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

Aranna's page

2,691 posts. Alias of Min2007.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It's probably Hulk or one of the people NOT on the original Avengers team. Because I believe everyone except Hulk has a part confirmed for upcoming movies. So Hulk... or quicksilver, scarlet witch, war machine, vision, fury, ect.

Well unless they do the death isn't permanent thing...


Jaelithe wrote:
Aranna wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
"But "I am woman, hear me roar" has already gotten old. Time for Aaron to move on with his story."

He kind lost me at the silly scene with Titania and Thor... It made NO sense. Hopefully we will see no more of that. In a way I am wondering if he isn't just toying with his readers a bit with some of this... hopefully.


Jaelithe...

Spoiler:
On the fist part. Yes I would hope that if I was acting all crazy a man I loved would have the fortitude to slap me across the face. It ISN'T an attack, it does no damage, except to the ego of the recipient. And such a thing by someone you respect or love should have the effect of causing you to step back and reconsider what it was you were doing.

As for the fan club... if I am mistaken here it is at least partly the comics fault. I am a new reader so I can only go on what I have seen so far; Thor tells his mother yes they can have an army... because she has the bifrost and he has his list... I assume it's the same list from earlier of women who might have kissed him. Hence my confusion.


Tectorman wrote:
Do we know that things don't pop out of the ball? R2's third leg is safely tucked away inside his trunk when he's not using it (and he concealed his rockets so well that for the entire original trilogy, we didn't know they were there), so who's to say the ball droid doesn't have stair-climbing legs that pop out (or rockets)?

This is a setting with cars that float on the air... Perhaps it can do the same or even just roll up the stairs. It's not like the technology can't easily make it happen.


Spoiler:
Well I have no idea HOW Odin is supposed to act. BUT he really DID need to be slapped and if his WIFE can't slap him then the marriage was a lie.

Still...

Spoiler:
All those ex-lovers of Thor banding together seems unlikely in the extreme. Have NONE of them any feelings? They might help individually but all together like some crazy fan group?! Weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly JJAbrams has proven he doesn't understand Star Trek. His plots were abysmally bad, ignored the canon which is one of the better sides of Star Trek, and featured action which was never what Star Trek was all about.

I really wish they had chosen someone else to do a new Star Trek trilogy...

BUT JJ does make good movies just not Star Trek.


JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon suffer from very polarized fan groups. Almost like the fans of the directors blatantly deny all the weaknesses of their man and this drives the people who don't like them into a frenzy of hate. Silly I know.

Looking back the main strong point of Star Wars was the intense action and the story. JJAbrams has a proven record of making dazzling action films ... Ok he may be pretty bad when it comes to plot, but he IS going to blow us out of our chairs with action and so we know that he is perfect for at least half that formula. If he is careful with the story we might have one of the best Star Wars films ever.


I noticed the same thing Callum.


Ahhh... Rules Lawyers. Doomed to forever cling to the razors edge of "being right" vs "disrupting the game". Vilified by all because they fail twice. First by "being right" since nobody seems to like being told they are wrong. And secondly by "disrupting the game" and pulling everyone out of the moment and into the crunch.

As a GM I kind of like rules lawyers, well I do when they are truly right and not just think they are right but are actually wrong. Because they can help me learn something new. They say "Wait! It works like X" I stop for a moment and consider how sure I am that it works the way I thought it did... If I am at all unsure then I go with his way, If not then I keep my way. I make the call and play continues. No more discussion about that till after the game. And after the game I will curl up on the sofa with some rule books and learn it completely myself. Right or wrong we will be doing things the right way next time.


Whatever did happen to the international council that controlled SHIELD? I can assume since they had enough clout to give SHIELD authority in every nation that they wouldn't just go to prison when the organization was betrayed. If anyone could remake a legitimate SHIELD it would be those people... the ones who hired Fury in the first place.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Well rule 4 and 5 are more advanced:

4- Know the Balance: It is one thing to simply run a game it is quite another to keep your players on the edge of their seats. When you know how to balance encounters and challenges to your players you can tailor the pace of the game to provide that nail biting challenge at just the right time. This is a complex skill to learn, it isn't JUST CR ratings it is knowing just how much your team can handle before becoming just another TPK. One thing to remember however is NOT to keep the pressure dialed all the way up or your players may burn out. Pace the game with less challenging encounters and dial it up when you want an epic battle.

It's also knowing how much challenge your players want. Some really are there for the tactical challenge and come alive for the toughest fights and get bored with anything less. Some like a looser hand.

I personally like enough leeway that I don't have to go overboard on optimizing my character and can build for flavor not just for power. More importantly for this, I also like to be able to roleplay the occasional stupid choice in combat, even important combats, without bringing about a TPK. Maybe he's impulsive or overconfident. Maybe he's got a sense of honor that gets him in trouble.
If I have to focus on playing my tactical best to survive or win, I'm not roleplaying the character.

I don't disagree at all. That is all part of Rule 2 Know your Players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well rule 4 and 5 are more advanced:

4- Know the Balance: It is one thing to simply run a game it is quite another to keep your players on the edge of their seats. When you know how to balance encounters and challenges to your players you can tailor the pace of the game to provide that nail biting challenge at just the right time. This is a complex skill to learn, it isn't JUST CR ratings it is knowing just how much your team can handle before becoming just another TPK. One thing to remember however is NOT to keep the pressure dialed all the way up or your players may burn out. Pace the game with less challenging encounters and dial it up when you want an epic battle.

5- Know your Creative Side: Once you have mastered the previous four it is time to play with more creative things. Designing new items, adjusting house rules for your players, building your own adventures/campaigns/settings. This is the fun and rewarding BUT keep in mind both balance and how your stuff will interact with the existing rules. This is often the funnest stuff for GMs, but it is super easy to misjudge the effect your new toy or rule will have on the game, making this the most dangerous one for killing the game's enjoyment. DON'T be affraid to roll back changes that were poorly thought out, in the long run your players will thank you.

DM under the bridge personality and motivations are a big part of what I was talking about with making NPCs come alive. Accent and mannerisms aren't as necessary but CAN make interacting with those NPC memorable if the GM is skilled at it.


As far as the open carry link: Most of the country considers it illegal to open carry unless you are an officer or agent of the government. And even some places where it is legal to open carry (like my home state of Michigan) you will still be arrested for doing so. You will probably either be held and released with a warning or charged with disturbing the peace.

I think maybe only in Texas or Arizona can you open carry and the police won't care. Hmmm also probably states like Montana or Wyoming would view open carry without concern.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

As far as the topic is concerned...

I did have one player character who went around introducing himself as an assassin for hire. But then this probably got him into just as much trouble in the fantasy game as it would in real life.

I guess the biggest weirdness would be them running around town heavily armed and armored and expecting no one to notice.

Really? As long as you're armed and armored in a genre appropriate fashion, you should be fine.

Okay, armor is little less common, but bulletproof vests can be fairly inconspicuous under clothing.

Ok have you seen the levels of arms and armor a PC wears? In a real life setting these people would be doing their daily business in full swat gear and bristling with advanced weapons and equipment. Sure as Federal agents they can get away with it... but I know I would be shocked at someone dressed like that walking into a shop or restaurant.


As far as the topic is concerned...

I did have one player character who went around introducing himself as an assassin for hire. But then this probably got him into just as much trouble in the fantasy game as it would in real life.

I guess the biggest weirdness would be them running around town heavily armed and armored and expecting no one to notice.


zylphryx wrote:

If we did in real life what we do in Pathfinder (or most RPGs for that matter), I think there would be a whole lot of charges, including:

  • murder (from killing all those orcs, goblins, and mooks)
  • attempted murder (from not killing all those orcs, goblins, and mooks that managed to get away)
  • robbery (from looting all the orc, goblin, and mook bodies that did not get away)
  • grave desecration (from the various crypts, etc that we fought the undead in ...)
  • grave robbing (... and then looted)
  • arson (from use of alchemist fire, burning hands, scorching rays, and the ever popular fireballs)
  • brandishing weapons (because that's what you do with weapons ...)
  • possession of unregistered firearms (for all those gunslinger PCs)
  • discharging of firearms in a public place (again for all those gunslinger PCs)
  • drunk and disorderly (for drunken master, halfling, dwarf, and followers of Cayden Cailean PCs)
  • resisting arrest (because when was the last time your PC went along quietly)

It would be the trial of the century. ;)

Most of these make little sense.

- at least my players tend to be the good guys so while they may commit murder and assault it will likely end in charges of vigilantism... Any bad guys who ran will likely also be facing charges.

- in some cases my PCs are agents of the Law, in which case that infamous blue wall where police protect their own would prevent any murder or assault charges.

- robbery would likely go unpunished as well. Since there are not likely to be any survivors who would press charges, being criminals themselves.

- grave desecration is NOT what would be on peoples lips if there were undead crawling out of those graves. The PCs would likely be heroes... unless they started looting the dead, then yes they would likely face charges if caught.

- In a modern society my players would likely register their weapons and be legally agents of some authority or otherwise allowed to carry them in public. The few who aren't would be good at concealment.

- I don't believe I have had any PCs in any setting who committed drunk and disorderly or resisting arrest offenses.


You're fortunate captain yesterday I did click on the review link... It was a world of wrong. I feel like I need a week of showers. Although it did convince me to never ever seek out that product.


I can take the hint I will avoid FATAL.


I used to be... but really I don't PbP much at any more. I grew very tired of the glacially slow pace of the games, the unreliability of the players and GMs, and the helplessness of looking at dozens of stories like they are trapped in amber unable to ever see resolution.

However I digress. You asked how to not stay addicted? I suggest the binge till you can't stand it anymore approach. join EVERY game till you have no more time for anything else in your life. You will quickly reach a breaking point and suddenly the games won't have the appeal they once did.


MMCJawa wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Spiral_Ninja wrote:

John, I think it's been said that since 20th Century Fox owns the license to the X-Men, they also hold the only license to the term 'mutant' and are not permitting any other companies to use the term. That's why Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans in the upcoming Avengers/Ultron film.

Yes they are not mutants...but that does not mean they are Inhumans either. It seems to me that they gained their powers by Hydra experimenting on them with the gem(a infinity stone) in Loki's scepter/spear.

You might be right they could be Inhumans...I just did not hear Marvel officially saying so officially and wondering id they did say so.

Yep...there is absolutely no reason to assume Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans. In fact the evidence we have so far says they are NOT.

They are definitely building the inhumans up to fill the "mutant" niche, both on the show and currently in the comics.

CinemaBlend wrote:
Confirming what was previously revealed by Stan Lee, Feige said that the studio is indeed playing around with the idea of bringing the Inhumans into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that the the brother-sister superpowered duo won't be their way in

They won't be inhumans that much has been revealed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Aranna's top three rules of good game mastery would be a good place to start.

1- Know the Rules: a game master who is solidly versed in the rules is an asset to be admired. BUT the best game masters know that they can never know everything. Keep learning and keep your ego in check, if a player knows more about a rule than you do learn from him rather than shutting him down. BUT don't rest on his interpretation either. Go curl up on the sofa after the game and read up on the rules you weren't familiar with and learn them for yourself.

2- Know your Players: This seems silly but most problems in a game come from differing expectations during that game. Getting to know your players and what they want even if they don't know themselves is the hallmark of a amazing GM capable of tailoring the game experience to exactly what will make her players have fun. Just don't forget to have fun yourself as well or you will burn out and no one will be gaming. One thing however that I have found that seems to be universal in what players want is structure. A GM who is fair, consistent, and rock solid in their role as game master. Nothing alienates players faster than a door mat GM or a wishy washy one.

3- Know your Story: Yes this IS one of the big three. To have an immersive game you need to know a lot of things about the story. First you need to know what your villain plans are, what they are capable of doing or equally important what they are willing to do to achieve their goals. You need to understand how they will react when they face opposition. You need also to understand who the player characters are what motivates these fictional people to be the opposition and by all means make them PART OF THE STORY. Many GMs forget to make the PCs part of the story, and end up with story time where the game moves forward along predetermined lines with the PCs as bystanders or flunkies. Now I don't mean kidnap their family in every or even ANY story arc. What I mean is make them PART of the community (depending on backgrounds) have the baker wave to Vanessa Swiftblade as she passes by and inquire about her mother. Or have the barkeep buy Garret Darkmagic a drink on the house for handling that rogue necromancer last month. Make the NPCs they meet into living breathing interactable people, NOT just scripted quest givers or background extras.


Spoiler:
I know Skye is in a bit of shock with the roller coaster she is on... but her Inhuman caretaker has been lying all along. It was obvious the moment he tried to bond with her. "I was going through what you were. Till they brought me here." but didn't he also say "Nobody has done it this way. There is a waiting list while you are prepared for the transformation." They couldn't both be true. Either he was prepared ahead of time and chosen for a gift. OR he transformed and was lost and out of control until they brought him to their secret city. People tend to treat change according to their predisposition toward it. He wouldn't have been afraid of his gift if he had been prepared and trained to accept it ahead of time. In fact his transformation would have happened at a prepared facility with people standing by to help him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um... ok yes I now believe Kthulhu is correct FATAL was some form of parody or trolling.


Wow. FATAL has THAT much detail in stat generation?! Why? If I get the chance I will have to ask the developers what they were thinking. I mean stats on a male appendage that isn't likely to even see any use most of the time seems a silly thing to make rules for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lilith wrote:
Great Green God wrote:
Here, here! or is it Huzzah? I can never remember. 'Must be old.

...GGG, is that you? *hugs*

Also a shout out for Ninjas & Superspies. And TMNT.

Ninja's and Superspies mixed with Beyond the Supernatural was a total blast back in the day.


I am unfamiliar with FATAL... it uses integrals? For what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GURPS has complicated math? I didn't notice any but then I only used the basic rules. I can't imagine any RPG with complicated math rules really. What possible reason would there be to introduce things like integrals to a role playing game?


14 sides with some rounded areas to make it all even.


I LOVE quizzes!

But... being an athletic girl means I can't score very high.
And starting in the 90's probably doesn't help much either.

BUT I do get 15 points!
- I had a backpack of books with all kinds of buttons and patches, it was a 90's thing.
- I use metal minis. Yay! Sorry I hear lead was outlawed or something. I would claim painted... but I only painted a few and gave it up. The guy who got me into painting them killed himself and I never regained any real interest in painting them again.
- I own a lot of dice enough to make a sap if I wanted. I collect all manner of the cute little things. I even have some metal ones which would come in handy for that sap. I even had a thing where I matched my dice colors with my outfit... but only for a few years really, I really am not as girly as that makes me sound.

PS: I could up that to 20 by adding my d30 to my dice case... except it doesn't fit and has no real uses...

I bet I own a die none of you own however! I have a d14 made for fun and given to me by a guy in shop class.


I didn't like Space Dandy. But I can certainly see the appeal if you're a big fan of that sort of comedy.


Gun Gale was the beginning of season two...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
The guy I kicked out of my game. While I did not give a hug. Did everything in my power to motivate to get into the game. It went nowhere. Sometimes one has to just walk away from a losing and soul sucking battle. Some people will not change and despite your best efforts and being friends or family the solution is to walk away. Life is too short.

I wasn't there, so take this with a grain of salt. But I once had a player who just sat there and never seemed to be excited about my game, I did everything I could think of to involve him. But week after week nothing... Eventually I had a long conversation about his participation and I will never forget what he said, he said he didn't want any special attention in the game, he was happy just to be one of the players, he didn't want to be the big hero he want to be with his friends, his goal was to support his buddies. I no longer saw him as uninvolved, I saw him as just what the others needed a helping hand who made everything go smoother. And now I smile when he gets to play. Sometimes we are so caught up in our own perspective that we don't get to understand that other person. We don't ask the right questions or we assume something negative. What's done is done with him but hopefully this story will be on people's minds if they run into difficult players.


I had a random thought, Maybe the grumpy grognards just need a hug and someone who will listen.


GM Tribute wrote:

3) This point buy stuff seems too fair. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go.

To be fair wasn't 4d6 drop low made official (not optional) right at the very start of new school systems (3e)? And it continues to be the core stat generation or one of the core ones where point buy is made available. It is a feature of new school games and a huge improvement over the old 3d6 method. It may have been an option and a house rule back in old school times but it is a feature of new school.


I certainly would have stayed to see who finally caved and played the heal bot.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

22? Man I've got dice twice as old as you. Grumble grumble. Uphill. Both ways... In the snow... Bah... baaaaah! Off with ye then.

Whippersnappers talking about Chuck Norris... Sheesh... The reason I dont shave my grognard beard is because each individual strand of this magnificent beard is alone tougher than Chuck Norris.

Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

Even though I am not a grognard I also have dice older than he is, I raided some old board games from the 70's I think for d6s back when I was new. My parents never missed them.


Zhangar wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I'm 22 and have only been playing TRPGs since late 2012.

So I'm grumpy, yes (though I prefer to call it "passionate about game design" =p) but not a grognard.

*Blink blink*

And you've been involved in over a dozen campaigns now?

Now THAT is making up for lost time.

Nice =D

Maybe he is a PbPer, they can often have dozens of simultaneously running games?


I am not sure how accurate my thoughts are on this but it evokes thoughts of older players who grumble about these rotten new fangled games that do away with the hardships they have grown up on and now love.


I remember a time I played with a group of grognards...

It was autumn and we were in a bit of a gaming dry spell with new classes and such. That is when lovable munchkin invited me to this great group he also plays with on occasion. It was a group of really high level grognards playing 1ed AD&D of all things (the game they refuse to give up because NOTHING better was ever made). I of course was given an unholy amount of XP and gold to create my character. So I set about building a wizard (the most broken class I could think of in AD&D at the time)... WOW was I wrong. I sheepishly had my princess of power to the GM and he just laughs. Now I was convinced he was going to berate me for making such an unstoppable power, but he said instead she wasn't strong enough to even face the butler at the dungeon entrance... I was stunned I had used every trick hadn't I? NOPE. Munchkin helped me remake her using dual classing tricks and classes like Ninja (yes these existed in 1st ed apparently) and psionics. Now I had this... inhuman human who could shake the very heavens with raw power while ignoring any damage sent her way (mostly). Satisfied the GM let my now barely able character into his game. I died a LOT in that game... a LOT. And yes the damn butler at the door was the first one to kill me.

My theory is that they don't want to EVER stop playing their favorite character. So they stay in that edition forever just getting stronger and stronger.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.


Mikaze wrote:

Regarding the Bible's word on homosexuality and the need to keep historical context in mind:

Born "eunuchs"

Other arguments, particularly on the viewpoint Paul was operating from and the matter of language drift.

I didn't arrive at my conclusions and convictions I hold through the same methods as the folks those links go to, but arriving in roughly the same area probably saved my life while growing up surrounded by King James Version Only literalism in the same place that gave the world Phil Robertson.

Thanks I will read this over. I had always assumed "born eunuchs" were asexual people... I hadn't considered they might be gays.


Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity

Then I pity the legal teams for this looming court battle (if it ever does and wouldn't it have by now since these laws have been around for a while). And having read the wiki... doesn't this logic also exclude a rather large portion of the white population that has no Jewish ancestry or include blacks with a mixed heritage that does have Jewish ancestry? Their logic seems terribly flawed.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?

Of course you seem confused, Freedom of Religion means freedom of ALL religions. Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful. If an Islamic shop turned away a Christian customer for violating some Muslim tradition I would equally support them in doing so.

As for being gay being sinful... I am personally on the fence on that issue. I have seen the text in the Bible, and I know that it is in a part that doesn't hold sway any more... But one of God's original commandments was to breed and create many children. Isn't being gay ignoring that part of God's message? My gay friends tolerate my indecision and I don't hold it against them either way. After all IF this is a sin it is certainly one that doesn't hurt anyone other than the person themselves and so it is no business of mine to condemn it. There ARE faiths that accept it and they are no less faithful than I am, I have to accept that we each find our own way to God's love and know that "faith alone in Jesus Christ saves us from hell" if a gay man can have faith then I know he will stand by my side in heaven and although many faithful would be shocked. I have done things that are sinful, Be Wary faithful for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Should someone from a faith that believes gay is sinful then let him find his own way to the truth whether he is wrong or right is God's call. Trust that he is faithful in his own way and just wave to him after judgement day when he stands next to the gay man he refused service to. On that day Jesus will tell us who was right and who was wrong. The ones who were wrong will repent and accept the truth because their faith is strong.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?
The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

There are several denominations of Christianity who believe the Bible does not say LGBT relations are a sin. Even Roman Catholicism doesn't believe being LGBT is a sin (only acting on it).

---

Roman Catholicism believes that only an annulment or the death of your spouse ends a marriage. So, outside of a Roman Catholic religious ceremony, why should Roman Catholics who own businesses be allowed to refuse people services or goods for being divorced?

Oook? Why would anyone who is from a denomination OR religion that doesn't believe LGBT is sinful have any reason to deny a gay service?! As for Roman Catholics denying service to divorced people... ok that is their right. But considering how many marriages end in divorce they may be turning away a lot of customers. If they can stay in business then whatever... it doesn't hurt anyone. If I ever get divorced I will shop elsewhere no big deal (other than the brief annoyance at having to go to a better competitor). Heck my b&***ing about it to just my friends would probably cost them 8 more customers (based on a Pepsi Co. study) and possibly many many more if I take it to social media.


littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.


Lord Fyre wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue, were it not for the Hobby Lobby decision.

Before then, Corporations (and all businesses) as fictitious people were not entitled to "religious beliefs".

But since that Supreme Court ruling, laws like this have to be reconsidered.

If that is what this is about then there is no real need to worry, the Hobby Lobby decision ONLY applied to closely held companies NOT big corporations. So no McDonald's in Indiana is going to refuse to serve gays, even if the Ma and Pa Deli next door does refuse them.

Also none of the big hospitals are closely held companies with religious leanings either so no worries over health care either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

"Mocking" is a strong word and implies intentionality. "Acting openly gay" is unlikely to be intended as a slight to someone else. Someone who feels *mocked* by that is over-reacting.

Your proposed separation of marriage into religious and civil components is also problematic. My marriage is also sacred, and it took place in a chapel I helped build, presided over by my minister of many years. To me, the most toxic part of this debate is that it assumes that those who are pro-gay marriage are anti-religious. My religion is very important to me, but I don't feel any need to have it "protected" by over-reaching laws like this.

Wow. I had it all figured out and you had to go deflate my bubble by making sense. You are right of course that religious gays are completely overlooked in my split. I guess in light of this it makes little sense at all to divide marriage. But that still doesn't solve anything. I guess maybe I am over complicating it. You know maybe the answer is right there, why not marry gays in a chapel where being gay isn't a thing. All fixed. Service with a smile.


Thejeff? What attack? Is someone expressing what can literally only be an opinion "going to hell" be considered an attack? No one is hurt. Heck it is likely the target doesn't even believe in hell so where is the attack?

1 to 50 of 2,691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.