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. 1,577 posts. 72 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,577 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 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.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

From an excellent essay on the topic:

Quote:
Well known chaotic evil characters from film or literature include: Gollum (Lord of the Rings), The Joker (DC Comics), Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter), and Lore (Star Trek).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CrimsonVixen wrote:
It says in the Demons Revisited book, that Succubi don't actually have a gender being Outsiders. They take forms to suit their purposes and desires at will. But yes, some of us ladies would not say no to play-testing the grapple rules with a Succubus.

Wait, being an Outsider means that a creature has no gender? As in, no sense of gender identity (presuming they didn't mean to go with the technically-incorrect-but-more-widely-used definition of "naturally has no ability to procreate")?


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Piffle. This is conservative fantasy revisionism at its worst. Prior to the Resurrection, humans did not organize themselves into communities. Compassion did not exist before the Christians discovered it. Riiiiiight.

Every belief system, atheism included, recognizes the value of community, charity, and compassion, because humans are social animals.

This is worth underlining. Reciprocal altruism has existed since we were apes, and can still be observed among many primates today - it's simply a mechanism to increase survival via strengthening group dynamics.


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!*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TheAntiElite wrote:

That was stronger than old cheese.

Second greatest 'gag dub' series ever!

I'm normally disdainful of dubs, preferring subtitles, but what they did for that show was epic to listen to (particularly the opening and ending themes).

Hence why I referenced that instead of being a psionic cat-lady who hides her powers from the rest of her crewmates. I suspect that that would have resulted in a great deal of Righteous Indignation.


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!)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Thing is, this is how it happens. It's what's happening now in the videogame industry. It doesn't just happen. There's lots of pressure and complaints and accusations and maybe even boycotts and backlash and eventually you get tokens and everybody complains about that and then eventually things change enough that it's not unusual and the former unrepresented minority can just happen to be in a movie without a big deal being made out of it.

But you don't get there without the fight.

Your "this" in "this is how it happens" seems to refer to the fight itself, which I agree with. Raising the issue to a large enough degree tends to shake off ennui and galvanize those who are inclined to act.

However, this doesn't necessarily correlate to the ideas of either side that are fighting. In this case that includes the idea that the principles of social justice - as a positive duty, which means that any instance of failing to apply them is therefore an instance of immorality, which can thusly be attacked on moral grounds - be applied to art, fiction, and media, which is what the "social justice warriors" are fighting for.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Except quite often, especially when it comes to a marginalized social group, they do collectively ignore the supererogatory duties. Black representation in movies before the 70s. Gay representation before the 90s.

I'm sure you can find individual exceptions (and I'm handwaving the dates) but the general pattern is strong.

Except that the patterns are broken, by rising tides of supererogatory actions; hence why representation began after the general dates you cited. That can be taken as this system of moral philosophy tending (using history as an example) to self-correct for this problem over time, on a macro scale.

Which is good, because otherwise I'm not sure what the practical solution would be - if you admit that nothing immoral is taking place on an individual level, it's hard to mandate a solution.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

See I'd put it somewhere in-between.

There's certainly nothing wrong with making a movie that doesn't include a positive black representation, for example. There are plenty of very good movies where that wouldn't make any sense and even of those where it would work, not every one needs to.
The problem comes when the industry as a whole doesn't make any movies with positive non-stereotyped black representation. Or makes only token efforts to do so, at far below the statistically expected numbers.

Substitute whichever group we're concerned with at the moment and whatever industry you like.

It's almost a positive duty on the larger Industry level? Which doesn't make sense, really, because the industry as a whole isn't a moral actor. It's a matter of many, many individually justifiable (or at least not provably immoral) actions adding up to a moral wrong.

This is probably the most legitimate critique of the results of this system - if everyone eschews supererogatory duties all of the time, then there's a great deal of moral virtue that's left unfulfilled, to the point where it could result in immorality.

Unfortunately, insofar as I know there's no good remedy for this situation - at least under this system of moral philosophy, save for the practical caveat in that people don't completely ignore the supererogatory duties en masse (though you could certainly say that they don't, collectively, perform them enough).


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).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Voadam wrote:
Not doing an active good in an action does not mean the action is morally corrupt, just like not doing evil does not mean the action is actively virtuous.

Well, there's the rub.

This system of moral philosophy is called deontological ethics (though I should note I'm presenting a very simplified overview), wherein you determine the morality of an action by judging the nature of the action itself (rather the intent behind it, or by the consequences of it) on a ranked scale. That scale is as follows (as a note, the reason it's scaled is that - in the event of a conflict between tiers, you should follow the higher tier even if it's at the expense of the lower one):

1) The Negative Duties - these are the things that you must not do; they are immoral if you do them (e.g. murder).

2) The Positive Duties - these are the things you are morally obligated to do (that is, you must do them), and failure to do them is immoral. For example, "render assistance to someone who appears to be seriously injured, so long as doing so does not place myself or others at risk of harm."

3) The Supererogatory Duties - these are the things that are good if you do them, but not bad if you do not (e.g. spend your weekends volunteering to help the homeless).

The thing here is that everyone determines for themselves what falls under each of these rankings. As such, there tends to be differing views about what's grouped where - in my experience, there's a lot of disagreement between certain actions being on rank 2 or rank 3. Some people think that certain virtuous actions are important enough that a failure to apply them is immoral. Others think that such actions are virtuous, but not to the point where you're morally obligated to fulfill them each time you have a chance to do so.

As a note, this system works best when the actions ranked under it are highly specified, since that helps to eliminate ambiguity about how you'd define the action, and thus where it'd rank (hence why the example I give for rank 2 is so specific).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Voadam wrote:
Can you explain what social justice principles applying to legal, workplace, and social situations that should apply similarly to media you are talking about?

Presuming that I'm reading your question right, you're asking what are the principles of social justice that "social justice warriors" are understood to be trying to promote in the media, correct?

If that's the case, I'd posit that these principles can be summarized as "the greater inclusion of groups that have historically (and contemporarily) been marginalized in terms of their representation, and that members of such groups be treated with the same degree of respect typically afforded to the members of non-marginalized groups" - in other words, the basic idea of social justice itself.

Many (if not most) people can agree that the above is a positive duty - by which I mean, it is morally virtuous when this is done, and morally corrupt (e.g. immoral) when it is not done - in the context of legal, workplace, and social situations. The difference of opinion comes with applying the above principles to instances of art, fiction, and media.

A "social justice warrior" will posit that these principles are a positive duty when it comes to any instance of media, the same as they would be otherwise. If you write, animate, film, etc. media that violates these principles, then you've committed an immoral action. Immorality, here, is understood to not only be damaging to the community at large (in this case because it normalizes immoral values), but it is also understood that it is morally laudable (attempt to) destroy, suppress, or otherwise expel something immoral from your community (so long as doing so does not in-and-of itself entail taking immoral actions).

By contrast, those who oppose "SJWs" will re-classify the above principles when they're applied to the context of media; in such a case, the above principles become supererogatory - "above and beyond the call of duty" - which means that they're morally laudable if you adhere to them, but not morally corrupt if you do not.

To put it another way, both camps (broadly speaking) agree that instances of social justice in media are good, but one side holds that instances of their absence are immoral, whereas the other side holds that instances of their absence are amoral.

Sexualization and sexual objectification are popular topics in this regard. It's broadly understood to be immoral to treat women like sex objects; hence why we have laws, workplace codes of conduct, and social mores that object to such behavior (though it's widely understood - correctly, in my opinion - that such objections require further strengthening at all three levels). However, sexualizing a female character in the context of media raises the question of whether such a portrayal is immoral (e.g. it normalizes sexist attitudes towards women in real life) or amoral (e.g. virtually no one thinks that how a sexualized woman in a work of fiction is treated is analogous to how a woman should be treated in real life).

Hopefully, that makes the issue clearer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
You're wrong. the people who mock, whose culture created the term "Social Justice Warrior" as a pejorative, DO believe in the power of media. Otherwise they wouldn't give a flying f&!$ about Fraiser wrote in her iconic writeup.

I disagree.

There's obviously a disclaimer that needs to be made in that I can't speak for anyone besides myself. Likewise, there are obviously a lot of people using the term "social justice warrior" who aren't concerned with the philosophy of what they perceive as the misapplication of social justice to art, fiction, and media.

That said, you seem to be implying that because people who mock "SJWs" are concerned with the media, that means they're acknowledging that the media has an inherent power to shape attitudes and beliefs. I don't believe that to be the case - you can acknowledge that something is important without believing that it's powerful. Showing concern for what other people are doing to the media does not mean that you're granting any sort of premise regarding the media's ability to influence people.

EDIT: On an interesting note, that pastebin has been removed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
The problem with the BoEF wasn't that it had porn illustrations, but that the illustrations were BAD, sometimes hilariously so. The actual rules were somewhat decent, though forced into the general d20 structure of the time, meaning feats and (most annoying) prestige classes. That said, it's not a style of playing that's easy to find players for, and arguably, the book failed at what it wanted to do.

That about sums it up. Between the use of photoshipped pictures, rules that needed another round or two of editing (coming out just as 3.5 debuted didn't help), and a severe lack of in-character justification for suddenly having sexually-themed materials cropping up in the game world all served to kill the book pretty quickly.


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!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

So I was in link-freefall across the web, and somehow ended up in this pastebin, where the writer asserts that:

Quote:
I have a friend that works at Paizo, creators of Pathfinder, who complained that their new "iconic character" - a sort of example for whatever new character class is getting a book - was a very hamfisted attempt at pandering to the trans community. This friend is trans herself, and her complaints led to her losing her job.

I really hope that this isn't true. Can anyone shed any light on this?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

So this is like a Pathfinder version of The Elder Strolls (scroll down for the first parts of the series)?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Personally, I've been reading game materials with Skreyn's name on them since back in the days of Second Edition, and I have a very positive impression of them.

In terms of the man himself, I've almost never interacted with him directly on these forums, and I suspect that I missed the majority of his posts, but what I did see was virtually always thought-provoking, even when I disagreed with it.

His thread about how there shouldn't be a material component cost for the raise dead spell, for example, was fascinating to consider.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

A while back I wrote a post on my blog saying that a good shorthand for a GM is to assume that each day a character - including NPCs - spends "training" (essentially, doing their normal job) is worth 1 XP.

So in other words, figure out a person's age in the number of days they've lived (minus pre-working childhood, and whatever their usual days off are), and that's their XP total, which will correspond to a given level.

The reason I call this a shorthand is that it's not meant to be an absolute. If you want to adjust them upwards so that they have a higher level, presume that they've utilized the standard methods of gaining XP - that they've killed some monsters or completed some sort of story-quest. Instantly, that triggers brain-storming about what they did, and presto! Instant fleshing-out of specific NPCs.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?

To paraphrase Wolfgang Baur:

"Realism" in this context is shorthand for "functions according to internal logic and consistency of the setting," not "functions according to real-world physics."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
boring7 wrote:
a buncha folk wrote:
...Sam and Dean from Supernatural...
Were using Ghost Salt Shotgun shells and magic rituals to banish spirits. Oh hey I just solved your irreconcilable equation. Are we done here?

I'm not sure you solved it.

The essence of this thread - as I understand it - is that when it asks if there's any concept that can't be made using the "existing rules," those last two words are meant to be taken as "class abilities."

In the case of Sam and Dean, they don't have any particular class abilities that grant them any non-natural powers (the major caveat being Sam's demon blood-powers in the second through fourth seasons...and I agree, he's since retrained those away).

Everything else they do is either using equipment (mostly mundane, occasionally magical), skill checks, or incantations, all of which are available to anyone.

Of course, that's all something of a moot point anyway. The fact is that Pathfinder can make Sam- and Dean-style characters just fine; the problem is that it can't make them viable 1) at the higher-levels, and 2) in a setting where magic and highly magical monsters are both prevalent and powerful.

Supernatural takes place on an Earth that's pretty clearly a low-magic, E6-style campaign. Pathfinder can do that easily - heck, doing that is just a matter of what you take away, rather than what you add. But something that's viable under those circumstances isn't going to necessarily be the case in "baseline" Pathfinder. (I once wrote stats for Sam, with his demonic powers in the fourth season, using a Pathfinder-compatible point-buy character-generator - I was able to place him as being a 3rd-level character).

There's really nothing wrong with that, that I can see. Unless they received some sort of major power-up (which might be the case for Dean going into Season 10...), they'd get their asses consistently kicked in a higher-power world. After all, we see them get their asses kicked in their own world quite often as it is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Does Charisma include a component based on a character's physical appearance? Sure it does; it's right there in the ability description (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

The issue here isn't that people misunderstand the nature of what Charisma represents - it's that when you try to divide the sum total of a person's physical and mental characteristics into a grand total of six categories, you're going to end up mashing different aspects of who they are together under a single umbrella. Charisma is the result of that. It's been awkward since its implementation, but like most of the warts associated with D&D, has become associated with the game's sense of identity.

For good or for bad, beauty is one of the defining characteristics of what Charisma represents, unintuitively combining that with personal magnetism, leadership, and other force-of-personality-related qualities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Gwen Smith wrote:
I assumed it was the convention that was "fake"...because that other stuff makes no sense at all.

That was the crux of the joke I made in the second post.

To reiterate, I was comparing the idea that there are "fake" geek girls with the idea that there could be an entire fake convention - it makes an analogy between the ludicrousness of the latter idea with that of the former, thus satirizing the fact that some people thought that "fake geek girls" were actually a thing (and a thing worth being very upset over, at that).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
owenstreetpress wrote:
Jessica isn't telling you what you are or are not allowed to think is too soon to be funny, but what she thinks is too soon to be funny.

Actually, her first sentence in the post I quoted above could very well be read that way. Saying "you can think what you want" can be read as carrying a tone of "I'm giving you permission to think what you want."

To be clear, I don't think that's what she intended to communicate when she said that. However, as you noted below, the lack of context clues was such that that's how it initially appeared to me, before I went back and gave her the benefit of the doubt.

owenstreetpress wrote:
It's not about your sense of humor as it is about her experience, which we need to respect.

I disagree to the extent that it is, in fact, as much about my sense of humor as it is about her experience. That's what I read as being the actual intent of her previous post, in fact - she's saying that I have my opinion, and she has hers, and they're different; neither is more valid, or less valid, than the other.

I should also note that I did mention that my disagreement with her was respectful - so the need to respect that was met before you reiterated it. ;)

owenstreetpress wrote:
Humor can be a useful tool for criticism, but it's also completely subjective, and the effects of humor, its success, failure, or appropriateness, is dependent upon the audience. This is why comedy is hard. This is also why comedy on an Internet forum is hard, because the audience doesn't have inflection or body language to tell that it was a joke. I read it as a joke now, because of the expanded context, but upon first reading it I have to admit that it didn't come off as a joke. Perhaps if my own personal experience had been different, I would have read it as such, but that doesn't change the experiences of the other posters.

I find this to be heartening, because it acknowledges that there has been an expanded context that allows the original joke to be read in the manner in which it was intended.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Jessica Price wrote:

Hey, you can find funny whatever you find funny.

For me, after the past couple weeks, it falls pretty firmly under the header of "Too soon."

I respectfully disagree - I don't think it's ever too soon to laugh at those who promote ignorance and close-mindedness. Why pass up such self-declared golden targets for humorous mockery?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

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.)

It's considerably less funny when you've been the target of it.

No doubt, but that doesn't make the whole idea of "fake geek girls" - or the people who unironically promulgated it - any less worthy of mockery (as Dork Tower has demonstrated).

I respect that some people don't find it funny in any regard, and would prefer that the entire subject be purged from our cultural consciousness. I personally disagree with that stance, as I think the idea is so inane as to be a vending machine of humor.


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.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Just to throw fuel on the fire, there was a spell in 2e that did gradual minor permanent physical changes. I don't remember if it was called FLeshsculpting or what. The showcase was a bard using it on this harpy child to over time remove the offensive harpy elements and transform her into a beautiful winged female whose appearance rather reflected her voice.

I remember that adventure; it was "Melody" from Dungeon #48.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Maybe Paizo was planning on being there, but accidentally signed up for a fake Geek Girl Con?


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:

When I go to it now I just get an introduction page and no links to books or rules...

http://paizo.com/prd/

The links are now collapsible on the left-hand side of the page. Click on which book you want to look in, and a menu will appear for it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

These are just my guesses, but I'll take a stab at some of these:

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Does the character's height and weight change? If so, is it rolled randomly or is the same roll used but with the new base?

My presumption would be that - in reference to the height/weight tables for races - you'd keep the same roll but use the new base.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Does true seeing reveal the transmuted creature's true form?

My original inclination here was to say no; my reasoning being that, as an instaneous effect, this potion is essentially altering what a creature's "true" form is. As such, true seeing wouldn't see through this any more than it'd see that someone petrified by flesh to stone was actually a person and not a statue.

However, the actual text for true seeing says that it "sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things." That's very broad language...enough so that I'd probably concede that true seeing does see through the effect of this elixer.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
If a race is described as always female, but picturing a male version is trivial (such as hags), does the elixir work?

I'd call this a solid "no." The elixer states that it has no effect on races with no sexual differentation. Given that hags are a unisex race per se (needing members of another race to reproduce), I'd say that this elixer has no effect on them if they imbibed it.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
If a race has different ability modifiers for different genders (as is the case with many far-out, nonhumanoid creatures), do the character's ability scores change?

My hunch here is that they would, though it'd certainly be easier and less math-intensive if they didn't. That said, given the lack of a disclaimer in that regard, I feel fairly solid on this being an affirmative.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Can a Spellcraft check reveal that the creature's form is the result of a magical effect?

I don't see why it would. Reading over the skill description, I don't see anything that implies that it can, by itself, recognize effects created via magic.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Can an analyze dweomer or greater arcane sight spell reveal that a creature's form is the result of a magical effect?

The answer here is "yes, but..."

As an instantaneous effect, after consuming the elixer I'd say that this only works as per the rules for lingering auras, as there'd be no active one. Since this magic item has a caster level of 9th, it has only a moderate aura, meaning that it's lingering aura after being used would only be detectable for 1d6 minutes. After that: gone.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

If a character is sterile before drinking the elixir, are they sterile afterwards?

On the same note, if a woman is sterile due to menopause, does drinking the elixir remove the sterility?

I'd say, respectively, yes and yes.

There's nothing indicating that this elixer changes any underlying conditions a creature has, so if something caused them to be sterile before, then that'd be the case now.

The sole exception would be conditions imposed solely due to biological sex, which menopause falls under. Changing that condition removes the effect that it has; ergo, a menopausal woman using this elixer to become a man would have (barring any other condition) sperm that function the same as any other man of their age.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Can plant creatures, undead, outsiders, and/or dragons use the elixir?

I don't see why they couldn't. It would probably have no effect on a plant creature, but a female vampire could become male (or vice versa), the same way a dragon could become a dragoness (or vice versa), and an outsider could switch sexes presuming that it had a biological sex to begin with.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

If a character is suffering from an effect that can only target creatures of one gender (such as certain types of venereal disease, or familial curses such as "the firstborn sons of House Blahblah shall all die before their sixteenth winter"), does drinking the elixir remove the effect?

And if the effect is removed, does it return upon drinking a second?

Respectively, I'd say that the answers here are yes, and maybe.

With regards to the first question, removing yourself from the list of applicable targets that the unspecified "effect" can affect seems like a legitimate way to avoid it.

As to the second, that depends largely on what the effect is. More specificity is required, though I suspect that this might end up being a GM's call anyway.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
If a creature drinks the elixir while under a polymorph effect to assume a form ineligible for the elixir, does the elixir effect take hold upon returning to the creature's base form, or is it wasted?

This one is tricky. The rules for polymorphing effects state that "While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature." Given that the wording there implies that this is largely an appearance-based (in other words, superficial) change, I'd say that this elixer still works.

However, the elixer itself is based on a polymorph spell, which makes it likely subject to at least some of the general polymorphing guidelines, such as "You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell."

As such, I suppose I'd end up defaulting to that last sentence, and say that someone under the effect of a polymorph effect of any sort (regardless of if it makes them into a creature that is normally ineligible for this elixer) can choose whether or not it affects them.

That strikes me as a pretty unintuitive answer though, so I suspect that this one will be a judgment call for most GMs. Personally, given that polymorph effects are usually temporary changes that don't change what you actually are, whereas this elixer is an instanteous change, I'd say it works anyway, with the change becoming apparent once the polymorph effect ends.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
If a character's race is normally gendered, but the character is genderless as a result of, for example, a mishap with the girdle of masculinity/femininity, does the elixir have any effect?

That also looks like it might be a GM's call. That said, if the effect is an instantaneous one (like the elixer itself) then I'd say that the elixer has no effect on them, as per its clause regarding races with no sexual differentation (a strict reading would say that the character's "race" still has sexual differentation per se, even if that character doesn't, but that's a little too pedantic for me).

If the effect that made the character genderless are an active effect, however (even if a permanent one), I'd say that the elixer does still affect them, though the effect wouldn't show until the effect that made the character sexless was removed.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What happens if a Formian Queen drinks the elixir?

This is splitting hairs, but I'd say that a formian queen is technically a different "race" from other formians, and so she wouldn't be subject to the elixer's effects. Basically, even if a creature has a broader category that it falls under, if it has its own creature listing then it's a member of a separate race. That's just my own guideline, though.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Could a limited wish, wish, or miracle spell remove the effect, and if so, does the target get a saving throw?

Given their scope as some of the most powerful magic in the game - and certainly higher-level than a polymorph spell that's used in this elixer's creation - I'd say they definitely could remove the effect. I'd also definitely grant the target a saving throw versus these spells in this case (though they could always choose to voluntarily fail it, if they wanted the effect removed).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
boring7 wrote:

"In order to hide from the city guard, I chose to disguise myself as myself."

"Why?"

"My disguise check is so bad, no one will believe that I'm really me."

Amusingly enough, something to this effect actually happens in the old 2E Planescape adventure Faction War. The Factol (leader) of the Xaositects has a hit put out on him, so his faction makes up roughly a dozen or so fakes, and puts bodyguards on all of them. The PCs are assigned to guard one of the more fake-looking doubles.

Naturally, he's the real Factol, in a disguise as someone in a bad disguise of himself. ("Chaos!")


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
JRoss wrote:
I want to know if, for whatever reason, I don't get to use the logo, does that preclude me from releasing any Pathfinder-compatible material?

I've worked with a company that did just this, so I can say with some confidence that the answer to this question is a definite "no."

The Open Game Content in Pathfinder products is still released as OGC under the Open Game License. As such, so long as you abide by the terms of the OGL, you can use Pathfinder OGC in your materials.

Quote:
If I could still release it, could I still refer to Pathfinder by name within the book, or would it have to be in a roundabout way?

Presuming that you didn't use the Compatibility License, you'd have to refer to it in a roundabout way. The book I worked on used the term "PFRPG" in that regard, since we couldn't reference Pathfinder directly.

Now I'm curious what company this is, and why they chose not to claim compatibility... :)

The company was Fantastic Gallery, and while I was just a freelancer and so not privy to any intra-company discussions, I'm fairly sure it was because the book had gratuitous amounts of T and A. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
JRoss wrote:
I want to know if, for whatever reason, I don't get to use the logo, does that preclude me from releasing any Pathfinder-compatible material?

I've worked with a company that did just this, so I can say with some confidence that the answer to this question is a definite "no."

The Open Game Content in Pathfinder products is still released as OGC under the Open Game License. As such, so long as you abide by the terms of the OGL, you can use Pathfinder OGC in your materials.

Quote:
If I could still release it, could I still refer to Pathfinder by name within the book, or would it have to be in a roundabout way?

Presuming that you didn't use the Compatibility License, you'd have to refer to it in a roundabout way. The book I worked on used the term "PFRPG" in that regard, since we couldn't reference Pathfinder directly.


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

Have the player's character be from Lamordia. That solves a lot of the problem right there.

1 to 50 of 1,577 << 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.