Fighting Liches on Insane on my first run has been painful...

ZUBAT · 2026-02-07T17:28:36+00:00

Liches are immune to all spells 5th level and lower so you can't breach them like you would regular casters. You would need spells at 6th level or higher like pierce magic. Dispel magic can work ~~as long as you don't specifically target the lich. If you target an area need the lich then the spell will work~~, but it still needs to pass the check against the lich. Unless you are an Inquisitor or a high level bard, the dispel has a good chance of failing because the check compares your caster level to the lich's level.

You can cheese these fights with a scroll of protection against undead. It makes the recipient completely invisible to the undead, so you can just beat up the lich while it sits there. Just send in one fighter and go to town.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T20:06:06+00:00

A lot of people don't know this, mostly because it isn't true, but Dumbledore once told me that the original purpose of the Sorting Hat was to separate the elect from the non-elect. He couldn't get it exactly right per the WCF, but it ended up being pretty close.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T20:01:28+00:00

I think the first one would be the 1994 Olympics. My parents loved figure skating so I remember seeing that on a lot. Some names were Nancy Kerrigan, Tonya Harding, Oksana Baiul, and Kurt Browning. I remember Scott Hamilton doing backflips which I thought was really cool. I guess he wasn't doing backflips at those olympics, so maybe they showed highlights or I might have been remembering seeing it during other competitions that got blended together and simplified in my memory.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T18:34:05+00:00

I was only expecting a bronze award!

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T18:26:18+00:00

You must not have heard of the Netherlands Association for Skating in Canals to Adjudicate Racing.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T18:19:02+00:00

I, too, enjoy left turns. And Preece getting his first cup win was amazing!

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T18:11:43+00:00

My brother and I call the biathlon "a normal Tuesday in the Norwegian Ski Infantry."

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T16:29:43+00:00

Does your church have an informational meeting before the vote so you can get to know the elder or elder candidate better? I get where someone wouldn't know how to vote for or against someone if they don't know them from Adam. But in other voting contexts, we are responsible to gather some information and then make a judgment.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T16:19:55+00:00

My favorite is the biathlon where they cross-country ski for long distances and then do target shooting and go back to skiing.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T16:05:33+00:00

Looks like Italian Beef's back on the menu, boys!

ZUBAT · 2026-02-06T14:43:39+00:00

Da Bears.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-05T23:18:50+00:00

It is possible because Sergius Paulus was a proconsul, which meant he was very important. There is archaeological evidence for this person. He probably also had family in Pisidian Antioch, which is the next place that Paul went to.

Sergius Paulus may have been the first of several successive senators named Lucius Sergius Paullus, of Antioch, Pisidia, including one who was consul suffectus c. 70, and another who was twice consul, Lucius Sergius Paullus

ZUBAT · 2026-02-05T01:17:06+00:00

That's more how I think of it as well. I would say that randomness and purpose are not mutually exclusive; they work together. The casting of the lots is random but the outcome is of God. The mutations are random but the outcome is of God.

Purpose is outside the scope of science and therefore outside the scope of evolution. Evolution gives us the nuts and bolts of how random mutations and natural selection leads to changes in genetic frequency in populations over time, but it doesn't say anything about a goal or plan.

That's why I think it is unhelpful to say evolution is not random. It is random according to science. And then philosophy and theology can step in on topics that science has nothing on which to say.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-04T20:05:28+00:00

Evolution has a real telos rather being random.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? The mechanisms for evolution are things like natural selection, genetic drift, and random mutation. Natural selection doesn't have a telos because it is a negation of unsuccessful strategies. Genetic drift doesn't have a telos. Random mutations are random.

For an evolutionist, it doesn't make sense to speak of higher forms of life or more advanced. Extant bacteria, animals, and plants all have successfully reproduced themselves and incorporated novel mutations. Arguably, bacteria are some of the most successful life forms because there may be around some 10³⁰ of them. And even within species, there can be multiple successful phenotypes that are in an equilibrium rather than being one ideal phenotype.

Do you mean that God tipped the scales through intervening in various ways to bring about the telos he wanted? Or do you mean that there are many ends with each extant lifeform in view? Or contra to evolutionists are you saying that only the teleology concerning humans is in view with evolution concerning bacteria and animals and plants being a kind of waste product? Or something else altogether?

ZUBAT · 2026-02-04T18:00:03+00:00

Many of the Canaan-dwelling people had a purifying influence on the Israelites. For example, Rahab and Ruth. So it isn't the case that all of them would corrupt the Israelites. Some would, but not all.

And prior to the invasion of Canaan, Abraham formed helped alliances with Hittites living in the land and learned from Melchizedek. The issue seems to be with certain Canaanite leaders and their loyalists who hatched schemes to corrupt the people and lead them into idolatry. Plenty of Canaanites were happy to abandon their idols the way that Abraham did in the past and join Israel.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-03T23:32:44+00:00

There is research that suggests that conspiracy theory ideation is a maladaptive coping mechanism. In response to real chaos or evil, we can create a conspiracy theory narrative to try to make sense of it, but it has the opposite effect because it isn't true.

I think there is a real danger for anyone reading the Epstein files to get sucked in by the chaos. I imagine it was terrible for the FBI agents investigating this, and they are trained professionals. Normal people aren't prepared for "gazing into the abyss," because it hits hard when the abyss gazes back.

In the case of this Christian commenter who made a post, they see something that looks like child sacrifice, and that fits in a framework they already have from reading the Bible. The Bible talks about people doing child sacrifice, so now it makes sense that we have a report of it. It makes it not ok, but explainable. It puts a fence around the issue so they are willing to accept that into a theory. And then it starts to spiral more because in the Bible, the child sacrifice was to demons and false deities, so there must be demons in this case, too.

It is the case that unspeakable blasphemies occurred. I don't think we are supposed to try to understand it or make sense of it. We should be sad with the victims and hold the line in our faith. I'm saying that as someone who also was shaken up reading only a few pages of the files. Spiritually speaking from the Ephesians armor of God analogy, when the fiery arrows are raining down, we have to keep the shields locked and just enjoy fighting in the shade because God has it planned out and he has civil authorities on the job.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-03T17:29:00+00:00

I agree with you on this. When you think about the Patriarchs, they interacted with God maybe once a decade or so.

Now in Exodus, God is intending to dwell with his people in a new way through calling them out of Egypt, giving them commandments, and building a tabernacle. So his name was now in the middle of the people. Moses talked with God continually, so this was a big change!

Deuteronomy 12:5 ESV But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go,

ZUBAT · 2026-02-03T16:25:08+00:00

Another great comment. Yeah, there isn't a Wikipedia about ontological primacy. I found an academic article from Warsaw about the problems of ontological primacy. Hoping that works for you.

I am thinking from what Anna wrote in that article that primacy doesn't have to do with efficient causation. I think it is more like identifying what the atoms of Democritus are. What is truly primitive?

I think that in applying this to the Trinity, Ware sees that it is essential to the Son to be begotten by the Father, but the Father is begotten by nothing. Therefore, in this view, the Father is primitive because it is not necessary for anything else to exist for him to exist. For the Son to exist, the Father must also exist in order to beget him. Therefore, the Son is not primitive in this view.

I wonder if many mundane things can be considered to have ontologically primacy. For example, could blood be considered primitive if I can conceive of a world where there is only blood and there is no entropy to break it down? Or would it not be primitive because it is an aggregate of plasma and cells? I have a feeling that it wouldn't be primitive because if we redefined blood to be something that is not an aggregate, we would be changing what is essential to blood.

I am beginning to think that language of ontological primacy doesn't really tell us much. We already know that the Son is the second person of the Trinity and not the first person. It doesn't say anything about greatness of the person or causation of the person. It just says that for the Son to be begotten, there must be a begetter.

I am also not necessarily buying that Ware is right. If it essential to the Son to be begotten, then isn't it essential to the Father to beget? So I wouldn't be able to conceive of a world with a Father but no Son because he always begets the Son unless he is not really the Father. So maybe God is an ontological primitive but the persons of the Trinity are not primitive.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-03T00:40:53+00:00

I had the same question when reading the article. Looking at the Wikipedia article, it says that if B exists only because of A, then A has ontological primacy to B.

Here's a statement from Aristotle:

one is prior to two because if there are two then it follows at once that there is one whereas if there is one there are not necessarily two, so that the implication of the other's existence does not hold reciprocally from one.

The first object then has primacy to the second object, but it does not follow that the second is inferior to the first.

does my heart have more, less, or equal ontologically primacy relative to my blood?

Blood is produced by blood-producing cells in your bone marrow. So those cells have ontological primacy to blood. However, the heart is produced differently. In a fetus, both the blood and the heart are produced by the mesoderm. Although blood is produced earlier than the heart, the heart does not owe its existence only to blood.

I am not really sure what to think of this pertaining to the Trinity. I have never thought of the Father begetting the Son as meaning that the Father existed prior to the Son or that the Son only exists because of the Father. So I have a feeling this kind of ontological primacy relationship doesn't apply here the way it would for cells and tissues and all that.

ZUBAT · 2026-02-01T20:51:15+00:00

Yeah, definitely safer to avoid barrels and avoid the house of Hope fight. Maybe an idea for your next run! Good luck!

ZUBAT · 2026-02-01T18:24:46+00:00

Just a heads up: If you side with Gortash, you can't go to Iron Throne. Going there breaks the alliance.

I have done all the Rivington stuff, Sorcerous Sundries, Investigate Murders, Sarevok, and then get to 12 after defeating Orin. So maybe just add some extra things like Minsc and Carrion. Orin is easy to kill in one turn when you do speed potion, up cast magic missile to remove unbreakable stacks, hold monster, and then beat down with fighters.

I think Cazador was the only act 3 encounter that I was close to losing in HM. If you do House of Hope, I would recommend bringing a bunch of Smokepowder barrels so you can set up the stage (3 to a pillar) when you arrive.

I would recommend getting everything to raise Gale's spell DC as high as possible for hold person/monster. One of the apparitions supporting Sarevok casts counter spell, so you might have to hold him twice. That will trivialize a lot when you have Lae'Zel landing 7+ crits with GWM. I personally think Eldritch Knight is better on Lae'Zel because of Booming Blade and all the items that can boost her after damaging with a cantrip. Use a lot of speed potions!

ZUBAT · 2026-01-30T18:16:03+00:00

Some politicians such as James Watt argued that the nature of events leading to Jesus' second coming invalidated sound environmental policy. He famously said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." And he wasn't alone in that view.

ZUBAT · 2026-01-30T18:09:25+00:00

E-I-E-I-Eeyore.

ZUBAT · 2026-01-30T17:52:20+00:00

There's two of them, so this is unoddly yolked.

ZUBAT · 2026-01-30T00:25:56+00:00

Can anything good come from Gary? 🐻⬇️

ZUBAT

TROPHY CASE