ScarletEmerald

That wasn't First Edition, it was the parallel Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals (aka BECMI) D&D line that had 36 levels and came out between about 1980 and wrapped up in the mid-90s. AD&D First Edition did have a few paragraphs on divine ascension, noting that it was "remotely possible" and removed the character from play. BECMI, in contrast, had multiple defined pathways to divinity/immortality, along with rules for playing immortal characters.

Of the BECMI paths for immortality, the one you mentioned is the polymath. There are others. The epic hero quests after legendary artifacts of good and evil, accomplishes great deeds and leaves behind a successor. The paragon creates a unique artifact of power, recruits and train powerful minions, reshapes the landscape, and vanquishes any potential equals. The dynast founds a mighty empire and ensures it withstands the tests of time.

I was recently catching up on Dark Horse's Conan the Avenger, and sure enough, Conan and his companions of circumstance end up facing a monstrous beast from the outer dark. Conan's plan?

"Hit whatever attacks us, man or beast, repeatedly, until it dies."

There have been a lot of versions and revisions of D&D over the years. Amongst players of the earlier (or "classic") versions of the game, 'B/X' stands for play based around the Basic Set edited by Tom Moldvay, and the Expert Set edited by "Zeb" Cook, both published in 1981.

The 'B/X' edition of the game came after the "Holmes" boxed set,first published in 1977 and edited by J. Eric Holmes, and before the BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals) published in 1983 and later (and eventually compiled in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia published in the early '90s). They existed at the same time as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which had more, and more complex, rules.

>People should treat others the way they want to be treated if they happen to be on the "wrong" side.

How should someone be treated who has made it clear that they will never follow the Golden Rule, no matter how they're treated? Because that's the situation we appear to find ourselves in.

I find it useful, although not particularly encouraging, to think in terms of the Prisoners' Dilemma. In theory, initial co-operation followed by judicious application of the golden rule will lead to both parties converging on the best outcome. But if one party makes it clear that they will always betray the other (and demands that the other stay silent, in order to give the first party their desired better outcome) how should the other respond?

Sure, cooperation (silence) is objectively the better choice. But once you are confident it will always be met with betrayal, what does the correct or best action become?

And that's setting aside the inherent quality of the speech in question. "Drinking bleach is awesome and you should chug as much as possible as soon as you get home," and "washing your hands is good and should be done frequently" are not equivalent, nor should they be treated as such.

I haven't read the dissertation yet. But just reading the cartoon you linked put me in mind of a friend who's spendt the last year headed down various cult/conspiracy theory rabbit holes, despite the efforts of their friends and family. They would absolutely agree that our society is dominated by authoritarian mind control. And angrily complaining that no one takes them seriously when they question the consensus narrative has become their favorite pastime. As presented in the previous posters cartoon, from their perspective B(I)TE describes what they see as a conspiracy against "the real truth". For example:

>"Of course you're allowed to ask questions. Here is the list of approved questions."

Why aren't candidates for office all tested by <my pet kook> to make sure they aren't really lizard people? Why don't flat-earthers get equal academic research funding? What are the real reasons why we haven't gone back to the Moon?

>"You're absolutely free to study and investigate for yourself. Here is the list of approved sources."

These YouTube videos all tell me I'm right. So do all these people on Twitter. Academic journals, mainstream media and PhD are all in on the scam, except for this one who agrees with what I think.

>"We're not trying to stifle thought! We want you to learn everything you can as you reach the approved conclusions."

Why does no one take my concerns about cancer from 5G wifi seriously? Why do you all look at me strangely when I saw the Earth is really only 6000 years old? Lamarckian evolution really makes sense. You're all sheep for believing in that Darwin crap!

The bean counters got their salaries and bonuses. Why should they care what happens next?

It seems to me that historically the real controls on our business models were social, not regulatory. And with ethics and conscience removed, we've become a society being slowly devoured by a close relative of paper-clip optimizer AIs, running on distributed and fungible human wetware.

Would you trust a source of medical information less if it declined to present or link to information that breathing CO is healthy, drinking mineral spirits is fine, and handling mercury with bare skin is safe and fun?

The solution doesn't fit the problem though. Sure, in theory bitcoin-style cryptocurrencies can replace centralized financial systems. But, as keeps being demonstrated, including by this very example, in practice what you end up with is different, less-efficient, centralized financial systems dominated by fraud.

Graphic design played a large role, I'd guess. Warcraft imagery had this unique mix of cartoon, fantasy, and realistic in a way that most of its successors (and even later versions of WoW itself couldn't match. Plus, the open world aspect of it was the first time many players had ever encountered something like it. There were loading screens only for dungeons and continents. You could walk, run, or ride in Azeroth for hours without anything from outside intruding on the experience.

One sheep rancher I knew back in college was a huge fan of wolf reintroduction. According to him, the wolves killed a few sheep and almost all the coyotes, which meant he wasn't losing any sheep to coyotes. Which worked out to a major net decrease in "sheep lost to predators". That was twenty years ago, so maybe things have changed in intervening decades.

The core problem American society is facing is bad faith participants. When a significant number of participants in a society/organization/government are operating with the goal of destabilizing or destroying the system there is no clever rules hack that will prevent them from doing damage.

Not even a mention of the issue of bot networks? Is that because they're seen as a very real, if unmentioned, problem? Or is it a pretense that they do not exist and have no impact?

It doesn't sound quite like the story the previous poster was thinking of, but Hannu Rajaniemi's Jean le Flambeu series (beginning with The Quantum Thief) has uploaded, edited, and copied human minds as a significant component of the story.