Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hoary Muntjac

AbsolutGrndZer0's page

1,144 posts (1,271 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Narquelion wrote:
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

Spoiler:
(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.

Weirdo wrote:


If your table continues to keep natural armour, that's fine, but I hope you at least understand why so many people would make a different call from you and your GM.

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:

Divine and arcane are game terms. Other than the fact that some clerics use holy symbols how do you tell if a person is casting a divine spell? As a player I can see cleric written on Bob’s character sheet, but my character cannot. Also how do you tell who is really a god? Razmir has about as much divine power as a turnip, but still claims to be a god. He has actually managed to pull off the fooling everyone. Considering that the other gods have not denounced him he may have even fooled them. He even has arcane casters pretending to be his priests which complicate the matter even further.

I had a friend who created a religion that denied not only gods, but magic itself. It claimed that the supernatural was not real and magic was just trickery and deception. Strangely enough the religion actually had clerics who cast spells, but they denied they were casting spells. They could only cast spells that spells that revealed tricks that revealed or protected against tricks. This was under 2nd edition AD&D and the campaign did not require memorization of spells. Pretty much all spell casters were spontaneous, before there was there were spontaneous casters. The founder of the religion was the great philosopher AtheI so the Atheists were a pain in rear.

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, yeah she's not from Rahadoum or anything, hell she's not even from Golarion. I just mentioned Rahadoum in the sense that she kind of has that same idea of mortals should do for themselves, not rely on so-called gods, especially when it's totally possible to become such beings themselves.


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?

boring7 wrote:


Also, look up the Athar from planescape. Good faction, fun times.

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...


Seems closed, the GM never posted again or contacted us.


Psi51 wrote:
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...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo--- inquisitor-archetypes/spellbreaker

It's a Inquisitor archetype called the "Spellbreaker"

Or, for a different focus, but still anti-caster there is this other Inquisitor archetype...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo--- inquisitor-archetypes/witch-hunter

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.
Natural armor is not a natural attack.

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.


Rambear wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.

But surely the design-choice with aging has been: You becme more frail as you get older (chest pains, sore joints ello!), but you also get smarter, wiser and a better leader (Ok, gray hair instills confidence) due to your life-experience and more time to ponder these things.

Simply because you turn undead does not mean that your mental faculties get blown to pieces, nor that you cannot learn anything new. So, the age bonusses to mental stats should stay. Iconic would be the Elder Vampire being smarter and more powerful than the young ones. Not just more powerful (class levels), but actually smarter and wiser. I would find it hard to argue that due to a change in biology undead would stop becoming smarter due to literally ages of experience they will gain.

You can even argue that although it does not kill you (undead ello!) that the sands of time do grind away some of the physical form of undead (Ancient Nosferatu being hideous and deformed and such, Lich becoming Demi-Lich). This would account for at least some drop in physical stats (but capping out and maybe not killing you).

So logically I could at least think of some reasons for just applying the aging rules for undead.

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:

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 true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using change shape reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use change shape to take the form of a creature with a template. Changing shape results in the following changes to the creature:

The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form.
The creature loses the natural weapons and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).
The creature gains the natural weapons, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.
The creature retains all other special attacks and qualities of its original form, except for breath weapons and gaze attacks.
The creature retains the ability scores of its original form.
Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.
The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components.
The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise.
Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and viceversa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:
The Indescribable wrote:
yes it is always sad when a succubus loses her status because she falls in love with a paladin.

.

Terquem wrote:
THAT would be an interesting turn of events, and one I might remember for future games.
.

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:

And I just ban magus because of boredom, way too overplayed for my taste.

I don't ban for that reason, but if I did...

Elves Banned.
Halflings Banned.
Fighters Banned.
Rogues Banned.
Wizards Banned.
Sorcerers Banned.
Black-Blood Oracles Banned. (This actually I am told I banned for real once, though I don't remember doing so. Player went ballistic when I made a BB Oracle NPC cause apparently I'd told him no. But seeing as how I don't ever ban stuff, I am to this day at a loss why I told him no, and it's not his reason he thought, to save it for my "special snowflake" NPC, as I'd not even decided to make her a BB Oracle until 3 months later)

That's about 9/10 times every game I run will include those combinations among the players.


Lemmy wrote:

Disliking the character just because she is buxom is as shallow as liking her just because of it.

Dante from Devil May Cry franchise could very well be classified as an "anime pretty boy", but I don't let that make me dislike him. In fact, he's one of my favorite characters (well, except for the Dante from the last game. That guy is a dick).

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.


Ashiel wrote:


Tifa Lockheart (FF7). Tough as nails, independent, and she ends up rescuing her love and the main character, helping him to overcome mental illness and paralysis that he cannot on his own. In addition to being integral to the entire plot, she's intelligent, strong willed, and courageous.

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...)


Lemmy wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Why are we telling women how to avoid being raped by a cop? We should be making sure cops do not rape!

Those are not mutually exclusive, you know?

No one should murder anyone. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be foolish to take precautions against being murdered.

"Why are you telling me to lock my doors instead of making sure people are not robbing me?" is just as nonsensical.

As a society, we do our best to prevent and punish crime (including rape), but we are also aware that no matter how much we try, some people will do it anyway, so we advise others to be careful and suggest possible precautions.

EDIT: Ninja'd by BNW.

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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Violent criminals are not like everyone else. They are people with severe empathy dysfunction, bad impulse control, or both, generally. These are handicaps you really don't understand from the popular science image of them. Try it. Try to imagine yourself surrounded by people you can't understand, indeed, never have been able to understand what they are feeling, but who treat you badly because they think you are a creep. Or imagine that every thought about something you want means you act on getting it... Only to be faced with the consequences of having done so after the fact. Imagine your life having been like this as far back as you can remember. Not quite your life, is it? To quote a good movie, it's pretty f&+&ing far from okay. How common are these defects? Well, one in ten, maybe, at some level of the handicap.

So... If you were to exclude these people from the statistics, who would be left among the perps? A lot of drug/alcohol situations, which are an artificial way to get the above handicaps. Beyond that? People in situations of extreme pressure. Psychosis, severe anxiety, other personality disorders, confusion, all are things that bring about the above, and slightly increase the risk of violence. See, normally functioning people generally don't enjoy beating or raping people. Part of the definition of normal.

A consequence of this, then, is that you need to be careful about who you are around. You need to be even more careful who you get drunk with. This goes equally for men and women, by the way, before you claim it is victim blaming. Be careful. Take precautions. Leave if the party gets too drunk and take your friends with you. If s$$* is starting to happen, call the cops. If your husband or wife has a serious drinking problem, leave them unless they deal with it.

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!


Lemmy wrote:


I've actually seen her videos... Or at least, two of them, that's all I could stomach. Her claims are much more often than not, just different wordings of "games are sexist, because damsel in distress".

The video where she mentions Manhunter as a game that encourages players to maim and kill women who only exist to be sexualized and tortured is disgustingly dishonest.

If there is any instance where she makes any good point, it's drowned in a sea of lies, cherry-picking and misinformation. She's not only yet another fear-mongering professional victim, she is a scam artist.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
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!


Gonna leave this YouTube song link from a woman of many talents (some of which she very much regrets) who was born in Steubenville, OH about her hometown, and I'm outta this thread... (for real this time, after this I've not nothing else to say)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J7H6DzO2qk


Lemmy wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I said...

All I meant is that if a man goes to the authorities and says his wife/girlfriend/random woman raped or assaulted him, chances are they will laugh at him and send him on his way, rather than take his claims seriously.

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.

True... But i'd bet money that not nearly as common as the man being laughed off.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Don't say "Men get raped too." say "Stop raping people."

I usually assume that's not something that needs saying in modernized countries, just like "Don't murder people". Sure, murder and crime still happen, but not because the society encourages it. It happens despite modern society's efforts to stop it.

Rapists and murderers are the exception, not the rule.

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.


Rynjin wrote:

Are there ANY characters in GTA V that are portrayed well?

The main characters are: A sociopathic car thief cum getaway driver, a sociopathic (but trying to reform, sort of) ex bank robber, and a full blown psycopath redneck thug.

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.

Quote:


The side characters run the gamut from someone who does nothing but smoke some seriously whacked out marijuana to a character who thinks aliens are arriving on Earth to an old couple who want you to bust into celebrity homes to steal souvenirs for them.

There is NO character that is portrayed as a normal upstanding member of society. Because that's not the point. The closest thing we get is Franklin's aunt, and she's not normal either (but definitely not sexualized, so you're wrong in saying there's not one. She's just a straw feminist/every woman who jumps on the hot new bandwagon person).

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.


Lemmy wrote:

I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I said...

All I meant is that if a man goes to the authorities and says his wife/girlfriend/random woman raped or assaulted him, chances are they will laugh at him and send him on his way, rather than take his claims seriously.

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."


Ashiel wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I would dare bet that for every game you can point out a female character that is a "sex object" or "victim", I can point out 3 female characters that aren't, or 3 male characters that are (or some combination in between). I'm going to bet on a 3 to 1 basis, just based on the games I've played since I've been alive. And I think 3 to 1 is a really "safe bet" as I think that it's actually probably easier to list more, but I'm assuming...

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 GTA5, but when it comes to the game's portrayal of women, it's pretty bad)

Oh, and just to clarify how I am presenting this, I am putting every woman I can think of from the game on the "bad" side, so tell me who should be on the "good" side.

I haven't played GTA V. Can you be more specific? Do you have a character name? Telling me "GTA V's portrayal of women is pretty bad", that's kind of vague, and the first thing it makes me think of is "GTA's protrayal of everybody is pretty bad". It's kind of a running gag. If you turn on the radio in pretty much every GTA game since III that I have played, you are treated to a hilarious parade of the worst examples of human beings. It's a game series that has little old ladies that call people douchebags when they pass you on the sidewalk.

But since I haven't played GTA V specifically, I can't really comment on it. Do you have some video examples, or a link to a character description? My brother has GTA V, so if you can give me a few days, I might be able to answer more adequately after I do some research (and by research, I mean playing the game, and you won't even have to donate to a kickstarter for me to do it).

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."


Ashiel wrote:


I would dare bet that for every game you can point out a female character that is a "sex object" or "victim", I can point out 3 female characters that aren't, or 3 male characters that are (or some combination in between). I'm going to bet on a 3 to 1 basis, just based on the games I've played since I've been alive. And I think 3 to 1 is a really "safe bet" as I think that it's actually probably easier to list more, but I'm assuming...

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)


Lemmy wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

See, when someone says "check your privilege" they are, intentionally or not, attempting to "win" immediately by invalidating whatever you just said.

White cishet males don't get to have opinions on "oppressed" people's issues that differ from the "oppressed"'s viewpoint. If they do, the usual rebuttal is "Chiggity check your privilege" *Mic drop*

Much like modern feminism, the whole concept of checking your privilege (which I'm sure started out as an innocent enough idea, that you should be aware of what you have and what others might not) has been tainted.

It's a loaded term at this point, which is why I don't use it, or really tolerate other people using it against me.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

The thing here is, I don't think anybody denies that privilege is a thing. Rich people have it better than poor people, white people (on average) have it better than black people. And so on.

The problem I have with it comes from the assumption that I should be ASHAMED of this.

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:


I figured "I'm smarter than you" is sufficient response to "You didn't understand, here's what you think". My position is good because I've reached it after a decade of self-reflection and examination.

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.


Kthulhu wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Hahahah, oh wow, the entire third page is gone.

ROTFLMAO

Until this, the worst I had seen for a single page was being reduced to 2-3 posts. But wow, the actual entire page got wiped. That's impressive, in a demented sort of way.

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:

Super Genius Games is a company that was started by friends of mine, that I wrote for over a span of several years. Eventually I became part owner.

Last year Super Genius Games bought me out, and in that deal I got the rights to both most of its Pathfinder-compatible products and to start my own company with "Genius Games" in the title as long as it didn't also have "Super" in the title.
So Rogue Genius Games was born.
Through RGG I sell a lot of SGG pdfs. I also write and release new material. Sometimes we update old SGG products, in which case we'll update the logo, but that's a very slow process.
So yes, a lot of RGG's older pdfs say SGG, because that is who originally published them.

Aaah, okay thanks :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:

That's what I said, I just said it more succinctly.

Believe it or not, there are some people who believe that race/gender/hair color truly does not matter. This is obviously not good for people who are pushing the agenda that race/gender/hair color does matter. The goal is supposed to be to live in a colorblind/genderblind world, some of us are already there.

I look at the police in Ferguson and see a bunch of bigoted a&&@)(#&. And then I see a bunch of people wanting to lump me in with them because my skin is the same color.

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.


thejeff wrote:


Apparently we've come far enough that the idea that women should be equal under the law is pretty accepted. Anything else, any discussion of sexism beyond that is still controversial.

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??


MMCJawa wrote:

I do think it's interesting that earlier in the thread, people were arguing that you can't paint all the people who complain about Sarkeesian, GamerGate, what have you as misogynists, because the people behind the death/rape threats are an extreme viewpoint that doesn't reflect gamers

But some of those same people think you can paint all feminists as bad, because of a few perhaps extreme individuals

That's a pretty interesting and informative pattern right there.

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).

Serdneyjo and Kira

This is truly the direction I think gaming needs to go, 'equal opportunity sexist' joke aside.


Race Change and Sex Change: Doppelganger! (Oh look, my gender changed to none)
Class: Witch (White-Haired)

Choice: Iron Gods!


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?


Hmmm just noticed it's been 10 days since the GM posted, maybe he/she figured there wasn't enough interest and gave up? I hope not...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just will let The Oatmeal (Matthew Inman) speak for me, he says it quite well. (Note, may be NSFW, as it has the F word)

How movie theaters SHOULD be laid out! by The Oatmeal.


Time zone?


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post. File sharing/piracy isn't OK here.

Huh? Scribd is a pirate site????

It's a long out of print book, I thought the link was legitimate.

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.


Dylos wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Um okay, so... why is Combat Expertise a must? It's melee weapon only, at least as I am reading the feat on d20pfsrd so you can't use it with guns...
It is required for Improved Feint and Two Weapon Feint.

Ah, those pesky worthless but required feats...


Owen KC Stephens wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
how does this compare and contrast to the ninja (where by the way I am here asking this after I saw an ad on d20pfsrd's ninja page) in general terms?
The shadow warrior is a fighting class. It has a full +1/level attack progression, all martial weapons (though a focus on and good reason to use exotic weapons), and some shadow powers. The shadow powers of a shadow warrior are more like a ranger's nature power or a cavalier's order -- they alter its flavor and focus, and in this case expand the class's Stealth utility, but it's still primarily a fighting class rather than a sneaky class.

Cool, thanks! Addding it to my wish list now then :D


Rynjin wrote:
redward wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Will McCardell wrote:


It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)

Few?

Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.

250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.

I don't know how you could possibly think that's a valid comparison.

How is it not?

Both are published works. Both have an editor, or team of editors working to make sure mistakes don't make it to print.

Is it possible to head off all mistakes? No.

But missing THIS MANY? Somebody dropped the ball. Hard.

Devil's Advocate (I've not read the ACG) but you want to see a total editor was on vacation so we just published it novel, check out the First Edition of Laurell K. Hamilton's Incubus Dreams. It was re-edited for the paperback version, but the hardcover copy was nigh unreadable except for those people (like me) who are able to naturally correct mistakes in their head without consciously noticing them (it's why I could never be an editor! I don't even notice the mistakes, because my mind automatically corrects them). It wasn't until after I read the book and read about all the issues, then went back specifically looking for them that I saw just how horrendously bad the book's editing was.

1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.