Most games don’t even try to be reasonable about stuff like that, so it’s not really your fault. BG3 often enough fails that itself, but it clearly does it’s best to consider stuff like that.
Hope you have fun with the rest of the game, it’s amazing fun. And trying to really roleplay a bit and get into the character interactions is rewarded a lot both throughout the game and at the end, so keep at it.
From the perspective of a DM in a real DnD game, the enemy would simply not have an incentive to follow you. It wants to guard the forge, not kill you at any cost.
If you really wanted to, I’d have let you go that way, but I wouldn’t just let the creature run into suicide or abandon it’s only task for no reason, so I think BG3 does this fight really well. Especially because this is actually a fight where using the environment can make the fight much much easier and there are environmental clues before the fight that hint towards a weakness in the boss.
You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.
The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we’re in metaphysics anyways.
I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.
What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it’s not trying to. It’s trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.
Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.
In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.
This chart isn’t reducing that much at all. It’s explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven’t named any so far that weren’t fallacies.
It’s a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.
“Taiwan never has been a sovereign state”
I guess the Republic of China never existed?
Taiwan isn’t exactly a rogue province. It’s the holdover of the prior government of China that lost the revolutionary war and retreated there.
It doesn’t entirely invalidate the point, but it has to be said that the situation is markedly different from the one with Texas.
It’s more like if Texas overthrew the US government in a violent rebellion and the UK worked to support the holdover of the old US government that retreated to Puerto Rico.
Nothing that happened since has invalidated truly the right of Taiwan to remain a sovereign state. It’s in no sense a rogue province.
You should contextualise such claims.
So that vision impaired people or people with whatever other impairment can enjoy the content. The text can be read out by a screen reader.
The point being made though was that the languages are well shown to be genuinely related through a common ancestral language from which they both deviated, just as have most languages in Europe and parts of the Near East. The connection is tangible and quite real, not something just based on some few similarities.
My first leveled Tank was Gunbreaker, my first leveled DPS was Mechanist and I am myself now working on Sage to fill out my “shoot guns at it to solve your problem” Trifecta.
You’re thinking of the right game. You had a pet that was pretty much a massive bipedal animal monster that you could train. Depending on what you do with them, when you reward them with food and petting and when you punish them by slapping them, they’d change their behaviour. You could teach them to either farm food off of fields or eat villagers when they were hungry, whatever you wanted. It was a really fun feature, at least for six year old me.
It’s not quite that simple. Crowdsourcing has many of the drawbacks that AI has too.
While it can have a higher reliability in detecting nonsensical inputs or inputs that it’s simply unfit in processing, that comes at an intrinsic cost in scalability. Some tasks can’t be effectively crowdsourced for, either because of volume or urgency.
Machine Learning systems learn to approximate decision making and thus can attempt at learning from crowdsourcing efforts. It is notable though that depending on the use case, model and training method, machine learning algorithms can potentially be better than the data it was trained on. Or much worse, it’s very fickle.
It is definitely still the case that crowdsourcing is a really important tool and oftentimes machine learning relies on it’s efforts. And it naturally can solve tasks that we don’t have a viable automated approach for.