|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
James Jacobs wrote:
Ah, so you decided what race-class you are going with first? I am more than likely going to make a human female mage first (using my very "Templar friendly, Pro-Chantry" Warden and Hawke (in fact, my Hawke kind of got to a "mages all need to die..." mentality especially with the events with Orsino so she allowed Meredith to kill Bethany!) playing a mage in a world state where the mages are pretty much screwed over since the Blight will be fun!)... but definitely want to make a Qunari too.
Then on a side note, what do you think of Dragon Age Keep instead of the save file imports?
I allow to forgo saving throws in almost all circumstance: the only exception I might make would be if somebody asked me to forgo his Fortitude saving throw against a mundane poison (or possibly disease) because it would be way too silly having people deactivating their livers by sheer suicidal force of will or willing themselves to get hammered after only one cheap mug of ale...
Ah, ya i agree with that, still need a BIT of common sense. As I said, if you want to fail your Reflex save and take the full brunt of a dragon's breath weapon, be my guest. You will be crispy and taste good with ketchup. But I do agree, failing a fortitude save vs. poison just cause you want to would be a stretch. Also Lycanthropy, in fact in Broken Moon
(Carrion Crown AP book 3) it talks about the possibility of players being bitten by werewolves, and says NOT to allow them to fail by choice. You still roll the save for them.
Yes, but that also is why I like a RAW inclusive list (that D&D 3.5 had, which included Natural Armor as kept) rather than leaving it all up to the DM, because when large portions of the rules are "at the DM's discetion" both as a player and as a GM it's annoying to have to write out a 20 page dissertation on all my house rules (or read a 20 page dissertation from another GM, I've had to do that before when a GM had a huge house rules document... might as well have just written his own system at that point) Much easier for me as a GM and as a player to know that "NO, Natural Armor is NOT included" so I can then say "House rule! Natural Armor is included!"
So, with the Test of the Starstone now being detailed in Mythic Origins as a possible source of mythic power, does that mean that rank 10 mythic characters are or can become gods, is there some secret harder Test of the Starstone that Aroden, Iomedae, Norgorber, and Cayden found, or what? Furthermore, is Razmir mythic, or did he just fail completely?
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Pretty sure characters know the difference between arcane and divine, at least in theory. Divine comes from divine sources. The reason Razmir's priests are able to fool people is because they have feats and class abilities that allow them to do so. So, if like a witch is casting cure light wounds you know it's arcane cause of the way she casts it. A divine caster is the same way, you can tell it's divine by the casting methods. The Razmir priests fake it though.
As for him fooling the gods, no I doubt that. The gods just don't actively go "ATTENTION RAZMIR IS A CHARLATAN HE IS NOT A GOD" cause he's going to be dead soon, they don't much care. If anything, he weeds out those of weak faith. Plus, at least as I understand it not everyone believes he's a god, especially outside of Razmiran.
Well, I never said she would be welcome in Rahadoum, in fact I understand she explicitly would not simply because whether she's willing to or not (she's not, you can worship her all you want, she's not granting you spells even though she technically can.) Just that I wanted to make her for concept as close to a "god" as it was possible with a mythic character so as to fuel her idea that "They are no more a god than I am" because she can do everything they can do.
As to Rahadoum rejecting mythic characters, where does it say that? Forget for a minute that she had the "Divine Source" mythic powers? You think they'd still hate her?
Oooh, I like them! Yeah, that is kind of how she thinks, even as a witch but also where she gets her mythic abilities too, and why she is like "Help me, but don't worship me and no I will not grant you spells. I'm not a god."
Ah, her mythic origin can actually be her 'patron' source? I didn't think of that, that would be perfect for her concept, actually. As I said, with how I gave her the mythic powers that lets her serve as a god, yet she chooses not to is part of why she thinks that the gods are nothing special. She sees herself as just as much a "god" as them, and thinks that all mortals should serve themselves... to basically create a mythic universe where everyone is equal to the so-called "gods"
I am designing a character that is an athiest (or dystheist if you prefer) who is kind of like Rahadoum in her thinking, that mortals should serve themselves not so called "gods" (especially because she's meant to be a sort of guide for a mythic campaign where she's helping the PCs become mythic like she is... and she's ABLE to grant spells (she has the mythic powers) she just doesn't because she rejects the idea that she's a god, although at the same time she doesn't see where she isn't the same as those who do call themselves gods, since she CAN be worshipped and grant spells). Thing is, I want her to be a witch but now I'm thinking... What would her patron (mechanically, her patron is fate from Reign of Winter) could she have then? She wouldn't want to be beholden to a god or even a god-like being to get her powers...
Well I guess there is no familiar for my sage as tattooed sorcerer is also out.
Hmmm so by that respect, anything that in any way has anything to do with bloodlines cannot be used with Wildblooded? Not sure I 100% agree with that, but then it doesn't matter because in my games I ignore the Wildblooded archetype completely and just use them as full bloodlines, they are just rarer than the others.
Actually, you want an anti-caster check this out...
It's a Inquisitor archetype called the "Spellbreaker"
Or, for a different focus, but still anti-caster there is this other Inquisitor archetype...
But, note that due to both of them replacing "Monster Lore" they are not compatible with each other.
Then as far as spells go, Inquisitors get a lot of debuffs that while they are not all caster-specific, they still will mess up a caster when he's sickened or such. Then they do end up getting Silence later on, which is great for anti-casters as most spells have verbal components.
EDIT: For some reason, the forums break the d20pfsrd links, you will need to remove the space that it insists on putting after "paizo---"
Natural armor is not a sense.
So, sorry but saying "You lose senses and natural attacks" in no way says to me "oh and Natural armor too..." It may be RAI, but it's not RAW. And if it is RAI, then it's purely speculation on our part until a developer clarification is made.
Well, to take a page from White Wolf, the older a vampire gets the more expensive it gets to change their base attributes. The undead body AND mind resist change. So, if you apply that logic to D&D/Pathfinder then as an undead without great effort (ie, gaining a new level and the requisite class/etc bonuses) undead do not change basic mind and body things.
Okay, so in a side note on the natural armor thing...
Why give a doppelganger natural armor if they just lose it? Seriously, why would a doppelganger ever be like "oh dear, I need my +4 natural armor, I shall let everyone know I'm a doppelganger!" Sure, they have claws too, but if you are to the point that you've decided to let everyone know you're a doppelganger, then you can use your 2 claws rather than full iterative attacks with weapons only because you have no weapons and are to the point of desperation.
In fact, I am playing a doppelganger in a 3.5 game on Sundays, and when I told my GM my armor was 24, she didn't bat an eye. +4 Dex, +4 Natural, +6 (from +3 Studded Leather) armor. Didn't even occur to me that I would lose my natural armor, as others have said, natural armor is not typed as extraordinary... I am still a doppelganger, I just LOOK like a human. I think it would be the same for the dragon. The skin might not LOOK like scales, but it's still going to have the toughness of scales.
EDIT: Okay, if you give the dragon "Change Shape" like a Doppelganger has, rather than just the spell, then 100% yes they would keep their natural armor...
Change Shape at d20pfsrd wrote:
A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their descriptions.
Emphasis mine. I will note that yes, it doesn't call out exactly what entails those "most of its own physical qualities" entails, but that to me, especially given that 3.5 did spell it all out, they'd keep natural armor...
Hypertext d20 srd Change Shape wrote:
And really, what is alter self other than the spell version of Change Shape, limited to humanoid forms?
I agree, if you choose not to jump out of the way of a dragon's breath weapon... well, you're an idiot but I don't see why the GM should say "What? NO you MUST make a save vs. this breath weapon, no suicides allowed!" So, it would be the same for a magic item as it is for a spell as it is for a breath weapon.
As Rynjin said, all negative energy heals undead unless specifically called out as not doing so. Negative Energy channeling is specifically called out as not doing so when it is used to HARM. It just fails to affect them. So, you can freely heal your party without worrying about killing your dhampir friend, as long as you don't try to use Cure X Wounds on them. The Umbral Dragon's breath weapon, Enervation, Chill Touch, these spells all give their exceptions in their description. The shadow also is specifically called as doing Strength damage, so it also is an exception.
W E Ray wrote:
Wizards of the Coast themselves did something very similar for their D&D Fight Club blog. Granted, she fell in love with an angel and became a paladin herself, but... close enough to give you some ideas.
I give you Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I don't ban for that reason, but if I did...
That's about 9/10 times every game I run will include those combinations among the players.
Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to imply I didn't think she was being silly (her later insistence that every single one of my 29 City of Heroes characters were big breasted skimpy-dressed women when only 2 actually were was the last straw with her for me), just that I did see her point that Tifa was the only big-breasted woman in the entire FF7 world. I am able to see someone's point and think they are partially right, without agreeing with them completely. That's why I'm able to not completely hate the person I will no longer say the name of just so as not to start a new debate on her.
Okay, so I'm gonna go watch Army Wives... Hopefully in the morning I'll have forgotten about this thread and can leave it for good.
Oh, well I didn't know you were going to go to other games to get your examples, but yeah Squaresoft is pretty awesome... although, I will say that (and it's why I quoted Tifa) a woman I am no longer friends with hated Tifa, mainly cause as tough as she was, she was also in your face DD's compared to every other female character in FF7 being much smaller chested. I mean, I like Tifa don't get me wrong, but I did kinda see her point.
As for Parasite Eve, OMG I love Parasite Eve! I even have the DVD of the movie (yes, the movie, if you haven't seen it you should. It's based more directly on the book (the games are sequels to the book), and it's therefore the story of what happened in Tokyo right before Aya and her sister had their accident and needed organ transplants...)
Yes, we should... but so often we do not. So often even as a man, all I see is "How not to get raped" very rarely do I see "How not to rape". Look at Steubenville, OH or any other college town (Hell for the latest stuff that has me going WHAT THE **** look up Kansas University, which is a mere 30 miles from me). I will be a bit more clear about something I said earlier... if I had not started hanging out with and talking to feminists and become one myself, I would still think that having sex with a girl drunk off her ass was okay. I am not a rapist, I would never even consider raping a woman intentionally... and there is the key for so many... intentional or not, rape is rape. So, we need to educate on exactly what rape is.
As for doing our best to prevent and punish rape, so many times it's more about "What did you do to put yourself in a position to be raped?"
Say you were driving down the street and stopped at a stop sign. Suddenly a man runs up shoots you in the head (through the glass) and steals your car. Luckily you are taken to the hospital. First thing the cops ask you would be.... "What were you doing in that part of town at a stop sign? You really should have run the stop sign in that kind of neighborhood. It's your own fault you were shot in the head and carjacked." Yes, thats absurd, but that kind of "blame the victim" is very much what is done in rape cases more often than not.
And I just realized, this is all getting grossly off topic for the video games forum...
Eeek you triple posted...
As for what you said, that's true. But, there are cases where someone who is not violent or a psychopath might not even think about something as wrong, until they are told.
For example, in my 20's (I didn't ever get the chance) I never even considered that having sex with a drunk girl could be seen as raping her. Now, in my 30's I believe that if she's drunk, then don't have sex with her. Was I a psychopath potential rapist in my 20's? No, I was just misinformed.
As for the last part of your thing, what about when someone slips a girl a roofie, or as in my article I posted, what about when she gets pulled over by a cop? Why are we telling women how to avoid being raped by a cop? We should be making sure cops do not rape!
Two huh? Hmm. I guess I now know which two by what you've said. I can give you some point to Manhunter, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "disgustingly dishonest" because as far as I can tell of the game (I haven't played it) it's a game that encourages players to maim and kill people who only exist to be murdered and tortured... not sure where that makes it any less horrible when you do it to a man except that in her case she's talking about how women are portrayed, unless you are saying there are no female victims in the game?
About as much as I (or anyone who ever played the games she mentions) care about her flawed logic and dishonest claims that gamers are sexist because they play games where they have to save the princess?
Gah, I can't stay away from this thread when I see stuff like this...
So, you watched how many of her videos and latched onto that, and nothing she says can be at all even correct? As I've said, and I've even said it to her on Twitter and she retweeted me... I don't agree with everything she says, but she makes some good points, and at least makes me think about ways we can improve the way women are portrayed in video games.
Okay, so Im hoping I can leave this thread now, but not saying for sure anymore... I guess we'll see if I can stay away... I really should, I know since as someone who agrees with even 10% of what Anita says, I'm still the odd male feminist out.
As for the relevance of the article, there is very little spent on telling men how not to rape. It's all about how women can avoid getting raped. So, for example, if a woman is really damn drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? She's drunk off her ass and probably won't remember it in the morning, oh and you did slip her some drugs and she's unconscious now, so she's not saying no, it's not rape? This is actual thoughts of many men, especially on college campuses, and many times they get off (no pun intended) with barely even an slap on the wrist and the girl is told "well, you shouldn't have been drinking and you wouldn't have been raped" That's the relevance.
It's not telling men "Don't have sex with a drunk woman." it's telling women "Don't get drunk, and you won't get raped." when it should be the other way around!
Check Your Hand Stamp and Avoid Police: The Latest Anti-Rape Advice for Women Yes, you read that right... avoid police. Don't speed, cause you might get pulled over and raped a by a cop. That's actual advice given to women by a cop when some women were raped by a cop on a traffic stop.
Here is the quote from the article...
"that women can keep their car doors locked and speak through a cracked window if a trooper approaches them. If the trooper asks a woman to get out of the car, Brown said, she can ask ‘in a polite way’ why he wants her to do that. But the ‘best tip that he can give,’ the anchor said on air of his interview with Brown, ‘is to follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over.’”
That is actual advice from a state trooper for women to avoid being raped by a cop.
And yes, I know the hatred for Anita in the gaming community is strong, guess how much I care.
Didn't say there was, but the person said for any game you mention bad portrayals of women, they can give good ones, which isn't the case for GTAV.
Yeah, which is then a BAD portrayal of her, not a good one. So she still counts, and even if she herself doesn't directly, she still gets treated in a sexist manner by Franklin on many occasions.
As I said, I like the game, but that doesn't change the fact that every woman is either sexualized or treated in a sexist manner. Again, yes it's satire, but the word "satire" isn't a magic eraser.
Okay, then I apologize, but the way you said it isn't always true. There are MANY women who walk into the police station and say "My husband raped me" and they are told to go home, that's not rape.
So, yes anyone that comes in with a claim of assault or rape should be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, in fact that was a big part of Emma Watson's recent speech to the UN. Feminism is a issue for men and women.
Don't say "Men get raped too." say "Stop raping people."
Well, yes GTA5 is all around bad and all around offensive to everyone and yes it's very satirical, but it has strippers (many of which prostitute on the side), a wife who cheats on her husband with the yoga instructor, a daughter that works as webcam girl and calls herself "Tracey Suxx" who later tries to get into porn movies, etc. The point is, even among ALL the bad portrayals of everyone, there isn't a single non-sex based portrayal of women in that game.
And now, it bears saying I have no problem with strippers, prostitutes, porn stars, especially not webcam girls... but when that along with a cheating wife (oh and she's an ex-stripper whose husband bought her implants even before she quit and married him) and an ex-FIB (GTA world's equivalent of FBI) agent who once dated and slept with a thug to get close to his operation and ends up dead is all the game has (and random women on the street that have no name and no story don't count) that's where the challenge comes in.
Also, I know a lot of you don't like her, and I've said I don't always agree with her, but Anita Sarkeesian said "Satirical sexism is still sexism."
Okay, I'll take this challenge, Grand Theft Auto V (Online not included because women portrayal in that is entirely on the player) GO. (Don't get me wrong, I like GTAV, but when it comes to the game's portrayal of women, it's pretty bad when taken as a whole because I can't think of a single woman in that game that isn't a sex object or a victim)
Or maybe because women are actually taken seriously by the authorities when they say they have been raped and/or assaulted by their partner.
Okay, you SERIOUSLY need to explain this part, and tell me you are not saying what it seems to me that it's obvious you are saying...
cause i don't want to say what this sounds like you are saying here outside of a spoiler:
that if a man wants sex, his girlfriend/wife has an obligation to spread her legs on command.
Please tell me I am misreading what you meant, that you did not mean what I put in spoiler.
Also, many women are STILL not taken seriously when they are raped by their partner, because of what I put in spoiler. Or when it wasn't a partner, it's many times "well how could she have avoided the situation"?
If you were saying "Men can be raped/assaulted too but aren't taken seriously" then yes, that's true. Rape should be taken seriously no matter who the victim/rapist is, but to say that women are "actually taken seriously when they say they have been raped/assaulted by their partner" um no just as often they are not.
Just look at all the stuff recently with Christy Mack. Everyone is sooo sorry for her MMA superstar ex-boyfriend, oh she's a porn star oh well she shouldn't have been with another man, etc. She was broken up with him, and he came to her house and beat her nearly to death. Yet so much of the media and his fans are seeing HIM as the victim, under this delusion that she was cheating on him, or that if she was that somehow justifies him beating her nearly to death.
I sort of understand where you are coming from, and granted there have only been a few times someone has said it to me, but again, if they said it they have a reason, and at least in my experience, I've seen where they were right.
And oh please don't turn this into a debate on modern feminism and whether it's "tainted" or not. Yes, there are feminists out there that do more harm that good (like the stereotypical "man-hating lesbian" that so many think all feminists are) but please don't paint us all with the same brush.
Oh, I am not ashamed of it, nor do I think I should be, and if any of MY posts in this thread have suggested in any way that one should be ashamed, I apologize that was never my intent. I am however aware of it, and on the rare occasion someone tells ME directly to check my privilege, I don't get defensive toward them, I go "Whoa... let me take a step back and think about this..." and 9/10 times in doing so I am able to see where yep, I need to check my privilege. To me at least, check your privilege means that we have a very very very long road to equality left.
As to those who say "Every man is a potential rapist" or such things, no I absolutely do not agree with that, nor do any of the other feminists I talk to regularly. When we tweet about a man who has hurt a woman, it's about that man, not me, not you, not all men. Which reminds me of the twitter hashtag campaign of #NotAllMen while that's nice, I don't like that hashtag, cause it's to me too defensive. A better slogan from an article I read is #AllMenCan which you can find out about here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/allmencan-yes-all-women-twitter-ac tivism
Simon Legrande wrote:
Actually, there is a very strong possibility I am smarter than you. See, I can say it too. I'd tell you why I feel I can say that, and ask you to do the same, but do we really need to start a d*** (or brain in this case) measuring contest? My point, and the point of the articles is, whether it's what you mean to say or not, when you tell a person who is being discriminated against "I don't see race" what many hear is "You are no different than me, and you are not being oppressed." Whether you mean that or not, that's what is heard much of the time because usually they just got stomped on and your attempt at saying that is to say "Oh, but I'm not like that mean person" in a defensivce manner. Support them, do not get defensive (again, your intent may not be this, it's all about perception.) What others HEAR is just as important if not more important than what you mean. SO no, I wasn't telling you what you think, I was telling you what many other people hear, which is a very important distinction. But look, maybe that's what happened here... What I THINK and what YOU thought I was trying to say were very different.
As for what Morgan Freeman said, and let me say, I cannot comment on what he thinks, only my interpretation of what he said and what I think of it. I fully agree that yes, "Black History Month" should be abolished and incorporated more fully into American (and the rest of the world, because that's one place where I think Freeman is wrong, Black History Month isn't JUST American History, it's WORLD history) history, and that should be the goal but it won't be solved by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away which is what would end up happening if we just straight up got rid of it.
As for the word privilege, I've been a "broke white person" myself so that article mentioned above is why I have no problem with and understand the concept.
Let me ask you this since you don't see race... Is it okay for me to dress up as a Native American Chief with a full headdress this Halloween? If it helps you decide, I am 1/16th Cherokee because my great-great grandmother was a princess!
Disclaimer about the Princess thing:
Yes, I am fully aware there is no such thing as a Native American Princess, but that is a very common claim by many people, oh I am descended from an indian princess! But the truth is, even if your great-great-great grandfather was a chief (as mine was) that doesn't make his daughter any more important or a "princess" than any other daughter in the tribe.
In closing, take a look at the new movie Exodus by Ridley Scott. You have a mostly white cast and the statues are being redone to look like the white cast. So, in this ideal world where we don't see race (and that was Ridley Scott's answer to accusations of racist casting, he isn't racist, he doesn't look at race in casting his movies)... well, that's all just fine (and that's also how it's always been done in past movies, Charleton Heston, Elizabeth Taylor, etc) Because we don't see race, it doesn't matter that the Ancient Egyptians had darker skin, we don't see race so it doesn't matter what they look like in our movies and that the statues in the movie look nothing like their real counterparts ever did? To take that to a more extreme but IMO better illustrating modern day example, if we were making a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr... and a lighter skinned ('white') man auditioned and just nailed the audition... should he get it? Because we aren't looking at race, remember.
I pretty much allow all Paizo material (sans the ACG, I don't own it yet, and... still up in the air about whether I even want to), then 3rd party stuff is on a case-by-case basis. Actual classes, probably won't allow them (although I do like the Time Thief and Time Warden!), and races even less likely. However, archetypes I'm very likely to allow. Best example is the Cabalist. I frickin' love the Cabalist.
LOL yeah I returned to this thread and was like "next" and saw a blank page 3... like whaaaat? Went back to page 2... okay... page 3.. WHaaat? Page 4.. okay.. Page 3? WHaaaaaaat? Thought my internet was acting up and not loading page 3! :D
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Aaah, okay thanks :D
Simon Legrande wrote:
Then you didn't understand the articles, or you refuse to. It's great that you don't see race, I myself used to be among that crowd until friends showed me that kind of thinking only works in a perfect, non-racist world. As for being lumped in with other racists, I have a Mexican friend who is very very critical about white people (especially men). She knows full well that I am white (and male). But, every time she says something critical about white (men), guess what I do? I agree with her because I see it too, and I know she's not talking about me, she's talking about those that actually are a problem. It's as simple as that. I recognize my privilege, and I recognize that this particular case she's being very unfairly treated simply because she's not a white (man). When anyone, especially a white person, says "I don't see race." then you pretty much are dismissing and refusing to acknowledge that racism exists at all. It's the same for gender. I see men and women as equal, but women are not equal, not yet. They should be, but they are not.
SO, you say "some of us are already there?" Well, then please come back from there and stand with us, and help the rest of the world join us there.
More like we've come far enough that many think women are equal under the law, when in fact they are not. There are still many professions where a woman gets paid less than a man, despite being fully capable of doing the same job. No, I don't think a woman who can't lift a 500 pound girder should get the same pay as a man who can. BUT if that woman can lift the 500 pound girder? Yes, she should. Same with corporate jobs. If the woman has equal or better grades than the man, she should get paid equal or better, but many times still, she won't.
Then, look at all the attacks on male presidents... we insult their intelligence, religion, etc... but never is there any reference to their gender or even appearance. Then look at female candidates... it's all about how women are hysterical and shouldn't be president and this and that, woman woman woman, and oh look at her what is up with her appearance??
Of course. As a gamer I might be super-critical of Anita Sarkeesian and hate her, BUT I'm also a feminist. But, being a feminist doesn't mean I have to agree with everything Anita says, and I don't. But, as I said in my last post, I do find she makes some very compelling and valid points.
But, were I not firmly in both sides of the equation as I am, who knows if I would be like "gamers are misogynistic pigs" or "feminists are all man-hating lesbians"? I can't really say because I am a feminist gamer.
I follow Anita Sarkeesian on Twitter and watch her "Video Game Tropes vs. Women" series. Do I agree with her completely? Nope. Do I see some of what she is saying? Yes. More importantly, does it make me think about what we all can do to make video games BETTER for men and women? Yes. One good point she makes is about Mass Effect. Sure, you could play a female Shepard, but who was on the box? Who was in all the promotional material? The male only. It wasn't until Mass Effect 3 that Bioware finally acknowledged that maybe the female Shepard deserved some attention. Then, she makes a point about "FemShep" being the name in her video about "Ms. Male Characters" which while I don't fully agree with in Mass Effect's case, I do still see her points as valid things to think about.
For example of high sexism accusations, should no more games like Lollipop Chainsaw be made? One could call it highly sexist because she's a skimpy cheerleader, but come on it's got RAINBOWS instead of blood when you enter "Sparkle Mode" as "Mickey" by Toni Basil plays while the first boss attacks you with highly vulgar (and highly sexist) insults that create real words on the screen that actually damage you... the game is so over the top on everything, can you really say it's not everything it's meant to be, one complete hilarious joke from James Gunn, the same man responsible for the Troma films (and Guardians of the Galaxy)?
I half joke that I am an equal opportunity sexist in Star Wars Old Republic because they have in that game skimpy outfits for women, as you would expect Star Wars to have but also, thanks to the mad photoshopping skills of a gamer on the forms (pretty sure from his work and things he's said, he's gay) Bioware took notice and works with him (don't know the details of his deal with them, if any, but he's always very happy to post the latest actual screenshots of his photoshopping turned real from the test server), and I have many of my male characters wear his skimpy stuff too.
Here is an example... This is my Jedi Guardian Serdneyjo and his Padawan Kira wearing the same exact "Relaxed Vestments" set (except the pants, she's wearing a female restricted bikini bottom and he's wearing a 'loincloth' that was introduced a few months ago, then she's got a different belt which I have since this screenshot was taken decided it looks bad on her, and now in game her belt matches his).
This is truly the direction I think gaming needs to go, 'equal opportunity sexist' joke aside.
Okay, so I am confused about... all of the PDFs I have say "Super Genius Games" did you recently change your name and are just not updating the older PDFs, or what? Like for example, I just bought the Magus book which is listed as being by Rogue Genius, but the actual PDF says Super Genius. The reason I am posting this here, is this seems to be a newer book as the cover art on this page says "RG" on it, not the light bulb that the Magus book has?
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Even if it's out of print, unless it's being distributed via legal channels, it's still not legal.
For example, a group I was with years ago that shared PDF scans of West End's Star Wars d6 game once directly asked West End if it was okay, and paraphrased, their answer was that while it didn't bother them since they were out of print, they must say that no it's not okay, because it very much does bother LucasFilm and Wizards of the Coast who now hold the license (and then to expand that to today, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast would say a similar thing, they might not care specifically if you pirated their Star Wars books being that they are all out of print, BUT they still have to say no, as now Fantasy Flight Games holds the new license)
In the end, unless it's become public domain, being out of print does not make sharing a book outside of approved channels okay.
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Cool, thanks! Addding it to my wish list now then :D