u/Archaon0103

For anyone don't know, the Prime Directive is the most important rule of the Federation in Star Trek. Baiscally the rule is that the Federation and its officers cannot interfere in internal matter of other race and cannot contaminate or interfere with the nature development of culture of other pre-Warp civilizations. The main purpose of the prime directive is to prevent colonialism and exploitation of more primitive civilizations while keeping the Federation out the internal conflicts of other races, letting the other races deal with their own political and culture issues.

The Prime Directive sound good on paper and the reason for it to exist is noble and good. The problem is how the Federation impliment the Prime Directive throughout the series and the justification these implimentations.

In the original Star Trek series, there is an episode where the crews found a generational ship where the people had forgotten that they were on a ship and they treat the ship computer as a god. The problem is the computer was malfunctioned and the ship was on it way to crash into a Federation colony. Kirk, McCoy and Spock debated if they should reveal this to the inhabitants. They agreed that it would violate the Prime Directive as they were interfere with these people culture but that was seen as better than let these people to just all die out. So here we see that the Prime Directive exist as more a guideline for how contact with aliens should be handled but saving lives should take priority over trying to preserve a culture, especially if trying to preserve a culture would lead to that culture demise.

The problem arise in TNG and later series. In TNG, there are a couple "Prime Directive" episodes where the crew usually come to a planet with primitive civilization and the people down there are facing some existencial crisis that could only be solve by the Enterprise crew intervention. The justification for not helping always boiled down to "we shouldn't play god", "we don't know the consequence of our action in the future" and "it was the natural order of thing and we shouldn't intervene". Picard even said that in the whole human history, no matter the intention, contact between a more advance civilization and a less advance civilization always lead to disaster and that is why they shouldn't help. Honestly, all of those reasons are bullcrap.

Picard logic is extremely flawed becayse throughout history, when contact between a more advance civilization and a less advance civilization happen, it almost never happen because of one side want to help the other, it's always because of personal gain and the "help" often come with some conditions. Individual can help people from less advance groups our of the goodness of their heart but institutions like countries or corporations care first and foremost about "what in it for us?" So Picard argument is bullshit because the reason why contact between unequal civilization always ended up in disaster is because the stronger side always aim for exploitation first and foremost. However in Star Trek, the Federation is portrait as the shining example humanity and always do things for the right reason. So no Picard, just helping them doesn't mean you will eventually enslave those people because you and your crews never actually care about exploit these people in the first place.

Next we have the "natural order" argument. Now replace "nature" with "god" and you will get the "god work in mysterious ways" argument. The crew always said that they should not interfere with the "cosmic plan of the universe". Then I can ask the same question back: what if it is the cosmic plan for you guys to show up and help these people? The characters in the show seem to think that there is some cosmic plan and that it would be hubris to intervere with the cosmic plan. By that logic the humans should stop having doctors as doctors entire job is to defy nature and prolong someone life.

And then we get to the "unknow consequences" reason. This bring us to the Voyager era. There is one episode where Tom Paris and Janeway stranded on a planet where the natives are using a technology that could wipe them all out. Janeway forbid Tom Paris to warn these people . When Tom pointed out that changing culture is better than complete destruction, Janeway basically told Tom to shut up and this is an order from his captain. No debate. Just follow orders. Don't question anything. The Prime Directive was then basically a dogma. You not suppose to question and debate with it, you just need to follow it. Janeway view that they can't foresee what the future might lead if they help these lesser culture. What if these people due to the Federation influence become a galatic conquest empire? And again, by that logic you can ask what if those people turn into a race of peace-loving space explorers due to the Federation? The Federation basically rather let 10 peaceful civilizations die out than let one bad one raise up. They let the unknown future dictate their actions, prevent them from stopping known future disasters.

And finally, we get to Enterprise and the infamous "Dear Doctor" episode where the captain and the ship doctor let a species die out despite having the cure for their disease. Not only the episode has some of the worst misconception of evolution (a species can only evolve and advance if the other dominant species on the same planet all die out), it also justify the genocide of an entire species and then pat the characters on the back for such a great job of not helping. The main argument from the doctor character is that this is this planet nature order and they should not intervere, let the majority die out so the minority could rise up and take their rightful place as the superior species. That should like something an Eugenic supervillain would say, not the heroes who suppose to represent the bright future of humanity. Oh and better yet, in a later episode, the heroes basically intervere to save the native of another planet from an internment camp because they like the natives. So it not okay to intervere to save another species because that would interfere with nature but it's okay to intervere in a civil war because you like one particular group.

My point is that the Prime Directive should be a guideline, not a concrete, inflexible rule that the officers have to follow to the teeth even when it is in conflict with morality. What the Prime Directive actually is now is a way for the character and the Federation to avoid responsible. Helping mean becoming responsible for the people they save, for both the good and the bad. But by inaction, the Federation basically can wash their hands without looking like the bad guy for letting billions died out.

Things that make the game artificially hard, cheap moves of the enemies that you have no way or is very hard to avoid.

Example: i hate the charge forward move of a lot of monsters in the Monster Hunter series. Sometimes they just walk forward with no warning or wind up. I got hit on my ass more often by Rathian forward charge than by its poison tail spin.

People seem to overhate her so let me go against the grain and defense her.

1. We, as the readers, know Baal is evil but most characters in-universe don't. Even the 3 Greats don't. They dislike him for being against Delkira but they don't actually know how evil he is. In fact hating Baal is the minority of the demon world. (only the Crowns and his adopted brother actually hate him and even then only his brother actually aware of his evilness). Blaming Shura for falling for Baal words kinda missed the part that Baal has cultivated a perfect image of himself and the whole demon world bought into it.

2. From Shura POV, the 3 Greats are in the wrong and she is absolutely correct. Did Sullivan break the law? Yes. Did he go behind the other Greats' backs? Yes. Did he abuse the demon king seal, something that could only be use with the authorization of all 3 Greats? Yes. None of these things are wrong. Really Baal simply need to hide his goal and stating the unrefusable fact that Sullivan used his power to bypass the law. Would it be okay for the readers if Baal or Narnia to do the same? And in the investigation, the only one that talk about this is Baal. To Shura, Baal is the only one that care about keeping the peace in the demon world. From her POV, Baal is the best choice and provide the best solution for the situation while the 3 Greats basically couldn't provide any solution.

3. The reason why she was involved was partly because of Baal but also partly because she outrank Sullivan. We saw Sullivan got interrogated before by Henri and Sullivan just pulled rank on him to stop the legal process. Shura is like the only person who Sullivan couldn't pull rank. Again, what if it's another Crown who oppose this abuse of power from Sullivan? Would they get as much hate?

4. She actually doesn't hold any real power. But by being the representative of the whole Deities race, a race that generally stay neutral and out of demon politic, her words carry weight to the common demons and her own races. Technically anyone could advocate for anyone to be the next demon king, the problem is getting the support. The 3 Greats repsect her because her words can sway the population to support Baal, especially when Baal has styled himself as the hero who care about the demon world. Like we got an arc where the 13 Crowns all advocated for the own candidates for the kingship. What make Shura any difference from that? Because she supports Baal and doesn't have the knowledge of the readers?

After the previous playthough where my stockpile of Lasgun just lay there with no one bother touching them, I want my RT the next playthough to only use Las weapon. I want my guy to switch between rapid fire lasgun and sniper las weapon. Any build that is decent at both sniping and burst fire?

Basically the character/class can do multiple things but most people only pick that character/class for one particular reason.

Example: Recently I am playing Rogue Trader and the class Grant Strategist is a class that is all about set up area that will grant allies buffs while the allies are in those zone. Grand Strategist can make your frontline stronger, turn the frontline into a killzone, turn the backline into a shooting zone for your sniper,.... but the main reason why most people pick Grant Strategist is that the class always get to go first in the game. Going first without having to deal with RNG of the game is such a powerful effect that no one really care about the other features of the class. The most popular companion to go for this class is Cassia because she has her own powerful skills. The meta build is to ignore all of the Grand Strategist skills while focus in Cassia's skills.

So who have more talents that support arc rifle?

Recently the game Rogue Trader adds a mechanic where you can give your party member mechanical augment. The problem is that to use the augment, the game need to cut out a human body part and replace it with a machine body part. I really couldn't do it to my fleshy party member so I only end up using it on my PC and the techpriest party members.

So I am planning to do an unarmed run that focus in internal trauma damage so which attack replacer and which class should I use? Soldier have Cadence for AOE while Oathkeeper get Smite and Judgment for AOE, also the dash of Oathkeeper doesn't need weapon why Blitzt need weapon.

Example: What do armor and defense stats usually do in games? Damage reduction right? Well in Diablo 2, armor and defense is actually evasion, determinate how likely an attack is going to hit.

What other common gaming mechanic that got implemented weirdly in a particular game?

A game with a mechanic you like a lot and wish more games would copy that mechanic. My example is the pair up mechanic in Fire Emblem. I really like the ability to pair up characters in an RPG so that not everyone have to be PC-sexual. Imagine if you can pair up the other characters in Persona games.