inability to truly comprehend even of our own outre sciences -- such as quantum mechanics, multidimensionality, and have only a faint grasp of nonlinear systems -- we must be incapable of divining the true nature of any life form beyond (or even below?) our existence. (... Wow, I could have written that part better... Oh well.) While the theist believes the burden of disproof falls on the shoulders of the atheist, simply because the latter is in the minority, shouldn't the onus fall onto the theist to prove to me in God's existence? And, should the theist take on that challenge, any and all "proof" is not empirical and therefor invalid; the concept of god is an unbounded thoery and is therefor irrefutable as it is provable. Naturally, the theist very well may resort to such things as "There is so much we don't know or understand. Take quantum mechanics, for example!" This is a tired argument; for untold centuries have people used the Unknown as refuge for their concept of God. I admit, we may never be able to uncover every single fact and law about this splendid universe we live in, but saying God is all that which we do not know is cheating. And what of the "intelligence" behind the design of natural objects, living and inanimate? To whomsoever declares evolution to be a farse, or even so much as believes it is directed from afar by a greater being, I tell them they simply don't understand evolution/ The universe is beautiful and complex alone, as is, to need some great architect. We believe there to be an architect, one similar to ourselves, because we associate with complexity a plan, as we ourselves create. Though I am sketchy on the details (and overall concept) chaos thoery itself can explain the seeming rise of order from the chaotic vortices of yore following the Big Bang...
I don't know that much about, and I must admit I am remiss to speak of it without proper research, but from what little I know of it, there is a movement that disturbs me --a New Atheist movement, to be precise.This frightens me. What frightens me more than superstition and fantasy is organized religion. And, from my limited perspective, that is exactly what this movement is. Religion is a system of beliefs, with its own credo, with a hierarchy of individuals, typically top to bottom. The vangaurd of this particular movement is Richard Dawkins, a man I hold in high esteem. However, at times I find his rhetoric dangerous, as he and others like him criticize belief in God or the supernatural as being evil. Again I shouldn't speak of things which are not yet clear to me, however the sort of intolerance of religion on the part of this emerging atheist group is the very reason I oppose most organized religions already established.
In a sense, thoughts, beliefs and ideals are viruses and epitomize Darwinism in its base form: a field of conflict where co-habitation is rarely the solution. This drives their hosts -- the likes of we humans -- to strife to ensure the existence and perpetuation of one and only one belief or ideal. And as Atheism is promulgated as an emerging, nigh-religious doctrine, I fear it too may enter the fray.
Would I like to see religion fade away to be supplanted by reason and faith (hehe, pun... kinda...) in science? Of course. But such a transition, I believe, would take a long time to complete. Do I think it will solve all of our problems? Hell no. We are volatile beings, and we will always find ways to divide ourselves into distinctive categories, the boundaries of which may and always will lead to conflict.
In conclusion, a brief note on something that has little to do with anything: prayer. There have been studies done to see whether or not prayer actually has any benefit for the prayee. (Is that right? Prayee? Eh...) Naturally, the results were... none. None whatsoever. Now this may come as a surprise, but thought prayer may have a small impact on the Prayee. Say, the one for whom mutliple people pray is sick and/or in the hospital (under which conditions the aforementioned studies were conducted). It is known that organisms tend to flourish when in the company of other of their own kind and enjoy a fulfilled social life and are in high standing with their peers. Somehow this social interaction promotes certain manners or induces the release of certain chemicals in the brain or body that are beneficial and reinforce the protective abilities of the immune system. When one knows one is being prayed for, especially by a great many people, I would expect this prayee would experience some form of NATURAL beneficial effect. Oh well.
I am also of the opinion that religion is quite good for the economy. Really. For the poor: "Take it in the ass thie lifetime around, and you'll get into heaven." Quite nice for keeping the unhappy masses in line, eh?
Heath Ledger's portrayal was absolutely astounding. This iteration of the Joker is based on that of Frank Miller's Joker from "The Killing Joke" and another comic I read that explored the inner mechanics of Joker's psyche, both of which dealt with the similarities between himself and Batman, their endless waltz of death, and how the Joker's "re-invents" himself. Ultimately, however, this is an all-new character thoroughly worked out and invented by Ledger, and was beautifully done. No one -- regardless of age, sex, and bias for or against the Batman franchise -- will be disappointed by his performance.
All of this, however, flies contrary to the Joker's last few lines in the film, and yet at the same time highlight Ledger's acting that much more. While Ledger has passed on, he has given birth to a new entity -- a whole new character -- that will forever endure in the minds of those who see this film, and somehow lends credence to his words.
With all this said, I must relate my favorite Joker scene, which absolutely DEFINES this character:
A stooped, skeletal figure dressed in the white dress of an orderly walks out of a large hospital. Several moments before he pressed an ignition button, which even now detonates bomb after bomb around the Joker as he makes his leisurely exodus. The camera pans out to take this in, and the Joker walks up and stops, almost waiting for something. He then turns around and shrugs in a "Oh, come on" gesture, then wrestles with the detonation switch for a few moments before the hospital implodes. Satisfied and grinning, the Joker exits the scene.
Going on a Star Wars comic kick; reading up on "Dark Times" and "Legacy". Also reading volume three of R A Salvatore's Dark Elf Trilogy.
"Legacy" sucks, in my opinion, and is pointed at the horny-twenty-something demographic. "Dark Times" is incredibly refreshing, by contrast, as its characters are highly diverse and developed, and really help inspire sympathy for the peoples of the galaxy as they are brought under the dark heel of the nascent Empire. "The Dark Elf Trilogy" is D&D based. At first I had little interest in it, but persisted and got enchanted half-way through the second volume, and aim to finish this arc of The Drizzt Legends.
I'm not exactly sure whether I see the serpentine motion here or not.
=\ Yeah, I'm not sure either. It just seems to me that his head[s] are propped atop a massive pillar of flesh, and his back is parallel with the "floor". I can't really describe it, I'd have to draw and show a picture of what I'm thinking I see go on in the background.
According to the portion of the Prophecy for D3, the comet bears an omen, a foreshadowing of things to come, not that the contents of the comet is itself evil. It very well may be Tyrael. I have no doubt he shall go true Rogue in D3, but what he does he does for the good of Sanctuary. He gathers together the strongest of warriors in the hopes of uniting them against the Heavens, as the Heavens have witnessed the innate power of mankind and fears that, should Hell consume all of Mankind, the Hellish powers unleashed would be unstoppable.
Think of it this way, in StarCraft terms. Tyrael is Tassadar. Tassadar was charged with humanity's destruction for the Protoss feared the power the Zerg would have should they gain psionic potential. However, Tassadar turned his back on his people and attempted to save mankind while simultaneously fighting off the Zerg. Ultimately, however, his actions would bring destruction upon him and his loyal followers.
Tyrael fled heaven and warns mankind; in righteous anger, Heaven's luminaries, failing their age-old task of protecting humanity, come to destroy it so that no other power [ie Hell] may possess their innate powers.
Hell is caught up in another Civil War, leaderless without the Prime Evils. Diablo, Mephisto and Baal likely don't care whether they live or die, so long as their respective legacies live on and ultimately achieve their goal: the downfall of all creation through terror, hatred and destruction. Diablo inspired terror in the hearts of the masses; Mephisto's hatred took root in the minds of the leaders of the lands; and Baal sundered Heaven's solidarity (in that Tyrael overstepped his bounds, and now there will invariably be followers of Heaven and followers of Tyrael).
I'm conflicted about the identity of this demon. On the one hand, it may obviously be Diablo because this is the demon featured on the splash page, as confirmed by a Developer. Moreover, he has a characteristic hole in his forehead. Now true, for any normal being this would scar over, but perhaps the soul stone left an indelible mark on his very spirit, manifesting as a gaping would where it once sat. And yet again, one must look at the art of StarCraft II compared to its predecessor; Hydralisks bear only a superficial resemblance between installments.
On the other, the Developers present for the panel did not seem to be involved over greatly with lore, art, characters or story, but rather the mechanics of the game itself. They also emphasized as much, and that they, too, weren't told everything, perhaps to keep things a secret. Also, from watching the cinematic several times, the movement of the Demon's body would suggest a serpentine -- not bipedal or quadrapedal -- form. This last note would suggest another beast, perhaps the "Hydra". (Of course, Asmodan/Belial/whomever may have resurrected a portion of Diablo's spirit in the form of a Cerberus-like guard monster/enforcer, devoid of consciousness, independence and motive but possessing its original strength, making "Diablo" nothing more than an engine of destruction and killing machine.)
When I first saw this, I thought DIABLO! Then I wondered if it were some bastardization borne of an unholy alliance between Diablo's soul and other demons. I'm 66% sure it's Big D, though.
Well, by looking at the background in Act V once you reach Arreat itself, you can see Horragath over the ledge far, far below. I think the village is set just at the mountain's base. It may not have been completely wiped out, but would have certainly suffered some damage.
The Claw Vipers and Panther People are indigenous to Sanctuary. Typically they keep to themselves, but both have, in at least some small part, been corrupted or influenced by the demonic powers and have become increasingly hostile to Humanity (the descendants of the Nephalem).
I think I read that the bloodthirsty Hobbits of the Jungles are also native to Sanctuary, but likewise corrupt.
I agree, Unlord. I get the sense that he was probably a highly skilled warrior from Leoric's armies who helped bring together and lead the various other foreign heroes in taking the Cathedral. Of course, he was the most skilled and the only one capable of defeating Diablo.
A strong and stoic, self-sacrificing soul, this taciturn man was the one and only who could end Diablo's reign of terror in Tristram. And yet, of this Warrior and Hero we know little, aside from a few key attributes.
I've not been able to play through Diablo I, but is there any information regarding this character released? Any hints at former allegiances, origins, biography, abilities, thoughts and feelings? Of the Rogue and Sorceror (Blood Raven and the Summoner, respectively) we already know slightly more.
In short -- does anyone know anything about him I don't? =\
Diablo and company were banished to the nethermost reaches of the Dark Abyss, from which their essence originally spawned. They are not dead, but vanquished. Think of Sauron from Lord of the Rings. With the Ring's destruction Sauron lost the greater part of his very power and essence, and was never again able to manifest himself, corporeally. The same may be said for Diablo. They may return, but not for a while. They may not even be "conscious" of their plight, precluding them from taking any direct action, anyways.
In the previous two games, Diablo and his two brothers, Mephisto and Baal, were the three Prime Evils of a world called Sanctuary. Where we start off in Diablo III, it’s twenty years later (after Diablo II: Lord of Destruction) and the brothers are gone, they’ve been vanquished. Essentially everyone was kind of geared for Hell to actually invade. At the end of Lord of Destruction, the Worldstone was destroyed, it left a giant crater and everyone was expecting the hordes to come pouring out of it and nothing happened. So, Deckard Cain is one of our main characters from the first two games,he’s spent the last two decades trying to find out where the last two Evils are, what they’re doing and why the invasion didn’t happen. A lot of the rest of the story focuses on Tyrael, the Angel of Justice, and what’s happened to him since that event as he was actually the angel who destroyed the world.
It's probably just Diablo. I severely doubt that the Three are merged in one; the secondary heads are far too small and bear no resemblance to either Baal or Mephisto.
I'm of the opinion that Diablo, Baal and Mephisto's roles will be somewhat reduced in favor of a new threat to Sanctuary, one from above and not below. Just a feelin'. I mean, HOW many times has Diablo been rezz'd, only to DIE again? I mean srsly
Is it just me, or do these Lore entries have a bit of a Lovecraftian edge to them? It's not something I'm decrying, of course; I think it's pretty neat.
0
To which I receive the response, "I AM."
"Touche."
Actually, I'm an atheist.
Much to the chagrine of many, and the amusement of some, I am a devout atheist; I do not believe in the existence in a higher power, at least one as defined by any worldly religious institution. In our limited capacity as mortal humans, beings who resort to the likes of war to settle disputes -- a practice that literally dates back to the advent of our species, perhaps even well before -- and harbor an innate inability to truly comprehend even of our own outre sciences -- such as quantum mechanics, multidimensionality, and have only a faint grasp of nonlinear systems -- we must be incapable of divining the true nature of any life form beyond (or even below?) our existence. (... Wow, I could have written that part better... Oh well.) While the theist believes the burden of disproof falls on the shoulders of the atheist, simply because the latter is in the minority, shouldn't the onus fall onto the theist to prove to me in God's existence? And, should the theist take on that challenge, any and all "proof" is not empirical and therefor invalid; the concept of god is an unbounded thoery and is therefor irrefutable as it is provable. Naturally, the theist very well may resort to such things as "There is so much we don't know or understand. Take quantum mechanics, for example!" This is a tired argument; for untold centuries have people used the Unknown as refuge for their concept of God. I admit, we may never be able to uncover every single fact and law about this splendid universe we live in, but saying God is all that which we do not know is cheating. And what of the "intelligence" behind the design of natural objects, living and inanimate? To whomsoever declares evolution to be a farse, or even so much as believes it is directed from afar by a greater being, I tell them they simply don't understand evolution/ The universe is beautiful and complex alone, as is, to need some great architect. We believe there to be an architect, one similar to ourselves, because we associate with complexity a plan, as we ourselves create. Though I am sketchy on the details (and overall concept) chaos thoery itself can explain the seeming rise of order from the chaotic vortices of yore following the Big Bang...
I don't know that much about, and I must admit I am remiss to speak of it without proper research, but from what little I know of it, there is a movement that disturbs me --a New Atheist movement, to be precise.This frightens me. What frightens me more than superstition and fantasy is organized religion. And, from my limited perspective, that is exactly what this movement is. Religion is a system of beliefs, with its own credo, with a hierarchy of individuals, typically top to bottom. The vangaurd of this particular movement is Richard Dawkins, a man I hold in high esteem. However, at times I find his rhetoric dangerous, as he and others like him criticize belief in God or the supernatural as being evil. Again I shouldn't speak of things which are not yet clear to me, however the sort of intolerance of religion on the part of this emerging atheist group is the very reason I oppose most organized religions already established.
In a sense, thoughts, beliefs and ideals are viruses and epitomize Darwinism in its base form: a field of conflict where co-habitation is rarely the solution. This drives their hosts -- the likes of we humans -- to strife to ensure the existence and perpetuation of one and only one belief or ideal. And as Atheism is promulgated as an emerging, nigh-religious doctrine, I fear it too may enter the fray.
Would I like to see religion fade away to be supplanted by reason and faith (hehe, pun... kinda...) in science? Of course. But such a transition, I believe, would take a long time to complete. Do I think it will solve all of our problems? Hell no. We are volatile beings, and we will always find ways to divide ourselves into distinctive categories, the boundaries of which may and always will lead to conflict.
In conclusion, a brief note on something that has little to do with anything: prayer. There have been studies done to see whether or not prayer actually has any benefit for the prayee. (Is that right? Prayee? Eh...) Naturally, the results were... none. None whatsoever. Now this may come as a surprise, but thought prayer may have a small impact on the Prayee. Say, the one for whom mutliple people pray is sick and/or in the hospital (under which conditions the aforementioned studies were conducted). It is known that organisms tend to flourish when in the company of other of their own kind and enjoy a fulfilled social life and are in high standing with their peers. Somehow this social interaction promotes certain manners or induces the release of certain chemicals in the brain or body that are beneficial and reinforce the protective abilities of the immune system. When one knows one is being prayed for, especially by a great many people, I would expect this prayee would experience some form of NATURAL beneficial effect. Oh well.
I am also of the opinion that religion is quite good for the economy. Really. For the poor: "Take it in the ass thie lifetime around, and you'll get into heaven." Quite nice for keeping the unhappy masses in line, eh?
0
Heath Ledger's portrayal was absolutely astounding. This iteration of the Joker is based on that of Frank Miller's Joker from "The Killing Joke" and another comic I read that explored the inner mechanics of Joker's psyche, both of which dealt with the similarities between himself and Batman, their endless waltz of death, and how the Joker's "re-invents" himself. Ultimately, however, this is an all-new character thoroughly worked out and invented by Ledger, and was beautifully done. No one -- regardless of age, sex, and bias for or against the Batman franchise -- will be disappointed by his performance.
All of this, however, flies contrary to the Joker's last few lines in the film, and yet at the same time highlight Ledger's acting that much more. While Ledger has passed on, he has given birth to a new entity -- a whole new character -- that will forever endure in the minds of those who see this film, and somehow lends credence to his words.
With all this said, I must relate my favorite Joker scene, which absolutely DEFINES this character:
A stooped, skeletal figure dressed in the white dress of an orderly walks out of a large hospital. Several moments before he pressed an ignition button, which even now detonates bomb after bomb around the Joker as he makes his leisurely exodus. The camera pans out to take this in, and the Joker walks up and stops, almost waiting for something. He then turns around and shrugs in a "Oh, come on" gesture, then wrestles with the detonation switch for a few moments before the hospital implodes. Satisfied and grinning, the Joker exits the scene.
0
"Legacy" sucks, in my opinion, and is pointed at the horny-twenty-something demographic. "Dark Times" is incredibly refreshing, by contrast, as its characters are highly diverse and developed, and really help inspire sympathy for the peoples of the galaxy as they are brought under the dark heel of the nascent Empire. "The Dark Elf Trilogy" is D&D based. At first I had little interest in it, but persisted and got enchanted half-way through the second volume, and aim to finish this arc of The Drizzt Legends.
0
0
Think of it this way, in StarCraft terms. Tyrael is Tassadar. Tassadar was charged with humanity's destruction for the Protoss feared the power the Zerg would have should they gain psionic potential. However, Tassadar turned his back on his people and attempted to save mankind while simultaneously fighting off the Zerg. Ultimately, however, his actions would bring destruction upon him and his loyal followers.
Tyrael fled heaven and warns mankind; in righteous anger, Heaven's luminaries, failing their age-old task of protecting humanity, come to destroy it so that no other power [ie Hell] may possess their innate powers.
Hell is caught up in another Civil War, leaderless without the Prime Evils. Diablo, Mephisto and Baal likely don't care whether they live or die, so long as their respective legacies live on and ultimately achieve their goal: the downfall of all creation through terror, hatred and destruction. Diablo inspired terror in the hearts of the masses; Mephisto's hatred took root in the minds of the leaders of the lands; and Baal sundered Heaven's solidarity (in that Tyrael overstepped his bounds, and now there will invariably be followers of Heaven and followers of Tyrael).
0
On the other, the Developers present for the panel did not seem to be involved over greatly with lore, art, characters or story, but rather the mechanics of the game itself. They also emphasized as much, and that they, too, weren't told everything, perhaps to keep things a secret. Also, from watching the cinematic several times, the movement of the Demon's body would suggest a serpentine -- not bipedal or quadrapedal -- form. This last note would suggest another beast, perhaps the "Hydra". (Of course, Asmodan/Belial/whomever may have resurrected a portion of Diablo's spirit in the form of a Cerberus-like guard monster/enforcer, devoid of consciousness, independence and motive but possessing its original strength, making "Diablo" nothing more than an engine of destruction and killing machine.)
When I first saw this, I thought DIABLO! Then I wondered if it were some bastardization borne of an unholy alliance between Diablo's soul and other demons. I'm 66% sure it's Big D, though.
0
0
I think I read that the bloodthirsty Hobbits of the Jungles are also native to Sanctuary, but likewise corrupt.
0
I agree, Unlord. I get the sense that he was probably a highly skilled warrior from Leoric's armies who helped bring together and lead the various other foreign heroes in taking the Cathedral. Of course, he was the most skilled and the only one capable of defeating Diablo.
0
0
I've not been able to play through Diablo I, but is there any information regarding this character released? Any hints at former allegiances, origins, biography, abilities, thoughts and feelings? Of the Rogue and Sorceror (Blood Raven and the Summoner, respectively) we already know slightly more.
In short -- does anyone know anything about him I don't? =\
0
0
0
0
I'm of the opinion that Diablo, Baal and Mephisto's roles will be somewhat reduced in favor of a new threat to Sanctuary, one from above and not below. Just a feelin'. I mean, HOW many times has Diablo been rezz'd, only to DIE again? I mean srsly