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

Alzrius's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,679 posts. 72 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Afterward, Aranna said that she often finds that fanservice detracts from an anime, and that social awareness can and has led to improved entertainment.

Which carries the rather condescending connotation that anime with fan-service is somehow less "improved" than anime without it, to say nothing of the idea that a reduction in fan-service is in any way related to "social awareness."

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Before Alzrius badgered him into leaving the thread, Tels said that he doesn't mind fanservice in general but doesn't like watermelon boobs.

A gross mischaracterization on your part, here. Debate, even spirited debate, is not badgering, even if the other person becomes upset. Likewise, if they choose to leave, they have not been talked "into" leaving the thread.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I understand a lot more than you think I do, and I think if you let yourself cool off a bit and consider the progression of this sub-topic, you'll see a different picture.

It's important to note the subtle dishonesty in the quoted passage, here. Even overlooking that it falls back on the old "you'd agree with me if only you really understood what I was saying; since you don't agree with me, therefore you simply fail to understand" cliche, it also posits that I'm somehow I'm worked up and need to "cool off" and that I haven't "consider[ed] the progression" of the thread.

All of which, obviously, is nonsense. As I mentioned above, engaging in a spirited discussion or debate is not indicative of losing one's cool. Likewise, I've considered the progression, and I find there to be no particular reason why I should consider the proverbial picture to be different.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
And no, I'm not up for dissecting all these post-fragments with you; I'm back at school and don't have the time or the energy.

So you want to respond, but don't have the time or the energy to engage in the actual debate that's going on. That's fine, but it makes it rather hard to discuss the issue with you when you don't want to have the give-and-take that's at the core of a conversation.

That's leaving aside the attempts to mischaracterize my position as "you just don't understand the other side of it," of course.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Although I suspect that you're too preoccupied with being right to try this, I'll again suggest that you put on your roleplayer hat the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy show and try to look at the wider picture, rather than focussing on all these little debate points.

Again, disagreement does not indicate a lack of understanding. It's quite ironic that you don't seem to understand this.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
...After you cool off for a while. Human empathy really benefits from a clear head.

Again, mischaracterizing that I somehow need to "cool off," as well as a new mischaracterization that I somehow haven't developed "human empathy."

Given that you've eschewed debating as taking too much time and energy, but have found the time and energy to try and paint a grossly-inaccurate picture regarding how I'm presenting my points, instead of what those points are, it's rather ironic that you'd position yourself as being in a position to talk about "human empathy."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

That's the debate we're having.

There were plenty of arguments about whether racism was "moral corruption" or just the natural way of things.

No, it's not. That's the manner in which you're attempting to frame it, but I believe that's fundamentally misguided. No way is mentioning anything about "just the natural way of things" here; rather, this is a debate about whether or not people should feel ashamed to create/enjoy the stories that they enjoy, because they don't live up to the moral dogma of other people.

thejeff wrote:
You disagree and think there's nothing wrong with it, therefore you're opposed to there being any shame attached.

I disagree because I don't believe that the terms you're attempting to impose apply here. This isn't about racism; it's about moral authoritarianism.

thejeff wrote:
In cases where you do think a thing is seriously morally wrong, do you have a problem with using shame and social scorn?

Yes, I do. All that you're proposing here is "the ends justify the means," because you believe that what you're trying to achieve is "right" and therefore it doesn't matter if you damage the people who don't believe as you do.

That's not a reason - it's an excuse, and a poor one at that.

thejeff wrote:
Can't promise I won't fail a save against a new post in a couple days and jump back in though. :)

I'm ready when you are. ;)

Seriously, I think that debate is good, so long as it doesn't descend into acrimony, and we've all been pretty good about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Because as we all know racism in media and society was stopped without anybody ever saying it was bad to be racist.

Because as we all know, a sexy female character in a story (even if it "doesn't make sense" - whatever that means) has the same moral corruption as racism in media and society.

Quote:
And if such a thing was ever said, that was itself the real problem, because any such accusation is a horrible thing to do to people.

That's why we need to continue to speak out against the evils of communism, Elvis, and Dungeons & Dragons, and not allow people to convince us that such things aren't bad when we know that they put real bad thoughts into real people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
The approach is to change what the public wants, which is a harder and slower process.

All the moreso if you don't try to characterize something as being immoral just because it's not to your tastes, and by extension imply that anyone who likes said thing as being immoral themselves, and deserve to have shame and humiliation heaped upon them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Fine. You understand. You just ignore.

Incorrect. I disagree.

Quote:
Bringing up the high art makes that glaringly obvious.

I should point out that you were the one who specifically referenced "high" art to begin with. I was speaking to works of creative expression of all stripes.

thejeff wrote:
That wouldn't fall into the "type of fan service that objectifies women" category, so it's not relevant.

I don't recognize that category, as I don't believe that the depiction of fictitious characters within the context of a work of fiction at all dehumanizes real people, nor that it has any particular ability to modify the attitudes or beliefs of sane, rational adults.

thejeff wrote:

You don't find the distinction meaningful, so you write as if others aren't making the distinction either and want anything arousing to go away. Including things that make sense in context and things that reach the level of high art.

Which is a blatant misrepresentation.

It's not misrepresentation; I find her point about "X kinds of female fan-service is not objectification" to be disingenuous, as I've stated previously, due to the inherent subjectivity of her distinction undermining the morally-objective classification she makes about how "not-X kinds of female fan-service is objectification of women."

Since her qualifiers don't match the nature of her objection, and can't be meaningfully responded to anyway, since she's not quantifying how one judges "makes sense in the context of the scene" (since she can't), the only possible response must therefore overlook said qualifiers and respond to her overall point regarding the supposedly-objective charge of "fan-service objectifies women."

thejeff wrote:
Even in this post, where you say that you see the distinction you do away with it: Hentai is a place for such fanservice (where such refers to fanservice that objectifies women) leads immediately to "all such titillating qualities - at least with regards to female characters should be relegated to porn."

See above. When someone says "this thing is harmful to society, except for these instances that I don't think are so bad," it's not at all misrepresentative to overlook their exceptions, since they haven't quantified them, and debate their larger point.

thejeff wrote:
I won't speak for Aranna and I don't actually agree that the place for such things is Hentai, but I do have problems with fanservice and objectification in anime. Despite that I do see a big difference between a risque scene as part of the plot in a romance anime and upskirt shots in a fight scene in an action one. The first could easily be more arousing, but neither fanservice nor objectifying.

The more salient detail is if you think that such "objectification" is in any way morally corrupt, or has any kind of detrimental impact on society (or at least more detriment than worth, or even more detriment than any effort to remove it would generate).

thejeff wrote:
Drawing that line is of course difficult, as Sissyl mention, and I would oppose any kind of official ban or censorship, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see less of it. Especially when it's crammed into otherwise quite good shows.

Sure, that's your opinion. But you're not presenting your opinion as a fact, by making categorical statements that "fan-service reduces us to sextoys in the eyes of boys" the way Aranna is. I disagree with her, and I feel that she's spreading a negative message that does far more actual harm than what she's speaking out against, and so I speak out against that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
OTOH, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the usual pantie shots and towel scenes are really high art.

Is it? Note the linked statue of Venus, above. It's considered high art now, and it's a woman admiring her own butt. Shakespeare is full of naughty double-entendres, and it's considered high art now.

Saying that fan-service can't be considered high art - or art of any kind, for that matter - is far, far more of a stretch.

Quote:
Nor of course did she say that anything "that's at all meant to be arousing or titillating" should be relegated to porn. Just "type of fan service that objectifies women".

Leaving aside the unsupported allegation that fan-service objectifies women, her saying that hentai anime was "a place" to see such fan-service implies that there's no place for it to be found anywhere else. Hence, she did indeed communicate that she believes that all such titillating qualities - at least with regards to female characters - should be relegated to porn.

Quote:
You may not think she sees a difference, because you don't believe any of it "objectifies women" and thus can't see any distinction.

This is the same disingenuous "you only disagree because you don't understand; if you did understand, you'd agree" argument. I do see the distinction she's making - e.g. her idea that seeing any fan-service of women is only okay (in what I presume is a moral sense of what's okay and what isn't) if it makes sense within the context of the scene's presentation. I just don't find that distinction meaningful, or her overall point to be a valid one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Oh there is a place for the type of fan service that objectifies women, under the hentai label. Where there is no question at all about what your going to see when you play it.

Aranna's point is worth underlining here, in that her call for segregating anything that's at all meant to be arousing or titillating for the audience to purely pornographic works is actually a call to lower standards of expectation.

The reason for this is that it's reasonably assumed that any work of creative expression is to be lauded for being able to be appreciated on multiple levels simultaneously. If we can find something appealing in more than one fashion, then we in turn recognize additional merit in that thing.

As an example, one can find a statue to be well-crafted, and so finds it appealing for the skill it conveys. Hence, the statue is appreciated on one level. By contrast, a statue of a historical personage, such as Gattamelata, can be appreciated both for the skill of the sculptor as well as the history that it evokes, being pleasing on two levels.

Likewise, something like the Venus Callipyge, can be appreciated for its skilled work, for its historical appreciation (as recalled in the Deipnosophists), and for its erotic appeal. As it can be appreciated on three different levels at once, it can therefore be enjoyed to a greater degree than the previous two examples.

As such, saying that "all erotic or titillating qualities should be confined purely to porn" is a disingenuous statement with regards to appreciating artwork in any form. It's a call to hold things to a lower standard, masquerading as a higher one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Sorry bro, but I don't argue with people who make so many offensive assumptions and misinterpretations of my words.

It's telling that you don't seem to recognize the difference between an argument and a debate. All the moreso that you characterize a difference of opinion of being "assumptions" and "misinterpretation" of your words, rather than understanding and finding fault with your points.

If you don't feel up to debating the issue, that's fine, but saying that the other person just can't understand what you're saying, and so it's a waste of your time, is simply disingenuous.

Quote:
Good talk though. Maybe you'll figure it out someday on your own.

Maybe someday you'll figure out that I've already figured it out, and just disagree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
And the tragedy is that a role player such as yourself needs more expound-ment to see a problem with fanservice.

Here I'd have said that the tragedy was that you're objectively stating that something is a problem, rather than recognizing that this is simply an opinion.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Maybe the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy anime, role play an impressionable teenage girl with low self-esteem. And then imagine that you always have been and always will be that female anime fan until the day you die.

The sheer number of presumptions made in this example are staggering.

You've highlighted that she's already impressionable - which is either redundant if you accept that all children are this way, or a notable underlying condition if you don't think that all children are this way - and that she has low self-esteem to begin with.

Is it not worth asking why she has such low self-esteem to start with, let alone what can be done about that? Because you've condemned her to remain that way "until [she] die[s]."

One would think that the more worthwhile role-playing would be that girl engaging in some theraputic role-playing with a licensed mental health professional, since there's clearly some sort of reason that she has low self-esteem to begin with which will remain a problem whether or not she ever watches fan-service.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
That'll be much more enlightening than spending hours and hours throwing every conceivable argument at some anonymous internet posters you feel compelled to argue with.

It's enlightening only to the extent that you don't seem to recognize that, even in the example you made up whole-cloth, the pre-existing low self-esteem is the issue.

thejeff wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact that the example uses a flawed premise.

thejeff wrote:
Showing girls that, regardless of their other accomplishments, they have to be sexy and show off for men, has nothing at all to with "ANYONE being good at anything, being praised, being in good shape, doing anything that might be a problem in any situation, and so on. Is it okay to show elite sports?" Other than you jumping on the Low Self-esteem buzzword.

This presumes that fan-service necessarily encapulates (and flawlessly transmits) the message that "girls [...] have to be sexy and show off for men," which is far from certain.

Likewise, even if children are exposed to that message as an unintended consequence of interacting with the world, the burden is not on the world to stop sending anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. Rather, the onus is on those childrens' parents to make sure that such messages aren't internalized.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Grimmy wrote:

Do you guys prefers subs or dubs for anime?

I greatly prefer subs unless I'm so tired I can barely read.

Subs, always.

I have some moderate proficiency at spoken Japanese, thanks to several classes in high school and college, and so I can sometimes recognize nuances in the spoken parts that the subtitles don't catch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It has now been officially confirmed, there will be an eleventh season of Supernatural!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate why this is at all worthy of moral outrage.
I can see why Aranna pegged you for a troll.

The irony is that, without expounding on that, your statement here is trolling in and of itself.

I'm quite willing to debate the issue regarding fan-service, but as I've said, so far everyone who's put forth that it's immoral due to its influence on society have yet to back that position up with anything other than personal opinions or unfounded statements about how it teaches children to objectify women.

If you believe otherwise, I invite you to share your reasoning here, and likewise critique my own.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Ok clearly Alzrius is a troll. Putting him on ignore.

Clearly Aranna is being intentionally dishonest here. I'm not putting her on ignore though, since 1) I think that her willfully attempting to promote a culture of shame needs to be spoken out against, and 2) I'm not afraid to debate these issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
This is why I called out Alzrius for his relentless attacks on poor Tels as "ruining the thread for him", a little civility goes a long way.

Debating a point is not at all the same thing as a "relentless attack." Despite what you seem to think, spirited disagreement is not the same thing as harassment.

Likewise, disingenuous and misleading statements - even if spread civilly - are not okay.

Aranna wrote:
There IS a right way to do fan service without objectifying women BTW.

I agree, except insofar that I think that's recognizing that fan-service is not in and of itself objectifying at all.

Aranna wrote:
Take a beach setting or a swim team and you suddenly have a very relevant reason to show off your girls in very little clothing. One that certainly doesn't hurt the story. But a lot of anime pile it on ... kind of like burying your cake in a pile of icing as was pointed out earlier. Which just supports my original assertion "in most cases fan service ruins the story"

It doesn't support your original assertion at all, because your assertion is stated as an objective, categorical truth, whereas the analogy I made earlier was clearly noted, and intended, to carry a caveat of "this is a personal opinion, that will vary for everyone."

Aranna wrote:

Thank you Alzrius and Greylurker,

Ikki Tousen and Rosario+Vampire are going onto my avoid list.

You're very welcome. The less anime that you're spreading misleading statements regarding "objectifying women" about, the better things will be for the fans of those anime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
xavier c wrote:
Monsters that are summoned with summon monster spells do not exist outside of the spell effect.

That's not what the sub-school description says (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

Terminology like "brings" and "where it came from" make it clear that monsters that are summoned with summon monster spells do indeed exist outside of the spell effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Hmph! We don't need to make them demihumans any more included; we include 'em all enough already! Hell, back in muh day you couldn't even have a dwarf be a arcayn spellcaster what all - now they're complainin' that they take a penulty to bein' a sorcerer? Pshaw!

Those durn demihumans today don't know how good they have it. Why, you can't even call 'em "demihumans" anymore, since they went 'n' decided that it was all 'ffensive now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm curious. How much of your opposition here is to the method and how much to the goal?

Do you oppose the use of social pressure for any worthwhile goals or is it mostly that you don't have a problem with the fan-service?

Yes. :)

Simply put, I look askance on the use of leveraging pressure against others to force them to comply with your preference for how things should, in your opinion, be. That said, I do recognize that there are instances where there simply is no better alternative for achieving changes that are ultimately for the better. For example, I'm opposed to the use of organized boycotts as a means of putting economic pressure on businesses to change their business practices, but at the same time it's hard to imagine how else apartheid would have been brought to an end.

That said, I don't believe that fan-service is anywhere close to being a comparable issue, insofar as I'm not at all convinced that it's any more of a social ill than D&D itself was.

So in this case, I'm opposed to both the method and the goal. It's inflicting real social harm against real people to achieve a goal that's not at all worthwhile, in my opinion. Now, I'm certainly open to changing my mind about either of these topics, but so far no one is presenting a good reason for doing so. "I don't like it" and "it corrupts the youth" simply don't measure up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
You need to change the hearts and minds of the people in order to use social pressure/shaming/humiliation. If everyone, or even a large minority, likes something or at least doesn't think it's bad, then there's no pressure, shame or humiliation involved.

Except that we know that's not true; one doesn't need to be subject to shaming from everyone - or even a majority of people - in order for it to have a devastating effect on their lives. You can very much have pressure, shame, and humiliation involved when it only comes from a small group of people.

As an example, teens who commit suicide due to bullying and shaming aren't being bullied and shamed by everyone they meet, but just from a select group of people. It's still enough to drive them to suicide.

Social pressure and shame from even a small segment of society can be enough to cause a great deal of harm. That's without even getting into the climate of fear that's created among others who may support the person being shamed, making them too afraid to show support due to anxiety that they'd be subject to the same treatment.

(This doesn't even get into instances of the small group of people in question being in positions of disproportionate influence.)

Quote:
It's a feedback loop, of course. As you convince more people, it's easier to use social pressure to convince others.

Anything that gains popularity will gain momentum; that's separate from the question of whether or not it should be popular in the first place.

Quote:
This is basically how any social change happens.

If you mean through a positive feedback loop, then I don't disagree. If you mean through shame-induced conformity, then I disagree strongly.

Quote:
Attempting to convince individuals through pure reason and logic may be a more moral approach, but it's not how people actually change. Certainly not how societies actually change.

Again, we know that this isn't true. History is rife with examples of both people and society changing through an appeal to their better natures, rather than their worse ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Well honestly, shaming people into compliance is probably the best approach.

"Best" in what regard? Because there's a difference between "most effective" and "most moral" (and, for that matter, "most likely not to cause harm to the people you want to convince").

Quote:
Or more accurately, a slow process of shifting people's attitudes from preferring fan-service laden shows to less fan-servicey ones and convincing the creators that fan-service doesn't sell.

Leveraging shame and public reprobation - if not humiliation - and other forms of social pressure to make people conform to the standards that you find acceptable is, in my opinion, the worst way to go about this. Far more preferable to try and convince people why your reasoning has merit and should be adopted, than using a threat of social penalties if they fail to comply.

Of course, that presumes that your reasons have merit to begin with. Why is such a shift in attitudes desirable in the first place?

Quote:

The best analogy is probably sf/fantasy cover art, which has largely made that transition.

There was no detailed study of the effects of such art, nor any specific plan to remedy the situation, just a gradual shift and years of people complaining about it and others demanding their T&A.

I question how good of an analogy that really is - what you're talking about here can be viewed as leveraging (admittedly diffuse) economic pressure to drive something that a subset (albeit a vocal one; and not necessarily a major one) of people don't like out of distribution. That doesn't undercut the desires for such things that others have, nor does it mean that such materials won't appear in other venues - there's a reason why fan-service is still popular.

If you can't change the hearts and minds of the people, rather than leveraging social pressure to make them conform, then it's questionable how much of a difference you're actually making.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, so we should avoid that.

I think that more people should listen to you on that particular note.

Quote:
Does that mean no concern at all? No one should ever express their concern with anime fanservice (or any one of so many other similar issues of portrayals of various groups in media) for fear of moral panics, heavy handed censorship or just having no actual effect.

There's nothing wrong with concern unto itself, provided that it's a prelude to some sort of rational investigation into the matter and subsequently - if such an investigation determines that a problem is actually there (and in the case of fan-service, I do not believe that this can be stated with anything close to conclusive determination) - a plan for how to remedy the situation practically (note this word, which means that there's something here beyond personal intuition) while causing as little collateral harm as possible (e.g. shaming people into compliance).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Because as we all know, the only way unwanted depictions of groups in any media have ever changed is with strict censorship bans.

That's how portrayals of blacks in American movies, TV and cartoons changed. That's how portrayals of homosexuals have changed more recently.

Because as we all know, moral panics about things that corrupt the youth of society have always led to the expulsion of immoral influences on our culture, to everyone's benefit.

That's how we got rid of Elvis. And rock 'n' roll. And violent video games ("murder simulators"). And Socrates.

And Dungeons & Dragons, for that matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Being able to quantify something, or not, does not determine the validity of an argument or opinion.

No, but it does determine the validity of the argument that you're advancing, which is that making "less excessive" fan-service will somehow cause fewer young girls to internalize bad messages about their sexuality, while still allowing for people to have "appropriate" amounts of fan-service for their consumption.

If that's the nature of your argument, then it falls on you to quantify exactly how much less fan-service should be produced (and the metric by which you make that quantification).

Quote:
Because people couldn't quantify that the US should be "less racist" do you think, then, that racial segregation should still be a thing? Should black people ride at the back of the bus, and eat at separate restaurants and attend separate schools?

This is a false equivalence, and a poor one at that. People creating the fiction that they want to create, without being publicly shamed for the fact that it doesn't comply with other people's morals, is not comparable to social and legal policies that restrict the rights of actual people.

Quote:
You seem to imply that if I can't quantify exactly how much fanservice should be in a show, that I'm not allowed to desire there be less fanservice, and in fact, that there should be more fanservice.

I'm not implying, but rather stating outright, that your argument for "less fan-service" as a recipe for the social ill of "girls internalizing bad messages about themselves" requires that you explain what you mean by "less fan-service," which you seem unable or unwilling to do.

Quote:
Have you even seen any of these shows I've mentioned? Highschool of the Dead, Girls Bravo and Kill la Kill, specifically. Try giving them a watch and then see if you can keep to your argument about "what qualifies overwhelming fanservice?"

I've seen Kill La Kill, and I can easily keep my argument about "what qualifies as overwhelming fan-service," since that show went out of its way to contextualize the amount of fan-service that it had (to the point of making it part of the central premise of the show). Indeed, Kill La Kill could very well be called an example of "fan-service done right," in my opinion.

Quote:
Fact of the matter is, some shows take fanservice too far. Some shows don't. However, this has been a growing tendency in anime to include more and more fanservice for no reason other than fanservice.

So you say. Can you back that up as being anything other than your intuition or opinion? If not, then your idea that it needs to be "reduced" is not viable as a recipe for how to make things better for young girls everywhere.

Quote:

Let me state again, undeniably clearly so you can't possibly misinterpret what I'm saying.

I don't want fanservice removed from anime entirely.

Did that come across clearly? I hope so, because if it didn't, then you need professional help.

Straw-manning here, and with a weak ad hominem attack thrown in. You've made it clear that you don't want fan-service gone, just "less excessive." Of course, you don't seem to have any idea what that means, and become agitated when pressed for a definition, so there's little conclusion that can be drawn except for the fact that you don't really know what it is that you're calling for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tels wrote:
I would just prefer that there was less overwhelming fanservice in certain shows.

How do you quantify "less overwhelming"? How do you determine that your quantification of that term is the optimal one for the goals you're trying to achieve, rather than someone else's? How do you determine what those "certain" shows are, and how is that determination superior to the determinations that others make?

There are no answers to these questions, or at least none that aren't a purely arbitrary opinion. Hence why the whole "I don't want to eliminate fan-service, I just want to reduce it (to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub)" argument strikes me as a sop - it's so utterly imprecise that it can't hold as even the flimsiest baseline for promoting a change in cultural attitudes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Tels wrote:
It's really telling to me, as a person, that you seem to think moderation of fanservice is a bad thing, and that, instead, you would rather there be more of it. The implication I draw from this, is you already view women as objects, and that's why it doesn't bother you.
Maybe you can offer an example of what would be a more moderate approach to fanservice would be? The moderation espoused here sounds a lot like elimination from where I'm standing. Moreover, enjoyment of any titillating material is being aligned with the shaming I feared earlier.

Freehold DM brings up a good point here: Tels' assertion that not wanting to restrict fan-service implies that I think of actual women like objects is a prime example of cultural shaming. It's the old "you like something I find to be bad - therefore, you must be a bad person," message all over again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tels wrote:

It is in the works of fiction, where our fantasies bloom. The sexualized depiction of women in a work of fiction, repeated over many years, especially during the developing years of the child or teenagers core personality, will reinforce a mentality of the individual to view women in a sexual nature.

The repeated exposure of kids to shows that, subtly or not, portray women as sexual objects will reinforce, in their minds, a woman's place as a sexual object. It does not matter if the show is of a fictitious nature or not, what matters is the exposure to the media.

You've completely ignored what I wrote before, regarding the responsibility of parents and guardians to examine what ideals and beliefs children have internalized and, if necessary, help to uproot the bad ones.

I'll say again; children internalize everything they come into contact with, in order to try and figure out how to engage with the world. The best way to help them sort through the vast sea of information they're subjected to on a regular basis is not try and control what media exists for them to consume, but to have a responsible parent help them form a strong sense of identity and ethics.

This idea of "kids who see sexualized imagery will internalize it" only works if it happens in a complete vacuum, which is unrealistic. Moreover, even if a lack of responsible parenting does lead a child to internalize bad messages about female sexuality, that's still not reason enough to tone down the prevalence of fan-service - something bad that might happen to someone isn't a strong enough reason not to create the stories you want to create.

(This is leaving aside your overly simplistic assertion that "if girls view sexualized women, they'll internalize negative messages about female sexuality." Given that people interpret things in radically different ways, and that almost all fiction tends to have different aspects that can be referenced, the idea that fan-service must inherently send a negative message is far from cut-and-dried.)

Tels wrote:
It's no different than the dehumanization of an enemy country to encourage the peoples' willingness to kill the enemy. Raising people to think that those not of a certain religion aren't human and are, therefore, okay to kill, is an extreme example of this.

It's extremely different, since what you're talking about necessarily references actual people and beliefs, as opposed to a work of fiction referencing fictional people in a fictional context. Not to mention what I said above about having parents who'll explain the difference between what happens in fiction and an appropriate way to deal with people in real life.

Tels" wrote:
It's really telling to me, as a person, that you seem to think moderation of fanservice is a bad thing, and that, instead, you would rather there be more of it. The implication I draw from this, is you already view women as objects, and that's why it doesn't bother you.

This is all the proof you could need that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're taking an attitude I have regarding fiction, and presuming that it tells you something about how I interact with real people in real life. That makes about as much sense as saying that because I prefer Star Trek instead of Star Wars, then I must be a communist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tels wrote:
What they said is not wrong, portraying women as objects of a sexual nature does indeed reduce them to sexual objects.

No, it doesn't. A sexualized depiction of a woman in a work of fiction does not reduce the intrinsic value or dignity of women in the real world. Certainly, some people may feel that way, but that's just an opinion that has no objective weight behind it.

Now, one could say that the character in a given work of fiction has been reduced to nothing but a sexual object, but so what? That has no impact on any real people, and so does not warrant any particular moral indignation.

Tels wrote:
However, women do this to themselves when they dress or act sexy; they attempt to put themselves into a position in their targets mind to induce sexual feelings.

I disagree here as well - this conflates sexual objectification with sexual desirability. The two are not the same thing.

Tels wrote:
However, repeated and gratuitous fanservice is a bad thing. It can give younger minds a demented sort of perception on the world and a woman's place in it. Sometimes the objectification of women is very subtle.

See my previous post about this; the fact that something might make a child internalize a bad idea is not legitimate disincentive to create, or consume, said thing. Questions of subtlety or obviousness are irrelevant here. "Won't someone think of the children?" isn't an objection that deserves to be taken seriously.

(I'm omitting any references to Fairy Tail simply because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't like to talk about things I'm unfamiliar with. Also, spoilers.)

Tels wrote:
I would vastly perfer a more moderate tendency towards fanservice.

And I wouldn't prefer such a thing. But would you support leveraging public shame and reprobation against those who don't want less fan-service?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Way to completely miss what people are saying and instead only hearing what you want to hear.

Way to be completely ironic in describing yourself when you attempt to describe someone else.

Seriously, when people make categorical statements about how fan-service is undeniably bad...

Aranna wrote:
Fan service reduces us to sex toys in the eyes of boys
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Because here's the thing: fanservice creates a very subtle but very real effect on women and especially girls.

...then saying that they "want to stamp it out of existence" may be hyperbole, but it's hyperbole that's not at all unwarranted.

Tels wrote:
I don't recall anyone saying "fanservice is bad and must be completely eradicated from the face of the planet". Instead, they would like it dealt out in moderation.

The idea of "we don't want it gone, we just want it in moderation" is a highly disingenuous statement. That's because there's no definition for what "in moderation" constitutes, let alone how you'd quantify (or enforce) opinions like "when it's unnecessary" or "when it's excessive."

Given the utter uselessness of those statements as goals, it's kind of hard to take them seriously.

You find that there's too much fan-service in a given show? Okay...why should your opinion be the baseline that's drawn from with regards to anime? Why should fan-service have to have a reason for being included beyond fan-service for its own sake? How do you prove that's something's there for more than "just it's own sake"?

It's fine to have opinions on these questions; what's not fine is the implication that the people who make/enjoy things that you don't like need to have public pressure brought on them until they're too ashamed to make/consume the things that you don't like anymore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm surprised how difficult it seems for some anime fans to see why fanservice might be really objectionable to women.

I'm surprised how difficult it seems for some anime fans to see why other people don't care that they happen to find some content objectionable. They honestly seem to be under the impression that they've objectively identified some sort of social problem - they haven't. Rather, they're just stating their opinion, which is no more worthy of consideration than the opinion of someone else who celebrates fan-service.

This idea that fan-service needs to be stamped out so as to preserve the self-esteem of little girls everywhere would be laughable, if so many people didn't seem to think that this was somehow a laudable goal. It's not. Even leaving aside the overwhelming logistical issues of trying to stamp out something so pervasive and so popular (to say nothing of the inherent contradiction in trying to make one group feel better about themselves by shaming other groups), it's the very definition of treating a symptom, rather than a cause.

Is it possible that a child might watch fan-service and internalize a bad message? Absolutely. But here's the thing: that has nothing to do with the nature of fan-service unto itself. The nature of children is that they haven't fully formed their own identity - they're still trying to piece together their sense of self, their beliefs, their morals, etc. In order to do that, they're absorbing and internalizing everything that they witness.

Because of that, children are analyzing and mimicking absolutely everything they see. Every TV show, every magazine, every conversation the people around them have; all of it is a source to draw upon when a child tries to figure out how to interact with the world.

The problem isn't about segregating children from anything that could be conceivably taken as a lesson that teaches them lessons everyone else would consider bad - as noted above, that's simply not feasible (to say nothing of how even children are creative enough that they can interpret even the most benign things in unexpected ways). Rather, what's necessary is for parents (and other dedicated adults) to monitor their children's progress and engage with them when it looks like a bad lesson has been internalized.

Parenting, in other words, is not about running a 24/7 pass-block on the media that children consume. Rather, it's about taking the time to talk and interact with your children, figuring out what they think and feel and why they think and feel that way, and if necessary working to change their minds and set them back onto a path for proper development.

Rearing children is, in this regard, like tending to a garden. You don't need to spend every moment of every day out amongst the flowers, plucking every single weed (e.g. poor moral lesson) the instant it sticks its head above the soil. It's enough to spend some time in the garden each day, pruning the weeds and nurturing the flowers, to make sure that it turns out healthy and beautiful.

By contrast, saying that fan-service needs to be done away with forever is like saying that we need to come up with a way to kill all dandelions. It's impractical, it ignores the fact that there are weeds other than dandelions, and it's off-putting to those of us who happen to like dandelions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some more posts. Guys, we asked you to please not derail this thread. If you want to have a discussion about real life gender issues, there are plenty of ongoing threads for this purpose.

For everyone's convenience, when deleting posts because there are "other threads about that," would you mind posting links to those threads so that people know where they should go?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Guy St-Amant wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

Honestly, the whole "getting off-topic" reason for locking threads has always struck me as being incredibly poor.

Conversations, by their very nature, are fluid; topics change organically as people talk, and that's not a bad thing. I've been the OP in threads where the nature of the discussion has changed, and I've been a part of that change, only to suddenly find the thread locked for getting away from the original topic - it's frustrating, and unnecessary.

I honestly wish the mods here would stop doing that, or at least tone it back.

There are differences between evolving naturally and intended thread derailment (even if the derailment can be made in subtle manners).

When someone is intentionally derailing a thread, that's cause for removing their posts - locking the entire thread because of that is just giving the derailers what they want (e.g. the original topic is no longer being discussed).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Honestly, the whole "getting off-topic" reason for locking threads has always struck me as being incredibly poor.

Conversations, by their very nature, are fluid; topics change organically as people talk, and that's not a bad thing. I've been the OP in threads where the nature of the discussion has changed, and I've been a part of that change, only to suddenly find the thread locked for getting away from the original topic - it's frustrating, and unnecessary.

I honestly wish the mods here would stop doing that, or at least tone it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Fiend Fantastic wrote:

What if we gave the succubus a delicious icecream?

Nudge nudge

I'd prefer succubi with cake; optimally, with her inside of one.

...of course, being Chaotic Evil, the cake would be a lie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:
For my next game, players will only be allowed to be catgirls.

I'd also like my next group of players to be catgirls - though I don't really care what sort of characters they'd make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
OldSkoolRPG wrote:

Another interesting discussion has been taking place in another thread on whether you can force someone that you have grappled to stand up from prone.

So in the context of this thread the question would be if a succubus has been knocked down and is prone and I have successfully grappled her can I then knock her up?

Clearly you'll need to try many, many times in order to find out for certain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

Cats and hyenas are more closely related to each other than either are too dogs, but it still really isn't accurate to refer to them as cats

With similar logic, if you are going to call hyenas cats, than you should also be referring to walruses, seals, bears, and skunks as dogs, since all of those are in Caniformia.

...and trying to cross-breed them is what's known as Canifornication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Fiend Fantastic wrote:

Come to think of it, wouldn't this qualify for Golarion geographic?

They're always searching for new stuff to show the masses.

I hear that some succubi like it when the masses watch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
xavier c wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
I'm trying to learn what, if anything, that I'm not considering.

On the one hand, I think you're underestimating what "legal convenience" actually amounts to. It has been estimate that there are something like 2000 individual legal rights that accompany a legal (heterosexual) marriage by default, many of them traditions (like spousal testimonial privilege) that date back to common law and that may not have been formalized into statute, depending upon where you live. If you assume that each right requires one document to formalize, and each document, in turn, requires an hour to prepare, that's a full-time job for a lawyer for a year to draw up an equivalent of marriage..... and then you have the risk that there were actually 2001 rights, and he through ignorance, mischance, or error missed one.

There is also an issue is that many of the privileges attendant upon marriage are in fact policy decisions that depend upon a third party. Insurance companies, for example, don't generally have a choice about whether or not to cover a legal spouse, but they can and do play games about unmarried partners (see pH unbalanced's comments above). The middle of a medical crisis is not a time to have to worry about legal and financial ones as well.

On the other side,.... religion. Nothing brings out the crazy obstructionism like religion.

You know there are progressive christians and gay christians

gaychurch.org or gaychristian.net are some gay christian websites

And there are LGBT affirming denominations like

Ecumenical Catholic Church

Metropolitan Community Church

Old Catholic Church

Quakers

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Don't forget the Dudeists, man! As an ordained minister, I can say that we, like, totally abide the whole same-sex marriage thing; weddings serve a lot of white russians.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Arikiel wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Arikiel wrote:

I don't.

Once you set the animal-people precedent then you have to start allowing squirrel-people, and giraffe-people, and aardvark-people, etc. While magic can be used to take on such forms they just don't exist as species in my world.

Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope.

True but the only way to avoid going down that slope is to arbitrarily limit it to only "cool" animals.

Which doesn't really make any sense.

It's not arbitrary if you posit that many of these races were created by meddling wizards and interventionist deities.

God of Awesome: I'm going to create some cat-people, it'll create a cool contrast to the minotaurs and lizardfolk that the world has.

God of Nerds: But that'sh totally illogical! You can't jusht arbitrarily create new raches bashed on shome animalsh and not oth-AAGH!

*God of Awesome uses Wedgie on God of Nerds! It's super effective!*


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Because I want to play a samurai that makes pizza, and since that's already two-thirds of the way there...

(A free internet to anyone who gets the reference!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
Social justice is, broadly speaking, correct. And so Social Justice Warriors are, broadly speaking, on the right side.

This statement seems to ignore the distinction I was making in my prior posts. The philosophy of social justice - applied to the realms of legal, workplace, and social situations - is one that I would indeed classify as (morally) correct. "Social justice warriors," by contrast, are those who feel that it should also be applied to art, fiction, and media, which I think has legitimate points of critique.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
It's not much... it's a question whether or not there is a SINGLE scene in a movie where two women talk to each other, and it's not about a man.

Forgive the nitpicking, but the requirement is actually that two named female characters talk to each other about something other than a man. The caveat that they be more than nameless background characters tends to be overlooked a lot when the guidelines of the Test are relayed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. The people who crusade in the banner of "GamerGate" are doing a ton of nasty things which they feel quite justified in doing so. How could something they hate be so important without being perceived as a threat?

Because what they don't agree with, and what they perceive as a threat, isn't the media - it's the people on the other side of the debate, the "social justice warriors," whom they perceive to be trying to reshape the nature of what's acceptable in the media along ideological terms (or at least, ideological terms that opponents of "SJWs" don't agree with).

Quote:
What's important without being significant? If it's significant, it's because it's perceived as a threat, either to your person, or what you perceived as your "god given right".

It's not a question of "important without being significant"; you've substituted the word "significant" - which in this context is essentially a synonym for "important" - with "powerful," which was the word used previously.

Something can indeed be important to you without it meaning that that thing is powerful. The people with a philosophical opposition to "SJWs" don't - in my understanding of them - think that the media has much power (if any at all) to shape attitudes and beliefs. However, they do think that people have a great deal of power to shape the media. It's that attitude amongst the "SJWs" that's perceived as the threat - not as a threat to their person, or to their "god given anything," but that they don't agree with the idea that media is immoral if it does not adhere to the standards of social justice.

RJGrady wrote:
Many of my interactions with people who have a problem with "social justice" end up complaining about "censorship" and "reverse racism" and feminism ruining discussions. So, they clearly believe privilege exists, they just think that women, minorities, people with disabilities etc. have too much of it, and white, heterosexual males have too little.

To be clear, the discussion that I've been having has largely been about people who have a problem with "social justice warriors," rather than the concept of social justice itself. Notwithstanding trolls and other self-absorbed jerks who are using the term as blanket disparagement without giving any thought to the philosophy behind it, those who are concerned with "SJWs" have an ethical issue they're trying to debate; by contrast, those who disagree with social justice as a whole are coming from a very different place (in my opinion, of course - I don't speak for everyone).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Probably relevant to this discussion that "social justice warrior" is originally an insult, not a self-description. A few people may call themselves that now--mostly in jest--but it's mostly just a mocking label applied by a certain category of people on the internet who don't like it when a minority says "stop insulting me."

It took me a while to understand that the people using the term "social justice warrior" weren't using it to refer to anyone who believes in/advocates social justice. Rather, they seem to be using it to make a mockery of the idea that the principles of social justice should be applied to artwork, media, and fiction to the same (or similar) degree as to legal, workplace, and social situations.

From what I'm given to understand, the basis for this is that people who mock "SJWs" fundamentally disagree with the belief that media has the power to normalize attitudes and behaviors - at least to any appreciable degree - and as such implicitly reject the assumption that changing what the media displays and how it displays it will necessarily make any positive changes to society at large. Rather, they're of the opinion that the media reflects attitudes already in place, and that changing the media requires making more fundamental changes to the social fabric of society, rather than vice versa.

This isn't to say that there aren't people using the term to justify acting like spiteful, self-centered jerks, of course. But the above attitude seems to be at the core of those with a philosophical opposition to "social justice warriors."

At the macro level, this is a debate about whether life imitates art, or art imitates life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
No employee has even left the company since we published our trans iconic, so the theory is nonsense on its face.

But perhaps there was an employee who left sometime between the conceptualization of the character and its publication, and that would explain...wait...

*checks*

Doggone it, which one of you jokers put this tinfoil hat on my head again?!

Seriously though, it's nice to have this so quickly and thoroughly debunked. Nothing more to see here, people! Carry on!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Liam Warner wrote:
I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.

Purely as a world-building exercise, I like to configure the population along a binary logarithmic scale. That is, I presume that one-half (e.g. 50%) of the population is first-level, and then halve that percentage for each successive level.

So 25% of the population is 2nd-level, 12.5% of the population is 3rd-level, etc. I think that nicely makes the higher-level characters (including the PCs) feel like they're major movers and shakers as they gain more and more power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Lilith wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Maybe Paizo was planning on being there, but accidentally signed up for a fake Geek Girl Con?
:| Can we stop with the "fake geek girl" inanity? It's ridiculous, and not even remotely funny.

I disagree; it's funny because it's ridiculous.

(If it wasn't clear, the joke I was making was on the people who put any stock in the whole "fake geek girl" nonsense.)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Set wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.
Nah bro. Wisdom.

Yes to all.

Witches could have a tripartite option to follow the way of the Bell (Cha), Book (Int) or Candle (Wis), using the selected stat to govern their bonus spells, and spell and Hex DCs. (With the 'book' being as metaphorical as the bell and candle, a 'book' Witch would still store spells in her familiar, just like most other Witches).

It's certainly better than my idea of Bed (Cha), Knob (Int), and Broomstick (Wis).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
1. "KoK"?
Kingdoms of Kalamar, which I didn't think was WotC...

That's sort of a gray area.

As part of WotC's settlement with Kenzer over illegally reproducing their Knights of the Dinner Table strips from Dragon in the Dragon Magazine CD-ROM Archive, WotC agreed to let Kenzer make their HackMaster RPG use a lot of (older editions of) D&D mechanics and intellectual property, and write Kingdoms of Kalamar material under the D&D (Third Edition) banner.

The latter clause, however, was not a blank check. Any Kingdoms of Kalamar product that had the D&D logo on it had to be run by WotC, who reviewed it and either approved it or noted what needed to be changed and how. So in essence, they had final say over a lot of the KoK D&D materials.

I say "a lot" of the materials because Kenzer side-stepped this process quite a few times by simply releasing 3.5E KoK books that didn't have the D&D logo on them, and so didn't fall under the purview of their settlement with WotC (I can't remember if these other books used the OGL or not; I believe that they didn't, and just relied on the idea of "copyright laws give us enough protection already," as - if I recall correctly - David Kenzer is an IP attorney). Hence why something like the Kingdoms of Kalamar Villain Design Handbook has the D&D logo on it, while the Player's Guide to the Sovereign Lands does not.

That settlement agreement wasn't perpetual though, which is why HackMaster eventually changed to HackMaster Basic, followed by the new HackMaster game (calling itself "HackMaster 5th Edition," if I recall correctly, several years before the Fifth Edition of D&D came out). Likewise, Kenzer Co. eventually had to stop printing 3.5E books with the D&D logo on the cover, though the non-D&D books could still be published (this was before 4E came out - though 4E KoK campaign setting books came out that flat-out said that it could be used with 4E D&D; insofar as I know, this wasn't due to any agreement with WotC or using the GSL - it was just them doing it because they were sure that they could).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Eric Hinkle wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
memorax wrote:
I'm glad we will have access to both the Dreamscarred Press version and the Paizo one. I wonder how long it will be before the cries of blot begin yet again.
I am pretty sure some people have been making those cries since the Advanced Player's Guide, so not sure how it is really relevant
I beg pardon, but "blot"?

Haven't you heard? Rules blot is a serious issue; I know that when there's a stain that covers up some of the text in my book, it seriously affects my game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I didn't know him very well, but his reviews were always insightful and informative. This is a loss for all of us.

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.