Bay 12 Games Forum

Steve - Denzel Washington: Denzel Washington strikes me as an authoritative leader, and his roles as a leader have him always being the guy to get shit done. He's also familiar with the passive aggressiveness and sharp wit that characterizes Steve.

Somehow, while reading the first few sentences of your post, the idea of Morgan Freeman as Steve popped into my head.
...
Not sure what Denzel Washington is like (I barely recognize the name), but your description makes him sound like a better Steve than Freeman. Although Morgan Freeman as Steve would be amusing.

The Armory Master - Scarlett Johansson: She's has a demeanor of someone older and more experienced in her actor, while still retaining her beauty and grace. Her hair would need to be shortened and dyed for her role, which she has done before like in 'Under the Skin'. Coincidentially, one of her upcoming films looks like it might as well be about the Armory Master's origins anyways.

I know that actress! Kinda. I think she's done some previous roles which would fit well. Either that or I'm confusing her with someone else.
Better than I can say for most on this list.

I wouldn't want to try it, and have it end up like Leonardo Dicaprio in "The Great Gatsby", where he tries to pass off for 29.

No argument here.

Faith - Natalie Portman: She looks just like a Faith-type, maybe she'd need to add some Red to her hair. Plus, as of late, a lot of Natalie's movies have her losing her sanity and going nuts, much like Faith on occasion.

I know as much about Portman as I do about Washington (the actor, not the presidents), so I'll trust your judgement here.

May - Katy Perry

She's an actress?


Maybe I should stop commenting on this matter.

I think I can squeeze in a quick update here. No promises on content amount.

---

So, worst-case-scenario, we'd end up in orbit of Hephaestus. Or maybe it would be worse if we landed hard in an important antimatter factory or something. Either way, we'd be okay.

((Good enough.

I'm going to assume Selina and Kyle leave at the end of briefing, so if you guys want to respond to stuff that comes up from others' questions or whatever, go ahead.))

Kyle looks it over.
"Cool. It's pretty normal considering my tastes in weaponry but it's good."

"Hunching that it isn't a normal gun. Probably not a weapon, per se, at all."

The sci-fi story was just to illustrate the point that we currently do not have the necessary information to conclude anything about the creation or inevitable destruction of our galaxy, beyond speculation. I wasn't citing it as a source of good information, just to help reinforce my point that everything is relative.

Good Lord, you're starting to sound like a Creationist! "Everything is relative"? No, it really isn't. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want, but eating it is still going to give you problems. You can believe that humans were born from fish-wombs and that you can breathe water, but then natural selection would take care of you sooner or later and we'd be left with air-breathers. And no matter how much you try to build a perpetual motion machine, the Laws of Thermodynamics will always apply.

We have the scientific laws we do because of what we observe and test, finding constants that could be different elsewhere. We're also limited by technology, and not able to test other theories due to constraints.

It's hypothetically possible that the Apollo astronauts discovered that the moon really is made of grayish cheese, and were just afraid to talk about it. I find this much, much more likely than any given scientific theory is totally, completely wrong. In need of alteration? Perhaps (e.g, the replacement of Newtonian with Einsteinian gravitational theory), but saying that a scientific theory could be proven wrong as if that means anything is stupid. It's also possible that Putin will give Crimea to the Ukraine with a chunk of Russian territory as a gift, but I don't think either of us thinks that's likely either.

Also, Really? I've only cited the article. Yes it has some flaws. But it covers it's topic decently well, and brings up some interesting points.

"Interesting points" that fall apart with a few seconds' thought. E.g. the "redshift violates the laws of thermodynamics!" thing. If you think about it five seconds, you'd realize that any energy lost to redshifting in the back would be gained by blueshifting in the front.

I would like you to point me to some sources of you're own, if you're going to argue that not a single law of science has been disproven within the last 200 years.

So, you want me to bring up every well-tested law of science that could have been disproven and show that each one has been shown to be more or less correct.
I'm starting to question if you even understand the topic we're discussing.

If this is going to become a discussion on metaphysics I suggest we move it to the discussion thread <.<

This isn't exactly the IC thread.

On that note, is this ever going to update?

What is the typical standard of proof for a forum game like this, anyways? *genuinely doesn't know*

"Something" is a good start.
We're really in untested waters when it comes to theroycrafting.

"Is now the best time to mention that I suck with swords and my magic isn't suited to fighting snowmen?... unless you want me to try making a monster to fight them but that... might back fire."

"Yeah, well...you never know what could work. The presence of another body and another brain, however weak both might be, is going to help more than it hurts."
"And there are enough people worried enough with you all in one place, watched by a witch-hunter. Splitting you up would cause more trouble than it's worth on multiple fronts."

"...I-is ice like... like crystal in a way...?" Selina felt odd in the supposed hardened leather armor and cloak she was wearing with the coat of arms stitched to the chest. She also seemed incredibly nervous about the situation.

Finna nods approvingly at Selina.