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

2,652 posts. Alias of Min2007.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,652 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law.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 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People please keep it calm.

Let's break down the issue because the Gay rights crowd is inflaming the issue, and maybe they are right to do so, we need to talk about these things. But if we can't at some point stop and rationally discuss this then there really isn't any discussion.

First regardless of any outside considerations do merchants have the right to not sell to anyone for any reason? Of course they do, a man tossed from a bar for being drunk or a man tossed from a restaurant for smoking do not have the right to claim any loss due to being denied service. Clearly they were discriminated against as people who didn't follow the merchants rules of behavior.

So then the real issue here is whether or not practicing an activity that mocks a certain religion's beliefs is the same as not following the rules of that merchant for doing business. It would be no different than if a Christian went into an LGBT owned place and told the people there they were going to hell, yet still expecting service from that establishment and even threatening legal action if they tossed him out.

Can you see the other side now? All this law does is affirms the merchant right to determine the rules of behavior in their place of business.


What difference does this all make?
What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

As for Gen Con moving? As I understand it they can't; at least not till after 2020 when their contract expires. The reasons for selecting Indy haven't changed; they need a centrally located city in the US capable of housing close to 60 thousand visitors. There really aren't many cities here that fit the bill... Chicago does but they would have to fit it in around all the other events in that city. No really Indy was their best option for the price and convenience. I seriously think this will have blown over by 2020 and they won't move at all. Just look at all the crazy laws already on the books that aren't enforced, this seems destined to join that pile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
to create more love scenes that include Agent Ward (i.e. lady fanservice)

Ewwww!!! I seriously hope you were joking.


Parry and discipline may tax fighters... but it gives them options they don't have in the main game; parry is an interesting defensive fighting style, and discipline gives you a new way to resist trick maneuvers like trip and disarm. So I wouldn't say that was a bad thing.

Power attack bothered me a little at first too but it makes sense in a video game to keep combat moving by assigning a static number to power attack rather than allow them to halt combat every round to choose a number.


Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2 was the closest to real D&D 3.5e I have ever played. It was almost dead on with a few minor changes to skills, spells, or PrCs. You could also see your rolls in that if you wished. But then I never played ToEE so I can't really compare.


Greylurker wrote:
well this was pretty cool

Nice... I kept waiting to hear the Japanese language.

Spoiler:
I was also waiting to see the Rebellion turn the tables
, but that never happened either.

I am interested, very interested.

Thanks!


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Aranna wrote:

How we speak has much the same effect as the clothes you wear. It shapes how others see us and how we see ourselves. If you speak like a street ganger then it will have much the same effect around others as dressing as a street ganger. It may be perfect for when you are hanging with a street gang but would likely cost you a job in an interview. Just as speaking in proper business manner will impress at an interview but leave you looking like a sell out to your gang buddies.

I have learned that it is a simple matter to adjust my speech to match the occasion. Think of it like role playing (something we should all be familiar with); if you are at a high society party then you speak with proper enunciation with no trace of any vulgarities and maybe even spruce up your language with a few attractive and witty words... just like the gown and jewelry you are wearing. Become high society in a high society event and you will be well received, change language to match the image you are presenting at the time.

Also it is a bit revealing the language people choose to use when they are being casual. When you are in casual mode you are at your most comfortable this is the closest to the real you.

People have many, situational, selves. The casual isn't the purest example of the real. A person lazing around in their undies and eating pizza in their time-off is not the full or complete reality of being that person, and if it is rarely who they are and why they are typically being it is questionable that this is the real, essentialised "them".

The casual as the real is complicated by those that spend so much more time being another version of themselves. Professionals, those that really give to and enjoy their work and roles, are they more real at work or casually? Jumping to say the casual is the real and everything else isn't seems a stretch. What if someone has worked a position for decades and their identity and place is really bound to this? The real then is what they are day in and day out.

I like to relax and chill out, or go casual with a few friends, but that isn't my true self. I have clients I help in my professional capacity, and when I am at my best with them and am challenged to do better and do more, that feels far more real, positive and varied than losing myself in a game or shooting the breeze with some old buddies.

I don't think the casual is the only place for realness or one's true identity.

I am NOT talking about laying around in your undies. I am talking about the sort of dress you wear when you are just hanging out with people you are totally comfortable around... although maybe you hang out with others in your undies? The image is amusing anyway; imagining you showing up at your buddies house in just your undies. My father for example is an engineer, he dresses in slacks and either a button down shirt or a golf shirt... this is his casual AND his business attire. It's him at his most comfortable. That is what I mean by casual. That 'most comfortable' dress style is closest to the real you. Do you understand now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

~ponders posting here... and curiosity wins~

NG(with L tendencies) is my alignment. Get this clear I want to be lawful good. I just don't think I live up to it. I do respect tradition and those in authority... that said sometimes I get a bit snarky or deliberately provoke someone who has a wrong headed idea in an effort to show the right way even if I look bad doing so. I love helping others and I think that shows clearly in my life and in my posting not just with helpful online advice or championing good causes but also volunteering my time to help others IRL.

Not sure who I should be commenting on above... Hama (directly above as I type this)? Most of his posts are one liners designed to quickly and efficiently express his opinion. Um... Neutral seems right. He doesn't leave much to go on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

68: Three rolls off the Central Casting table Unusual Birth Circumstances pick the one result you like best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flash reminds me of a creepy stalker secretly lusting after his sister...

Ollie, can melt my heart any time he wants. And he isn't as dark any more he mellowed out.

So yes on this we have to disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heroes suffered from a lack of story... I mean they clearly weren't thinking past season 1 when they made it.

AoS is at least consistent within it's setting. It has good moments and bad ones admittedly but it is a better show than any of the super hero knock offs so far... except Arrow and Agent Carter... I love Arrow & Agent Carter. I just wish they hadn't bothered with Flash... that version of flash is a major turn off.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
If you think killing bunnies is evil, either you're a hardcore PETA vegan or you've never taken the time to think about where your food comes from. It does not grow magically in white styrofoam packages at WalMart.

If you truly want to horrify a PETA vegan show them the study that proves plants can feel when they are being eaten and cry out in pain. Apparently the "cry out in pain" is done chemically since they can't vocalize.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A game is a game... "realism" tends to just be an excuse for some people to unbalance the system against others. "I don't want you to X because you can't do that in real life", it is the worst sort of biased garbage logic ever. They are just trying to stealth in House Rules that unbalance the already running game without any play testing or rule considerations by trying to disrupt suspension of disbelief. Am I sure of this? Yes, just look at the the "realism" people's targets. They attack single unrealistic things with complete disregard for other unrealistic things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow... was animation really that bad in the eighties?
wait... this was made in the 2000s?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MissingNo wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Oh gods, I never thought I'd be laughing this hard at this forum!
@& C*(&@!( VdfTWQ )# @!FV8T @ (*( V+

Perhaps the answer you are looking for is 42?

Aranna asked helpfully.


Both I would imagine any altered fluff regardless of source becomes a homebrew setting.


I do the 4th edition thing of separating the elves, drow, and eladrin and giving each their usual flavor. Elves are at one with the natural places they live in taking on a sort of camouflage in the way they artistically mimic their environment, born rangers. Eladrin are high minded favoring the mysteries and beauty of magic. While Drow seek only to survive a world turned against them, whatever dark deeds were done in the past the Drow lost their place in the world and ran underground where they turned to forbidden magics and dark rituals to save themselves, every race is an enemy of the Drow and they know this, they kill to survive, they torture to understand their enemies, and they long ago lost any compassion for those they hurt while saving themselves.

Yes the Drow only have a slightly different flavor in my setting, they are the victims lashing out at everyone who has ever hurt them however old that crime and the memories of the various elven peoples are long indeed. Of course this just reinforces the worlds hatred of the Drow. An endless cycle of hate set up long long ago in one of the finest gambits the demons have ever pulled off. Rare indeed are the Drow who give up their hate and rare indeed are the other races who would accept that. Truly an epic win for demons.


Kthulhu wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

People misspelling usernames.

It's RIGHT THERE, people!

"Rynjyn", hmph.

Dude, it's amazing how many variations I've seen of my username.

This has even happened to me... there was this one poster who wanted to add a 'c' and remove a 'n' turning my name into Arcana.


MMCJawa wrote:
Do you honestly think that Paizo is going to cancel an AP or book if you post multiple replies about how lame that product is going to be?

If just I post it? Nope. If there are a LOT of similar posters I sure hope they would have the wisdom to rethink what they are doing. If they go ahead with a rather unpopular expansion then they risk creating different factions in their customer base and dividing their profits downward.

As for not spending any money in the lead up to the new product? Not very useful as the company will have no idea why you aren't spending any more. Actually posting in forums they read is far clearer.


Orthos wrote:
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in turn.

Does that even happen? I suppose if it does then YES each side has a right to speak its own mind. People shouldn't get upset over it.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:


(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys every supplement ever made to please these players.)
Or at least reads up on the rules on the PRD. You don't have to buy them. :)

Ok true. Make that "buys or uses every supplement".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Wraithstrike... there is a valid reason to resist the production of a product you will not enjoy. Why? Because that product isn't something you can just ignore and it will go away. That product will start to taint other future products by becoming official and being included in many future products down the road from adventure paths to future rules supplements which rely on it. Before long you will be forced to start swinging the ban hammer far and wide to remove the tainted rules or options from the game you wish to play. And that can get really old really fast especially when you have some players who want it and think since it's official that they should get their way.

I guess my problem with this mentality is what one groups loves, another group loathes. Really the only way to accommodate that viewpoint is to just cease any further production of new books.

I would rather get some products released I am not a huge fan of, than...no new products.

~tries in vain to stop laughing~

Wow you so totally missed my point I am going to have to go back and make sure I made one.

I am not saying stop making any product that even a few people disagree with. I am saying don't get upset about people speaking out against an upcoming product or idea, it is literally the best way we fans have to influence a company for the better to actually let everyone know what we want and don't want and then let the company decide if it's still worth pursuing. And if the product still comes out please don't get up in arms if a faction of the GMs ban it. They didn't like the product and so they are not including it in their games.

(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys or uses every supplement ever made to please these players.)


Banning willy-nilly isn't fun for the GM or the players who's toys he is removing. But that is the path people who say "You can simply not buy the product" are forcing everyone else down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I altered Orcs to be like Klingons; Honor, warrior code, might makes right. They are a true warrior race to be feared by my players. This didn't really sink in for my players till a simple orc border patrol of no greater than 1st through 5th level members nearly TPKed their party of 8th to 12th level party members. But then they really weren't ready for such tactics from a lower level foe and massively underestimated them.

I also gave Kobolds a comedic twist. They have such grandiose plans but tend to be their own worst enemies... but their contraptions are amazing to behold... just super dangerous to both use and be on the receiving end of.


See thegreenteagamer gets it, wraithstrike. And I am not saying all supplements will see wide spread future inclusion. But there is no way of knowing which products will and won't be widely used going forward BEFORE the product is even published. So the best thing to do when a company takes an interest in a product you won't like IS TO SAY SO as publicly as possible in the hopes that so many people join you to cause the company to seriously reconsider their interest.


Ok I have a meme to present. That poster type who will obstinantly challenge every single thing someone else posts. If they try to debate them they will simply continue to do so to every post they make. It is the worst sort of trolling I have ever encountered and I have even seen one of them drive a moderator away from a thread. Why is it the worst trolling? Because it doesn't violate CoC; it is just pure rudeness down to it's very core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wraithstrike... there is a valid reason to resist the production of a product you will not enjoy. Why? Because that product isn't something you can just ignore and it will go away. That product will start to taint other future products by becoming official and being included in many future products down the road from adventure paths to future rules supplements which rely on it. Before long you will be forced to start swinging the ban hammer far and wide to remove the tainted rules or options from the game you wish to play. And that can get really old really fast especially when you have some players who want it and think since it's official that they should get their way.


I have always encouraged cliches. I know how exciting it can be to play out a cliched role. And I like to think of it as your first step into playing as someone other than 'you'. As you get more experience playing such roles you will naturally want to expand your options and try out new cliches and later even mix and match or build whole new personae. So it is definitely a GOOD thing. Think of it as role playing 101.


Nice work brad2411.


Wait... so she doesn't screen these people to see if they really need help?!


I have seen a few episodes of Hell Girl at an anime convention... it was creepy. I love the idea of sending really bad people to hell, it horrifies me to think the one who needs help has to go there as well.


But that's the crux of it, these ARE the modern times NOT the ancient times. This game is being sold to modern people NOT ancient people. There are a great many things from ancient times that were seen as good back then which are clearly not good; I am sure I don't need to spell out some of these horrible things, but will if you need clarity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Zova Lex wrote:
See Rynjyn's above statement. In no way did he insult your intelligence. If your reasoning is flawed, then he has all the right to tell you so. That is what one does in a discussion.

Yes and no.

First one certainly contained an insult, while second started pretty harsh (belittling her feelings reference the initial insult).

While technically correct, Rynjin's replies ignore a large and well-established set of traditional views - i.e. "humans aren't animals" - which even the game system we all play acknowledges.

Humans are part of the larger "animalia" but they are not, culturally speaking, animals, in the same way that other creatures are.

Dropping it isn't the answer. Rynjin needs to apologize for his insulting first post.

People (whatever race) are not animals. Ok sure in the broadest of scientific definitions every moving life form is an animal. BUT clearly that is irrelevant here. We are talking about whether it is right or wrong to eat dead people... which is literally ghoulish behavior. Just because some culture somewhere thinks it's perfectly ok or even good doesn't make it right. Desecration of the dead is evil is it not? And this is at the very least that.


My new seasonal is getting too strong for torment 1, time to try torment 2.

What are some ways to amp up damage? I seem to be plateaued at between 300k and 400k. My gear seems top notch so there is obviously something I am not doing that all the million damage T6ers are doing... The only thing that pops to mind is legendary gems, which I have yet to get the hang of in any season. But it must be more than that?


Avamira wrote:
extinct_fizz wrote:

Eating intelligent humanoids counts as an evil act. See below.

** spoiler omitted **

That's to gain power, though in this case I agree.

I fail to see why gaining power out of the act is relevant at all to the evil act itself?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I finally watched Kinos Journey. I both like and dislike it at the same time if you can figure that out. Hmmm... I guess I like that it fits together perfectly like a well made piece of artwork showing us this impossible and insane set of countries. And then there is Kino herself who really isn't anything like me... well other than the fact that we are both skilled with a handgun, she is far better than I am, I admit. I would actually dislike staying only three days at a place. Speaking of dislike... I find the countries depicted as horrible mostly and wonder at the impossibility of the whole place. People ... people aren't as bad or as single minded as they seem to think. The episodes leave me feeling depressed.


Ok I am confused... your character just got Syphilis out of thin air?

1 to 50 of 2,652 << 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.