Four cents for the collection plate

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."  --Chapman Cohen

For the purposes of this post, I will assume that there is a literal God, a literal Devil, and a literal Heaven and Hell.  As a Satanist, I do not believe any of those things exist--I am temporarily setting aside my disbelief for the purpose of sharing some of the trains of thought and logic that contributed to my turning away from Christianity.

With that out of the way, it's time to throw the first two cents into the collection plate.

AN ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER VS.THE MODERN IDEAL OF GOD

I recently came across a statement by the Greek philosopher Epicurus that neatly disposes of the modern Christian ideal of God.  That statement jibes very nicely with my own attitude, which is how this post was born.  First, however, I would like to clarify what I mean by "the modern Christian ideal of God".

As Anton LaVey pointed out in the Satanic Bible, "God" means something different to each person.  NOT every Christian, or even the majority of Christians, will agree with the notion of God I am presenting here.  What I am describing is the image of God that I have seen touted by believers the most often--the ideal of God that Christianity seems to want to sell to the world, despite the fact that their own Bible contradicts it.  That notion of God has the following basic tenets:

• God is a literal, sentient entity.
• God is all-powerful.
• God is all-knowing.  (The Holy Bible disagrees.)¹
• God is entirely good.* (The Holy Bible provides ample evidence to the contrary.)²

* As Anton LaVey also pointed out in the Satanic Bible, good and evil are relative terms, defined by the individual according to what they do and do not like.  For the sake of this discussion, "good" will describe "things most people would like, or would consider to be positive", while "evil/bad" will describe "things most people would dislike, or would consider to be negative.

Now that definitions have been presented, on to Epicurus, who had the following to say about the above notion of God:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

As I said, this jibes with my own opinion of God, which is that, in the unlikely event he exists, he is highly incompetent at best and downright malicious at worst.  My reasoning will be provided in full below, but first, I would like to list a likely Christian response to Epicurus and my rebuttal.

SOULS AND MEAT GRINDERS

I have heard a number of arguments that attempt to reconcile the fact that evil exists with the notion of a God who is entirely good, entirely capable of stopping evil, but can't be bothered to do so.  Most of those arguments are along the following lines:

• Human beings have free will.  God set the wheels in motion by creating the universe and (through various prophets) writing the Holy Bible to show us the way, but it's up to us to follow God's path.
• Most evil stems from people who have turned their back on God.
• Negative things obviously beyond man's control, such as natural disasters, diseases, and the like, are either part of God's plan for us all; or, less often, are the fault of the Devil.
  

Since the former proposed cause of evil will be addressed in my forthcoming two cents, I'll deal with the latter first--the Devil.  The Devil supposedly spends all of his time trying to get his hands on human souls by turning living humans away from God's teachings so that when they die, they will be rejected from Heaven and thus forced to go to Hell.  Because man's natural inclination is to sin, most (if not all) people, if struck dead this very moment, would die as unforgiven sinners and would thus go to Hell.  Therefore, if the Devil had the power to directly take human lives by causing natural disasters, then he would presumably kill as many people within as short of a time period as possible, so as to maximize the number of souls entering Hell.  (Granted, he'd wipe out a few "forgiven" and "right with the Lord" folks in the process, and a few lucky souls would get to go to Heaven early, but for wholesale soul-collecting, daily mass murder would be the best strategy.)

To recap: if the Devil were truly to blame for evil events beyond the control of man, then the world would be little more than a giant meat grinder, which would long since have rendered homo sapien an endangered species, with just enough of us left alive to reproduce and create more souls for the Devil to eventually harvest.  I don't deny that  thousands of people die every day from causes other than old age, but with a population of several billion sinners lying around unmolested, I think we can safely conclude that the Devil is NOT responsible for all of the evil in the world that cannot be attributed to man.  Since it wasn't the Devil, and it wasn't mankind, that leaves God as the culprit.  Don't worry, though--it's all part of His plan.

GOD'S MASTER PLAN

"God has a plan for us all."  I've heard this uttered as a reassurance many times, but it has always had quite the opposite effect on me.  I have not (yet) read the entire Holy Bible, but I've read enough to have grave doubts as to God's intelligence.  The Book of Genesis alone is more than enough to demonstrate that planning is not God's strong suit.  It also provides ample evidence that God is not all-knowing, if one is willing to read it with unbiased eyes.  Said Biblical evidence is provided via the footnotes at the bottom of this post.  For now, I'll veer away from the Bible and lay out some common sense, and in the process address the notion that non-man-made evil is part of "God's plan".

HE ISN'T FIT TO MANAGE BURGER KING, AND HE WANTS TO BE GOD?

God is supposedly both able (omnipotent) and willing (good) to stop evil, but chooses not to because

1. Human beings have free will
2. Rescuing a few piddling humans from disasters not of their making would go against God's plan.

These two reasons sound great on their own (unless you happen to be one of those piddling humans caught in a disaster), but any shrewd mind with an understanding of human nature will notice a problem when the two are put together.  For those who aren't endowed with such, I will explain.

If you want something involving someone else to go just the way you want it to, you do everything in your power to ensure that they will act in accordance with your will.  Here in the real world, we have an apt metaphor involving a carrot and a stick--to motivate someone to do what we want, we offer them a reward for compliance (the carrot) or a punishment for disobedience (the stick)--or, if we really want to motivate them, we offer both.  Since God is all-powerful, he doesn't have to screw around with carrots and sticks--to ensure compliance with his will, he can simply not give us free will in the first place.  No disobedience--no sin--no problem!  As always, the simplest and surest solution to a problem is not to create the problem in the first place.  An all-knowing being ought to be smart enough to figure that out.

Let's say for the sake of argument that God knew all that, but wished to conduct an experiment of sorts--a game, to amuse himself for a few millennia.  The game went something like this:

1. Create a sentient race, with free will.
2. Appear in person, and perform various miracles and curses, so that they know of your existence.  Don't forget to play favorites with a few people, and commit a few genocides, so as to keep them on their toes and make sure they pay attention to you.
3. Once you've established yourself as a deity, use a few of them to ghostwrite a Holy Book that describes you, tells them to worships you, and offers both a carrot (Heaven) and a stick (Hell) to motivate them to do whatever you tell them, no matter how asinine or depraved.
4. Here comes the fun part: disappear.  No appearances.  No miracles.  No sending down angels, or raining fire and brimstone, or moving disciples to make bizarre prophecies that frequently fail to come true.  Just disappear, and after the last human to have witnessed you firsthand has passed away, see how many of them still go on blindly believing.

History has shown that quite a few humans went on believing, despite advances in science and education that rendered the Bible more laughable with each passing century.  Quite a few humans still believe today.  That's fine--to each their own.  My problem is that God will still send you to Hell if you do not believe in him and do not live in accordance with his rules.  Back when he was making regular appearances (and smiting non-believers on a regular basis), it was reasonable, if not necessarily just, to punish those who ignored such overwhelming evidence of the God right in front of them.  But if God honestly expects people to believe in him in this day and age, when he has not put in an appearance in thousands of years, and much of the "evidence" of his existence (the Bible) is rejected even by many of those who do believe, then he is every bit the imbecile I believe him to be.  If he wishes to count how many followers he can retain in absentia, that's fine--but he has no right to punish those who do not wish to spend their lives chasing ghosts. An all-knowing God would understand that humans are visual creatures, and thus are unlikely to believe in what they cannot see--a just God, knowing this, would not punish people for acting according to the nature he created them with.

CONCLUSION

Lest my purpose in writing this post be forgotten, I will reiterate it here.  This is not an attempt to blaspheme, or to do the work of the Christian devil and attempt to turn people away from God.  If you are Christian, and your faith enriches your life, then please stay with what works.  This post is simply my two cents, combined with the two cents of Epicurus.

The Bible proves that God is often cruel, malicious, and fickle--frankly, he reminds me of a bratty child.  My reasoning above leads me to conclude that God is of decidedly inferior intelligence as well.  Many people, myself included, have had the experience of working under a supervisor of inferior intelligence.^  It is not a pleasant experience, and not one a person would willingly subject him- or herself to.  That is why, even if I were not a Satanist, I would not be a Christian.  If I'm going to worship a God, I'd just as soon worship one with a brain--or at least some maturity.

^ I am not speaking of my former manager, who was one of the kindest, most competent people I have ever had the pleasure of working with.  I speak of a former superior higher up in the corporate hierarchy.

¹ I suggest re-reading the third chapter of Genesis, where Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden tree.  God wanders around looking for Adam and Eve, and after a slip of the tongue on Adam's part, asks suspiciously if they have eaten the forbidden fruit.  Seems to me an all-knowing God would already know, and would not have to search for the wayward couple.  This is the first of many times in the Bible that the "all-knowing" God resorts to asking questions.

² God has a nasty habit of ordering large numbers of deaths, both of humans and animals, and of killing innocents, including babies and children, whenever members of a population piss him off.  The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a handy list of such events.

Too foxy for Fox

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned."  --William Congreve

A friend told me yesterday that the Fox and ABC television networks pulled ads for plus-size lingerie maker Lane Bryant because the networks disliked full-figured women.  Being a fan of full-figured women, I decided to make an exception to my general rule of ignoring the media and look into the story.  I found the following:

• A news article on the matter, which includes a YouTube video of the commercial in question.
  
• Lane Bryant's blog posting responding to the censorship of ABC and Fox.
  
• Because Ashley Graham (the model in the commercial) is hot, the YouTube video again. (Ironically, the video is too wide to embed properly in this blog.)
  

Now that the situation has been presented, here's my take on it.  Given the evidence presented in the links above, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Lane Bryant ad was censored solely because it showed a scantily clad full-figured woman.  I believe that decision to be wrong.

Now, I understand that not everybody likes bigger girls.  That's fine--to each their own.  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", the saying goes, and it's true.  "Beauty" is a subjective concept, differing from person to person, so it's to be expected that a fair number of people wouldn't want to watch Ashley Graham parade around in lingerie while a so-sultry-it's-funny voice narrates.  It's also to be expected that a fair number, like myself, were delighted to watch the commercial.  Fox's and ABC's treatment of the ads strongly suggests that network executives are NOT fond of larger ladies.  Which, again, is fine--their sexual likes and dislikes are entirely their own affair.

My objection to them pulling the ads (aside from it depriving me of eye candy) is that they don't have the balls to come out and admit that they simply don't want big girls prancing around on their airtime.  As A.J. Liebling famously pointed out, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."  Personally, I wonder what the point is of having your own television network if you can't call the shots regarding what you do and don't show.  I don't agree with their decision in this case, but I respect their right to call the shots in their own lair.  What I have no respect for is the lack of testicular fortitude on the networks' parts.

The above links lay out damning arguments that cram their feeble excuses of "too much cleavage" or "too racy" down their throats.  For those who cannot exert the energy to click the mouse on the links above (yet can mysteriously muster the energy to continue reading this), I'll summarize.

Lane Bryant, who makes lingerie for plus-sized women, paid for the above commercial to be shown on the Fox and ABC networks.  Fox and ABC, too gutless to say "Eww, a chick with meat on her bones!", coughed something about the ad being too sexy for the 9-10PM hour, and jacked around Bryant by forcing multiple edits of the commercial and refusing to show it except between 9:50 and 10PM.  Lane Bryant and others pointed out that the networks had no problem showing Victoria's Secret lingerie ads at any time during this hour--ads which could reasonably be judged more blatant and less tasteful than the Lane Bryant ad.  It was also pointed out that the Lane Bryant ad was positively tame compared to many of the programs on Fox--such child-friendly fare as Family Guy, the Simpsons, and House.*

In conclusion: I demand the man-cards of Fox and ABC network execs for lacking the balls to come out and say, "We don't like big girls".  I salute Ashley Graham, and would be eternally grateful to her if she sent me her phone number.  (Hey, I can dream, right?)  And finally, I'm going to dispense with the politically correct terms I've been using throughout this post and end with: HAIL FAT CHICKS!!!

* Since ABC is Disney-owned, Fox airs some of the more notorious television programs like the ones mentioned above, and Fox works well for a catchy alliterated title, they get picked on more in this post.

Why I write this blog

"Easy reading is damn hard writing."  --Nathaniel Hawthorne

As a born writer, I am compelled to channel the English language through my fingertips.  I really don't have a choice--like a fish, I do what I do because it is what I was born for, and because I would sink helplessly if I didn't.  (Also like a fish, I am sometimes distracted by shiny objects...  but I digress).  Like many writers, I am afflicted with an extremely active imagination, and gifted (?) with a mind that, like a dyslexic kid with A.D.D. and a new microscope, relentlessly analyzes everything that crosses its path, from any number of bizarre angles that normal people would never consider.

As a result, I am at all times following at least one train of thought that a normal human being would consider odd.  Sometimes, these trains of thought are quite amusing as well.  Having these sort of thoughts gives me plenty of subject matter upon which to practice my compulsion to write.  Formerly, I relegated these scribblings to oft-deleted documents in a folder on my computer, but upon discovering Blogger, I decided to put my pen to the test and publish some of my writings, to see if they would live or perish in a medium where criticism can (and often does) come in the form of anonymous comments from infantile minds steering fingers over keyboards with all the dexterity and precision of a three-fingered three-year-old hopped up on crack.*

In addition to serving as a test of my mettle in the arena of amateur writing, this blog serves as a sort of notebook, where I can jot down bizarre lines of thinking in the form of drafts, expand upon them, and ultimately publish the ones I feel have merit (or at least entertainment value).  As the previous four posts have shown, there is no real pattern to the topics--I write about whatever holds my interest at the moment.

Thus far, most of my topic choices--researching French hit men, over-thinking best-selling computer games--have been relatively benign.  I feel it's high time I revealed my darker side, as I promised to do a couple posts back.  Towards that end, I am working on a series of posts dealing with each of the taboo topics: sex, religion, and politics.

I honestly don't know how long each post will be.  I am apolitical, a Satanist (which is essentially an atheistic religion), and I believe very firmly that when it comes to one's love life, discretion is the better part of valor.  But I am a long-winded bastard by both birth and inclination, and I'm sure I'll come up with something.

* As of this post, I have no comments on any of my posts.  Given the number of monkeys with typewriters on the internet, I'll stand by the old adage, "No news is good news."

Things I wonder about Diablo II

"If your reality is the same as my reality, then you're in trouble." --Marilyn Manson

For those of you unfamiliar with the PC game "Diablo II", this blog will make very little sense.  I suggest you skip it, and skip the game as well, unless you have hundreds upon hundreds of hours to waste glued to the computer.  For those of you who are familiar with Diablo II, I am playing the Lord of Destruction expansion, v1.13--those with older versions or without the expansion might wonder what I'm talking about at times.

Diablo II is a kick-ass, highly addictive computer game.  Most people simply enjoy killing demons, collecting treasure, and exploring the (mostly) randomly generated maps.  I enjoy those things as well, but even when I'm mindlessly clicking the mouse and swearing incoherently at little red demons ("QUIT REVIVING, YOU LITTLE FUCKERS!  Dammit, I need mana.  Ah!  There, now you're MY skeleton, bitch!"), my mind never completely shuts off, and I never quit noticing odd little things here and there.  As a result, there are certain things about the world of Diablo II that I can't help but wonder about.  I'm the sort who is driven nuts by little things with no apparent explanation, so do not be surprised when this blog frequently veers into rant territory.

(For those who are wondering: Yes, I do have a life, and yes, I have much more pressing concerns than why a fictional barkeep doesn't sell alcohol.  This blog was written for my own amusement, and hopefully whoever happens to read it is amused as well.)

ACT I: The Rogue Encampment

Why can a Foul Crow drop a bardiche?  How does such a (relatively) tiny little bird even manage to fly while carrying a large pole-arm that my Necromancer can't even use because he hasn't the strength?  This is the odd happenstance that started the wheels in my head turning that eventually led to me writing this blog.

Why don't monsters always drop the items they carry and use in combat?  Granted, archers have a tendency to drop bows more than other treasure, but why don't they always drop bows?  Why don't Fallen always drop small swords?  Why don't Goat Men always drop pole arms?  Mind you, I'm not complaining about the variety of treasure, but it does puzzle me.

The Tree of Inifus--why?  First of all, why is Tristam now apparently inaccessible from any direction, or from any way other than a portal?  Second, why is that portal concentrated between random Cairn Stones?  Third, why do you even need the friggin' scroll to tell you what order to hit the stones in?  If you can activate them with a mere touch, and simply use trial-and-error to determine the order without using the scroll, what's the point?  (Perhaps the Scroll holds the secret to activating the Cairn Stones...  but there's no mention of that in game--only mention of what order to activate them in.)  Oh, and last but not least, why is that scroll in a friggin' tree?

If Deckard Cain has a Scroll of Town Portal pointing to the Rogue Encampment handy, why doesn't he just use it while he's in the cage?  As opposed to making me brave trees, Carver folk heroes (if you listen, the Carvers randomly babble "Rakanishu!"), and exploding cows to come and rescue the long-winded old buzzard?  Don't give me any speculation about having to be on the ground to use it--if I can use a Town Portal in the Arcane Sanctuary (a different freakin' dimension), he can use one in a cage.

Why do Ghosts drop scrolls so often?  They can't pick up items or use them, so they probably don't need to identify them.  (If they're curious, I'm sure they can wait another few decades for Cain to kick the bucket, and they can ask him then.)  And I don't see why a creature that can float through walls would need a Town Portal scroll, except perhaps to save travel time.

Why do Ghosts, Wraiths, and the like leave behind corpses?  For that matter, why are they vulnerable to physical attacks?  This is probably so that classes like the Barbarian have a fighting chance, but it still doesn't explain why incorporeal enemies leave usable corpses.

Why does Andarial hang out in a room full of random, ever-burning fire when she's weak to fire?  I'll grant it looks rather neat, but you'd think a Lesser Evil smart enough to corrupt the Sisters of the Sightless Eye and drive them out of the monastery they've held for who knows how long would be smart enough to hang out in one of the many fire-free rooms.

ACT II: Lut Gholein

Who designed the quest structure?  And can I bitch-slap them?  Seriously--a vast desert and any number of undiscovered tombs to work with, and this is the best you can come up with?  Quest 1 (Radament) is fine.  Quest 2 (the Horadric Staff) is okay, except it should be complete once you have said Horadric Staff assembled--there's no point in dragging it out until the end of the Act when Quest 6 tells you to do the same damn thing.  Quest 3 (Tainted Sun) is a necessary part of Quest 2, and therefore does not deserve to be a separate quest.  (If it were changed so that the Viper Amulet was nonessential to Quest 2, though, Tainted Sun would be fine.)  Quest 4 (the Arcane Sanctuary) is alright, but Quest 5 (the Summoner) is not.  It can't even rightfully be called a quest, since you're not even looking for the Summoner--it's activated when you stumble upon him, kill him, and get a half-assed explanation after the fact.  I have no issue with Quest 6 (the Seven Tombs), aside from how annoying it is to receive the last quest before two or three others.

How come Atma can heal you just like Fara, but she won't sell you any alcohol?  She'll sell Geglash the drunk all the booze he wants, but she won't even offer liquor to the hero who ventured down into the bowels of a city (literally) and avenged her slain family?  I originally speculated that perhaps she "healed" you by giving you a strong drink, but given how often you could potentially come to see her, a savvy businesswoman would think better of it, so the mystery of just how she heals you remains.

What's up with Fara's past?  She seems overly concerned with keeping it a secret, but you'd think she'd realize that the best way to keep people from prying is not to let them know there's anything to pry about in the first place.

Lysander and his false advertising.  When you talk to him about Radament, he says that some of his Exploding Potions should do quite nicely against the undead.  Great!  I'll buy 25!  Wait, you don't carry them?  Lying old cuss.  This especially irks me, since the ability to buy throwing potions (which never are self-replenishing) would be quite handy.  As for Lysander's false advertising, I suspect that perhaps he does make Exploding Potions (deliberately or otherwise) but simply doesn't offer them to outlanders.  Too many other NPCs have complained about the chemist's volatile concoctions for me to believe he doesn't deal in them at all.

Elzix.  Innkeepers who do not offer rooms for shelter (read: health and mana recovery) do not belong in an RPG.  Period.  Even granting that Fara and Atma will both heal you for free, he should at least offer a room.  Or some alcohol.

Why does Duriel (who is not only a demon, but a Lesser Evil) have a Holy Freeze aura?  There's not even a good explanation for this from a game design point of view, because Duriel's tough enough without Holy Freeze to help him.

At the end of Act II, once you've taken care of all the trouble in the desert and Lut Gholein is safe again, how come the brothels don't reopen?  I know that Jerhyn moved them all into his palace when the troubles began to "keep them safe", and as a result they were first in line for slaughter when demons swarmed through a dimensional rift in the basement of the palace, but surely the guards must have saved some of the harem girls?  If ever there was an incentive to fight...

ACT III: Kurast

See how the quest layout actually makes sense?  That's how it should have been done in Act II.  If anyone from Blizzard is reading this, please take care of it next patch, and bitch-slap whoever was responsible for the Act II quest mess.  (Seriously...  even Microsoft wouldn't design something that badly.  Well, okay, maybe Vista.)

I actually have very little issue with Act III.  It makes the most sense out of all of the Acts, and it's quite enjoyable as well.  The only thing I really have to wonder about is Natalya.  Why is she there?  Why does she abruptly disappear?  Then again, she's an assassin, which we all know is code word for "ninja", and ninjas are, by their very nature, inscrutable.

ACT IV: Pandemonium Fortress

Why don't Halbu and Jamella gossip?  I realize that when there's only four NPCs, there simply aren't that many people to discuss--not to mention, word would get around very quickly.  But seeing as how Halbu and Jamella have been stuck with each other for who knows how long, you'd think they'd welcome the chance to vent about each other to a stranger.

The Cain and Tyrael mutual admiration society.  Get a room, you two.  Or at least talk about Halbu and Jamella for a change.  Hell, I'll even welcome some nattering about the Horadrim, just for a change of pace.

Why do Town Portal scrolls drop so frequently in Hell?  From a level design standpoint, it makes sense to give players an easy escape from one of the most difficult parts of the game.  From an in-game standpoint, it makes you wonder what's so bad about Hell when all you have to do is hack a few monsters and portal yourself to safety.

Why does Tyrael suddenly care about Izual?  He (Izual) has been wandering around for how many eons, and Tyrael chooses now to dispose of him?  I don't mind the quest, but I'm curious about the timing.  Maybe Tyrael lost his courage after getting his ass kicked in Act II, and therefore is sending you to dispose of his wayward lieutenant.  ("Why not?" Tyrael muses to himself.  "He's stupid enough to walk into Hell and pick a fight with Diablo...  might as well have him take out Izzy while he's at it.")

Why shatter Mephisto's soulstone?  We saw how well that worked with Diablo's soulstone in the first game.  Do you really want to leave fragments of a Prime Evil lying around in hell for any demon to plunge into their foreheads?  You'd have an army of little Mephistos running around.  Good for a sequel (and Blizzard's pocketbook), but very bad for the world.

Since we're going around shattering soulstones against our better judgment, why doesn't Diablo drop a soulstone?  Or perhaps he does, and Blizzard didn't feel like making you backtrack all the way to the Hellforge to destroy it, so they simply assume that you did and spare you the running around?  That would be a nice, if out-of-character, assumption.

ACT V: Harrogath

Why are the Barbarians such pansies?  Why is my Necromancer or Sorceress having to constantly save the Barbarian warriors wandering around getting themselves snuffed on the Bloody Foothills?  (Okay, it's understandable that a Sorceress would have an advantage, but considering that my Necro has lost every single online duel against a Barbarian, it's got to be embarrassing the Barbarians to no end that I'm constantly saving their necks.)

Why are the Barbarians so brainless?  While we're on the subject of the poor fools wandering around the Bloody Foothills, where are those battle tactics that Barbarians are famous for?  I understand that they're badly outnumbered and weakened by siege, but do they really think that wandering around in ones or twos and attempting to take on half a dozen monsters single-handed is the best way to go about things?

Why is one of the Barbarian elders a Necromancer?  Don't get me wrong--Nihlathak is probably the coolest boss of Act V, and one of my favorites in the whole game.  I only wish that his Corpse Explosion hadn't been nerfed.  But it's highly unusual for the Barbarians (a suspicious people) to allow an outlander to be one of their elders.  Or, if Nihlathak is native, where on earth did he get training as a Necromancer?

Why does Nihlathak have his own temple?  Again, don't get me wrong, this is a cool area--but why does a Barbarian elder have a temple that an evil Necromancer would be proud of?  (Well, okay, he is a Necromancer, but he's not evil--just stupid.)  And another thing: Anya can open a portal right to the temple, so people in town obviously know about Nihlithak's creepy hangout--how come nobody put two and two together that a guy who likes to hang out in the Halls of Anguish, surrounded by zombies and hellspawn, might not be very trustworthy?

Why does Baal get a clone?  A decoy or a lesser minion I could understand, but allowing a Prime Evil to make a clone of himself with most of the same strength and powers is just not nice.  Don't give me any excuses about how players get mercenaries--Diablo deals seven times his normal damage to hirelings, and they don't fare much better against Baal.

Baal's soulstone?  Probably got destroyed in the chaos of Tyrael nuking the Worldstone, so I'm not too worried about it.

MISC. THINGS I WONDER ABOUT DIABLO II

Why does every single key you find open every single locked treasure chest?  Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a lock in the first place?  You can buy keys, for crying out loud.  Even granting that the keys are apparently so flimsy that they break after opening one lock, Diablo II's locks simply aren't very good protection for your valuables.

Why do treasure chests rigged to burst into flame when opened contain flammable items?  "I'll store my scrolls in this booby-trapped chest," the wizard cackles to himself, content with the knowledge that he alone can disable the trap.*  An adventurer comes along and opens the chest, which bursts into flames.  "Crap!  My scrolls!" the wizard cries.  "I should have thought that one through.  I know!  Next time I'll put it in a barrel with a zombie!"

How do zombies fit into barrels?  Skeletons, okay--they can fold.  And it's not like they're going to get muscle cramps.  Zombies, on the other hand, aren't so flexible.*  Unless maybe they're contortionist zombies, like that guy from Ocean's Eleven?

Why can Fire Towers and Gargoyle Statues be poisoned?  They gain poison immunity on higher difficulty levels, but I was scratching my head on Normal when I saw these fire-spewing stone objects turn green.

Why don't monsters ever wander in through the Town Portals?  This is something I've wondered since the first Diablo.  Demons try night and day to breach a town's defenses by force or by stealth, but don't take advantage of some idiot leaving open a portal that leads right to the middle of town?  And for that matter, why don't the townspeople recognize the danger and have a designated, heavily guarded area for portals to appear in?  It opens in the same friggin' spot every time, so it wouldn't be difficult to arrange.

Why don't monsters drop cursed items like they did in the first game?  It's nice knowing that when you find an unidentified item, it will automatically be better than a normal item of that type, but some of the cursed items from the first game were hilarious.  And really--how plausible is it that every single enchantment on every single item from every single hellspawned monster bent on destroying mankind is going to be beneficial?

Flying scimitars?  Who cares why?  They're awesome.

That does it for now.  If I think of any more (or if anyone contacts me with things I missed, or explanations I can accept), I will update this post accordingly.

* Thanks to my friend Billy for pointing out that whoever booby-traps treasure chests likely knows ways around the traps, and for observing that a zombie in a barrel is highly implausible, even in a video game world.

Panic 101

"As I was going up the stair I met a man who wasn't there.  He wasn't there again today.  Oh I wish he'd go away!"  --Hughes Mearnes

I originally kicked off this blog with a hodgepodge post entitled "Funeral For February" that was 1/3 complaint, 1/3 TMI, and 1/3 semi-useful information.  Due to the "TMI" part, I deleted "Funeral For February"--it wasn't a case of "Oops, I didn't want to reveal that much" so much as "Wow, I doubt many people really want to read a long-winded post about some stranger's crappy month."  However, I do want to contribute possibly life-changing information to whoever reads this blog, so I'm writing this to expand upon the useful portion of the old post.

Originally, I attempted with this post to give an overview of anxiety/panic attack causes, symptoms, and methods of coping with and treating them, along with links to supplement the information.  I quickly found that not only was the post growing far too long, but half of it was simply rehashing information found in the links, so I decided to cut to the chase--I now give a bare-bones overview, with helpful links where relevant. 

DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor.  I'm someone who used to suffer from anxiety and panic attacks.  Out of the kindness of my blackened heart, I am compiling and sharing information that was useful to me in overcoming said anxiety and panic attacks.  Neither I nor any of the authors of the linked-to material are responsible for anything you do with the information or for any of the consequences of your actions, including but not limited to: leading a better life; overcoming your anatidaeophobia; having a heart attack; having stronger erections (including those that last for more than three hours); overcoming your fear of heights, driving, crowds, or all three; coming into contact with hostile aardvarks; etc.

As a wise man once said: RESPONSIBILITY TO THE RESPONSIBLE.  You can huddle, terrified, in your house; you can numb yourself with pills and alcohol and hope it goes away; or you can take the initiative, get off your butt, start overcoming your panic and anxiety, and go on to live your life.

ANOTHER DISCLAIMER: This information pertains to panic attacks and anxiety NOT caused by any underlying medical condition or mental disorder.  It assumes that, aside from your panic issues, you are healthy physically and mentally.  If you are a 50-year-old morbidly obese chain smoker, that racing heart probably really is something to be concerned about.

Formalities dispensed with, time for the information.

WHAT CAUSES PANIC? 
This is a concise article that explains the "fear cycle" a person goes through that leads to a panic attack, and how one can go about breaking that fear cycle.  The important thing to remember is that, while panic attacks manifest with physical symptoms, the cause is mental.  Therefore, medication is limited in its ability to treat anxiety--it can dull the symptoms, but it cannot cure you.




WHAT IS A PANIC ATTACK?

During a panic attack, your body releases adrenaline (a hormone aiding the "fight or flight" response), even though there is no real threat.  Adrenaline causes a number of bodily reactions.  When we are actually fighting or fleeing, we don't really notice them--we are more concerned about whatever it is that's threatening us in the first place--but during a panic attack, since there is no obvious threat, we feel the adrenaline's "side effects" on our bodies and take it to mean that something is wrong.  Different people manifest different symptoms, and as a result I couldn't find a list that included all the symptoms I am aware are possible, so I made my own:

• Chills
  
• Sweating
  
• Trembling
  
• Hyperventilating (breathing too fast)
  
• Feeling a tingling sensation in the extremities, and/or the face
  
• Upset stomach*
  
• Heart pounding
  
• A feeling of pressure, or being squeezed (due to muscles tensing)
  
• A feeling of choking, or as if one's throat is closing
  
• Racing thoughts
  
• A fear of "snapping" or losing one's mind
  
• A feeling of overwhelming terror
  
• A feeling/fear of being about to "lose control"
  

* Some poor souls actually vomit due to their anxiety.  I am fortunate enough not to have been one of them.

Most people (myself formerly included) freak out when they feel these symptoms.  None of them are dangerous to your health, but because you're anxious, and because you don't know why you're feeling them, they seem to portend some horrible affliction.  Understanding what's happening with your body greatly decreases the fear you feel during a panic attack, which in turn reduces the symptoms.

COPING WITH PANIC ATTACKS

Breathing exercises can work wonders not only to help you calm down from a panic attack, but to keep you from having one in the first place.  Breathe through your diaphragm (sometimes called "belly breathing"), and if you want to relax, focus on the timing of your breaths.  There are any number of different "counts" for how long to hold each breath, how long to spend exhaling and inhaling, and so on, so I recommend searching online and trying a few, to see what works best for you.  Also, don't be afraid to alter the counts to be shorter if you're anxious and have trouble breathing slowly--you can always increase the counts and breathe more slowly as you gradually calm yourself down.

If you do much research into breathing, you'll find a lot of material on meditation.  Personally, I dislike formal meditation, but having read up on the subject, I can definitely see how someone with anxiety could benefit from it.  Google will yield a wealth of information on the subject, and like the breathing, personal preference plays a strong role.  I will share an article for a simple form of meditation that I found helpful.

 RIDING IT OUT

The way to break the power of a panic attack is to experience it without being afraid of it.  The next time you're having a panic attack, detach yourself, and monitor your body impersonally.  Pretend you're watching your performance in a movie, or that you're a scientist observing a subject.  Instead of freaking out, take note of what you're feeling.  "Wow--I'm breathing fast.  My heart's racing.  Hey, my face is tingling--that's interesting."  Your physical symptoms are real, but there's no need to try to contain them or control them.  They CANNOT build to an unbearable level--you have already felt them at their worst, and you're still alive and sane.  Just sit back, watch them, and let them run their course.  If you put on your running shoes, hit the treadmill, and sprint for as long as you are able, your breathing will be fast and your legs will tremble, but that will go away on its own, regardless of whether or not you try to control it.  Same with this.

OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER

You may or may not find this information in the various links, so I'll put it here.

Panic has both a mental and a physical component.  I've covered the mental component above, so I'll share some things you can do to take care of yourself physically with regards to anxiety.

First and foremost, quit caffeine--it's a stimulant, and it's not doing your anxiety any favors.  Don't go cold turkey unless you want a murderous headache, but taper it off.  (Once you've got your anxiety and panic issues firmly under control, a cup of coffee in the morning is fine--just don't chug soda and energy drinks all day.)

If you smoke, consider quitting.  The act of smoking a cigarette can be relaxing, but nicotine is a stimulant, which again isn't doing your anxiety any favors.  Quit if you want, or conclude from the previous sentence that it balances itself out and use it as an excuse to keep smoking like you probably will anyway.

Exercise is important.  If you don't already, start--it helps burn nervous energy and will make you feel better overall.

Make sure you get a decent night's sleep--I can attest that you are more likely to have a panic attack if you are exhausted.

One overlooked aspect is how much sugar you eat.  There's nothing wrong with indulging yourself once in a while, but don't make junk food a significant part of your diet.  Sugar rushes (and the subsequent crashes) jack around both your system and your energy levels, which pisses off your body and may trigger a panic attack.

CONCLUSION

If you suffer from panic attacks, I hope you find this information useful.  If you know someone who does, show them this blog.  If you've never heard of panic attacks and don't care about the subject, then chances are you're not reading this, but if you are, I can assure you that they're no joke--they have the potential to ruin lives if the sufferer does not take the initiative to overcome them.

LINKS

Panic Attack Release: A web site run by a former anxiety sufferer.  Provides a fair amount of information about the causes of panic attacks and ways to cope with them.  Don't be put off by the constant advertising for panic programs--he has to pay the bills somehow, and the information on this site is more valuable than the infomercial layout suggests.

NOTE: I suggest you use the "thought stopping" method sparingly, if at all--acknowledging and calmly dealing with anxious thoughts is far more effective than trying to tell yourself "STOP!" every time you think of something that makes you nervous.

Understanding and Overcoming Your Panic and Anxiety Cycle: Seven Steps to Recovery: This article by M. David Rudd, Ph.D., ABPP (got enough letters?) explains a person's "fear cycle" and how to overcome it via exposure therapy.

Managing Stress: The Relaxation Response: You're probably all too familiar with your body's panic response.  This article will acquaint you with its polar opposite.  Notice how it combines breathing exercises and meditation?

Reducing Stress Meditation: That simple article on meditation again.  I recommend clicking around the rest of the site, too. The home page is http://www.learningmeditation.com/

Anatidaephobia: The fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.

HAIL LARSON!!!