|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well Log Horizon was awesome.
And I did watch all of Kill la Kill... Though I almost quit the idiotic show after episode 2. Still after the boyfriend said "Keep watching it gets better" I found myself liking the characters by the end... and that redeemed the show for me. The only part of the show I didn't see coming a mile away was when
Spoiler:definitely worth watching even if it doesn't rank among the best anime.
They revealed the two were sisters
Cause Definitely ONLY 1 :I balk at the idea of beings with the power to shatter worlds or toss whole planes around.
Tech 1, 2b , & 3d
trains between isles makes little sense and the isle would have to be massive to make on island trains make much sense... at which point why bother with an air world at all if the entire adventure location can be all on one huge land mass?
sgriobhadair already solved the water problem with Kyslite having a permanent field of mist around it. But since Kyslite repels then all making it water soluble will do is create rain that falls upward NOT bodies of water. Soil is an issue but I would recommend a different solution. Since this is an unstable world with close links to the elemental planes why not have bits of elemental stuff falling like rain almost seasonally even. So during the "Earth" season you get a rain of soil like stuff falling from the sky?
I agree with Detect Magic. It being a combination of 8 & 9 created in the past by 1. You know you could swap 1 out for 2 as well and have this world exist as a sort of primordial proto-material plane at the edge of the plane of air. But 1 is more popular by far. So I guess we are going with 9 and 1? Hopefully 8 will be well represented.
Yeah I wouldn't make any of the sky islands TOO big if you are using the Kyslite idea. Because if Kyslite repels Kyslite then it wouldn't be likely for vast deposits of the stuff to stay together. And over time earthquakes would rip apart the younger bigger land masses as the Kyslite tries to get away from itself. And since this stuff can levitate massive amounts of weight it wouldn't be hard to imagine a huge quake ripping a continent in half as that force finally breaks apart it's rocky prison. It would also make mining it very very dangerous not just for the miners but the whole island.
9 reminds me of Arianus, the air world from the Death Gate Cycle novels where you have four realms divided racially by altitude. A land of high magic floats very far above the clouds where everyone wields magic. Below that are the cultured elven isles coating amid the upper cloud layer where they explore the world via scientific airships and sextant. The next layer is the human layer with kingdoms and drake riders where agriculture rules supreme since this is where almost all the food is grown under the rain that falls from the clouds above. And deep below that lay the maelstrom of continuous storms Jupiter style where the heavy isles lurk in the depths laden with heavy metals and stone and the great machine of the dwarven labor unions.
3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 seem to be historical earth lands filled with their regional myths.
1 sounds like Dark Sun
8 sounds like Eberron
7 is Pirates of the Carribean
2 is Princess Mononoke
I guess if combining them 9 and 7 combine beautifully and might be super fun. It could even be joined with 8 for the more cultured/advanced areas or any of the mythic historical lands for varied island cultures. 1 might be hard to combine because why would world distruction have only visited one area?
Sometimes if someone reads a rule with a preconceived notion of how they want it to work then they mistake how the rule actually works. Their read through ignores all the facts while only looking for text which confirms that they were right. The text seems clear to me. Your GM is doing this. It is frustrating when someone in authority puts blinders on to avoid the truth but that's life I guess. Since your GM has made a final ruling then it is effectively now house ruled. If this house rule makes life difficult for your character I would retire my PC and make a new one with the new house rule in mind.
That ISN'T what I am clinging to and you know it. I will state again: your alignment changes if you continually act in a manner of another alignment. You assert killing actively evil targets is evil. So according to you adventurers run around doing evil acts frequently. Even liberal GMs will change your alignment to evil if you run around frequently doing evil.
This logic is flawed. Is a paladin who rides to the lair of the evil baby sacrificing cult with the intent to slay the vile den of evil doers himself evil? According to TOZ yes that paladin is evil. According to me (and I hope most of you) he is good.
Deadmanwalking, No just no.
Do a web search on "who does batman kill" and you will find a string of brutal murders committed by Batman going all the way back to the earliest issues.
Ok I hadn't read the book in question so I didn't know she killed fleeing villains. THAT is a gray area. But is it gray enough to knock it outside of "good"? Debatable. They were no longer a threat to her... however they did remain a threat to all the other people in the community. They didn't surrender to be taken in for a trial did they?
BUT simply dressing nice and walking down the street IS NOT BAITING! This is the same logic as "blame the victim" and I reject it angrily. She shouldn't be attacked period. Why is how I dress as a woman relevant to ANY crime against me? What she did walking down a street dressed nice in an area where violent attacks are common is more akin to Rosa Parks staying in her seat. With the exception that Rosa wasn't going to be violent in defending herself. It should be everyones right to walk safely down any street.
Baiting would be offering to sell illegal guns or drugs to some bad guys and then arresting them when they take the deal.
I bolded the incorrect part. Unless the criminal surrenders I fail to see how she is going to bring them in for justice. And if she kills a surrendered opponent then yes this becomes evil. BUT that isn't what I have read is happening here. If you kill someone in self defense that isn't evil. She isn't attacking them... they are attacking her. Or are you somehow suggesting that it IS non-good to leave yourself vulnerable? I don't know anything about the Punisher so using him as an example isn't effective in my case. She is targeting violent evil and that is good, as it makes society safer. If this Punisher is waiting till evil violently reveals itself and then defending against those evil people (lethally or not) then I guess he is good; but as I said I have no idea about this Punisher so he is a bad example. As for Batman doesn't the Dark Knight kill people too? Unless they surrender? Maybe it depends on which version of Batman you are talking about?
On a related point; Can you do good and remain neutral? Yes. Your alignment is a big picture thing and one act or even a string of similar acts isn't necessarily going to shift that alignment. If doing good starts to define your character then a shift is warranted.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
If you must use alignment, which I strongly suggest not doing, the only arbiter of alignment should be the player themselves. Feel free to provide real world consequences to actions; that's the fun of the game. But alignment should be up to the person embodying the character.
Absolutely NO.Leaving alignment in the hands of the player is a route to madness and I stand 100% behind the game developers in making an absolute arbiter for alignment in each game. That one person being the GM!
Jasnah isn't doing evil people. Really the hardest core good (Lawful Good) has been called the Crusader because they hunt down and destroy evil. This is merely an unusual tactic toward ridding the streets of violent criminals. Is it chaotic to use an unusual tactic as many here suggest? No. It is good as described. Could evil people use a similar tactic to prey upon other criminals for fun or profit? Yes. But in the case of this character who is doing this to rid the streets of violent criminals it is simply a good act.
NG by average. I usually play Good characters because in my heart I am a hero. I will do the right thing without a second thought. That isn't to say I have always played good... I do mix it up from time to time. But it is more of a conscious effort to find the evil option.
Follow up: I rarely change alignment in game. My character's usually know themselves well enough not to be swayed by the little things... Although my Paladin Archer fell. She fell hard, straight to Black Guard. But I don't blame her I mean you try adventuring in her circumstances and staying paladin level pure! It would be like joining a pirate game with a paladin. She was doomed to failure.
Just the impression I get from the GMs who advertised "sandbox". Sandbox is a game without limits. Play however you wish to play as a team or solo as the mood strikes you. The world is there. Go left or right and you will find new stuff. I suspect the GM who placed a den of trolls in a low level sandbox would be expecting the player to look for help. Or maybe he is a GM who doesn't understand game balance?
PS: Think about it. If a sandbox game has 15hd monsters populating it but the GM starts you at level 1 you are likely going to end up as a tasty meat snack.
I am not sure I would call Malwing's game a sandbox since his players are sticking together as a team and that has it's own set of limits. It is just a regular game with a more open ended adventure selection and no overarching main plot line for the campaign.
Malwing, did you have all those adventures you were giving them as options prepared and ready to go? Or did you intend to stop the game after they picked a direction and then prepare that path? Or were you just going to wing it regardless of what they chose? In the first case I would advise that maybe you are doing more than you have to. Since you will end up rewriting the adventures for a higher level in the case of the ones not chosen. In the last case I probably won't be much help since I have only had bad experiences with the laissez faire types and not much useful advice as a result. If it is the middle case then try just giving them one main option with any other options held in reserve in case they don't seem excited about the main one. Perhaps a jobs board in town with adventures that change all the time as a backup for when the errands the mayor has them running get old. Through role play they might get well established with more than one quest giver and you could then play the NPCs against each other a little as a sort of subplot in their efforts to secure the best team for their jobs.
I have been avoiding sandbox games for a while now. Back when I wanted to try out the sandbox approach I joined a number of online PbP sandbox games and soon discovered that when most people say sandbox they mean that they have NO content prepared and instead intend to wing it depending on what players want to do at that moment. BUT that leads to no in game continuity (since these Laissez faire GMs don't write stuff down or they would have done at least some prep), poorly run encounters (ill prepared GMs frequently forget monster details or have a poor sense of tactics), and NPCs that rarely stay in character and will likely never be seen again.
That said occasionally you do find a good sandbox GM... or so some people would have me believe. Personally I suspect a good sandbox GM is an urban myth. Why because when letting everyone do as they please they will have to juggle numerous different plot threads as everyone goes their own way; all while keeping meticulous notes for sometimes as many as six or more concurrently running adventures. And that is on top off all the usual stuff GMs need to keep straight.
If he won't listen then he won't listen... but that doesn't mean you have to stop talking. Keep giving him advice outside the game and see if he doesn't eventually start taking it.
Now if you don't have that kind of patience then it's best to just find a new GM and hopefully the slap in the face that he wasn't good enough will motivate him to learn more before trying again.
Toon would annoy me. Just because of the word itself, referencing cartoons and/or Roger Rabbit, to me it sounds sillier and as if the user is not taking his character very seriously.
Is this fair? You are painting possibly very false motives onto someone else just because that is how you yourself feel about a word. In all likelihood they have their own completely unrelated way of looking at the term. I can assure you if for example I came from one of my niece's D&D parties and had the term "toon" stuck in my head. And then was referring to my character as my toon in your game; it would NOT mean I was taking your game or my character any less seriously then anyone else.
Just going by connotation from my perspective no ill was ever intended by the use of "toon" ..."murderhobo" is a different story. But "toon"? Why get enraged that someone is getting all um... slangy or trendy with their language? If you want arm-chair psycho-analysis I would say the disrespect is entirely in the head of the one getting upset. And no good can come from such an attitude. I don't care about the use of the term... I do care about the people who are taking this way too seriously. Make me the bad girl if you wish as long as you can step back and laugh at yourself later. ;)
Is it? Yay!
I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.
Toon: as I said already, it doesn't bother me anymore. To my ear it sounds extra cute and slangy. I don't use it but that is just because it still seems a bit strange to me. I suppose if I was in a group that used it regularly I might start using it without even realizing it myself.
Murderhobo: The first and to date only place I have seen this is right here on these very forums. It also caused me a moment of confusion when first reading it; and it strikes me as rather derogatory in nature despite the frequent use here. I might have even used it myself in an effort to be extra snarky.
Mob: I always thought this term was literal; as in that mob of minor enemies you have to fight to get to the boss. It has been fun seeing other peoples ideas on where the term may have started. I do use this from time to time as it is straight forward English and fits my interpretation of the meaning perfectly. And we all want to speak clearly don't we?
Tank, Healer, Controller, DeePS, Buffer, pull, aggro, DOT, HOT, ect.: MMO terms. I use them and I think everyone does now. They are as new as MMOs I think but they are also the perfect way to describe roles in a RPG, computer or not. No better words exist for these meanings.
Wow I can't believe this string of lies and slander. All I did was fix a misleading statistic posted by someone else and now somehow I am supposed to be saying violence against men is ok?! You owe me an apology.
The real issue is how do we help women have an equal voice in a male dominated world. How in ANY WAY is violence against men relevant toward improving the plight of women? Or are you somehow suggesting men's issues should take precedence EVEN in a thread about objectification of women? You want to solve the violent nature of many men fine that is a lofty goal but this isn't the place to do it. Why not start your own thread to cover violence against men?
Thank you LazarX. That is it exactly.
Oh and Sissyl, the topic isn't domestic violence either. The topic is objectification of women. In case you didn't bother to read that. Although someone stated 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse, how much of that is male on male domestic abuse you know like fathers hitting their sons? I would suspect a lot of it based on the different statistic I quoted.
The term threw me off the first time I heard it; I thought they were talking literally about a cartoon of some sort. But after it became apparent they were discussing a PC I had no real issue with it. I wouldn't use it myself, because it doesn't sound right. But who cares if anyone else uses it? As long as your language is clearly understood you are fine.
Dept of Justice wrote:
Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.
A lot of this violence against men is done by men not so much is done by women. Trying to dismiss sexism because men are abused too is absurd when so much of it is done by men.
How can anyone pick just one?
Imowen my twice fallen Paladin/Black Guard Archer... tragic but epic story of love and war but nearly impossible to go back to playing her.
Mei Chan Min my Rim Sorceress from Star Wars. So full of wisdom yet so powerless to affect her own fate.
'Hearts' My struggling investigator who liked both cybernetics and magic and could never choose between them from Shadowrun.
Lady Lucky my ancient martial artist from Palladium Fantasy who was ALWAYS deep into some form trouble in one of the best City Campaigns I have played in. Her in party rival was in no small part to blame for most of it. The GM should have just named his game the adventures of Lady Lucky and the Snake Sorceress. Frienemies to the very end.
Of course 'Mer-Maid' my marine biology based super who got Rifted to Rifts earth. Lots of craziness in that short lived game.
Or Evangaline the burning angel from Nightbane. Who somehow made it to more universes than I care to number ranging from Palladium Fantasy all the way to Rifts and even Robotech.
Hama it is a musical. Kind of hard to have a musical without music.
Real love is what she and her sister had... not what she could get from her latest boyfriends. I still don't see any homosexuality... Ms Skaggs must have had a horrible upbringing if she can't identify with the love siblings have for each other and in her strange world reinterprets it as homosexuality.
The whole main cast have lost everything they cared about... and instead of finding each other and forging a new future they remain at arms length from each other.
And by the end what has changed? Spike goes off to die. Faye has the whole girl out of time theme slammed in her face. Ed and Ein leave much the same as when they came and Jet just continues on. It leaves me feeling depressed by the end. Sure it is a fun ride getting there but still...
Yeah like Aelryinth I have been mostly doing solos to get the full experience. My wizard started act5 at 88k damage and blasted all out of her path at torment 1. That is until that first big angel boss where I learned the hard way why my build was weak. I had no way to escape being cornered and once cornered I was easily killed. So I dropped to master and kept going. At this point I had 200k damage because the drops of 61 level and up make 60th level stuff look like toys. However I was determined to finish the act at all costs and so I pushed higher and higher without regard for my ever worse gear score (I still have too many level 60 items to function effectively at level 70.) But as I hit points where I found it too difficult I would just drop the difficulty and keep going... by the time I finished act 5 I was all the way down to normal difficulty. Clearly my poor wizard needs a rebuild from the ground up.