Lady

Australophilia's page

43 posts. Alias of Kelsey MacAilbert.


RSS


Apple Juice is banned for expecting the secret to be kept.


Drop. The. Talk. About. Gun. Control. I am not having this argument anymore. I should have never brought it up. It was rather stupid of me to do so. I won't convince you, you won't convince me. All we'll do is piss each other off and then the mods will have to clean up after us. It's not worth it.

Edit: I flagged this so that I could ask a mod to please back me up. I was stupid to bring up gun control and I'd appreciate an official mod request to drop the topic.


Shifty wrote:

Back before we were a relatively low crime country, our crime rate pre gun control was pretty bad. Those who are avid followers of Australian history might thump a finger down at any point in Australian history and find everything from armed insurection, through to outright mutiny, mass killings, armed robbery through the wazzoo and onward.

There is no need to have a gun for self defence in this country. None. All someone having a gun will do is make things worse, and probably (ironically) get more people killed.

I am happy that our gun laws are tighter than a ducks behind, as average people do not need a gun, and indeed the average person is placed at risk by other people having them.

We went through that phase of being able to buy firearms readily, and when we showed it was ridiculous and we as a populace couldn't play nicely, the Govt bought them all back from us and brought in tough laws.

How many mass shootings in schools does it take for America to change? Dunno, maybe you are just really slow learners.

We had (in quick succession) Burwood Mall, Strathfield Plaza, then Hoddle St and finally a mass shooting at Port Arthur and then we decided that was too many - we haven't had a Columbine. If having us all hand in our guns prevents one more of these then it wa a wise decision.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a happy gun loving right winger, but that doesn't mean I can't see the common sense in restricting the types of firearms available and making sure they are in the hands of people with legit reasons to have them, or for enthusiasts, securely held at the range under strict controls.

These 'I need it so I'll be safe' people walking abut with a siege mentality are a menace to society. When you assume everyone else is out to get you, it doesn't take long for you decide to get in first.

I should have never mentioned gun control in this thread. It was stupid of me to bring it up. I could tear this post to pieces, and you'd just tear back. Let's just drop the subject.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Did the British system manage to keep people from killing each other, or did people just start killing each other with pointy things instead of guns?

The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.


GeraintElberion wrote:
I enjoy the British system.

You mean the one that doesn't do a thing to curb violent crime while making it difficult for people to protect themselves?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Came up on the Australian thread.

I shouldn't have brought it up there, either. I should have stuck to the topic of women being allowed in frontline combat roles by another country.


TarkXT wrote:
Shifty wrote:

As the shield only provides a bonus to reflex saves, there is nothing to say it will be guaranteed to stop a fireball.

Similarly, there is no point from which the Stone Call expands, it simply 'fills the area' and hence denies a Reflex save at all.

Unless there's rules otherwise, the shield defence isnt looking very sturdy... :(

The other problem is that the shieldsmen will need to state which facing they wish to commit their shields to against a potential fireball, yet it could go off in any square, making it a whole lot of guesswork.

I don't think you understand what a tetsudo is.

Those tower shields provide total cover. They block line of sight and with it line of effect.

The only real vulnerable point is the rear or possibly the sides. And keep in mind the mage still needs line of sight to that square behind them A shield wall blocks line of sight there. So he'd need to get above them at least to even target that weakpoint which exposes him to other hazards. It's give and take. No unit here is existing in a vacuum.

As to that interprtion I'd find it dubious as it implies the spell can hit people inside a building if cast on a square outside. After all a solid wall also provides total cover.

Argh! I'm going I'm going! Carry on!

What if you set the fireball off on top of the tetsudo? Surely the flame will heat up the shields and seep in between the spaces between them.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Good post. I particularly like the point that mages - who usually have, what, a 16 intelligence? - will not particularly want to cast fireball, since it's like holding up a giant sign that says I JUST KILLED NINE OF YOUR BUDDIES AND I ONLY HAVE 28 HP! That's not to say that mages won't take the field, but they'd almost certainly prefer infiltration or night-time strikes (when they can avoid massed fire and waste fewer resources on defensive spells) over open battle.

Yes, but in a large, confused fracas, is it immediately obvious who launched the fireball? I could see you having a general idea of the area it came from, but of the specific person who launched it, especially if that person is dressed like a common soldier?


James Jacobs wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
Do you guys have any plans for a Modern Pathfinder, Age of Sail Pathfinder, Steampunk Pathfinder, or any other deviation from the standard medieval/early renaissance tech level? Any chance of there ever being such plans?

No plans at this point. We're pretty committed to remaining a very strong focus on Golarion as a fantasy setting. If we were to introduce a new setting (like a modern or a steampunk or whatever) we would have to support that setting with its own line of adventure paths and supplements, because that's our philosophy--a setting without constant support is not a viable setting, and thus not something we want to devote resources toward.

That philosophy may some day change... but that day is not today.

What about a book about how to update Golarion to the Age of Sail and use medieval adventure paths with muskets?


Do you guys have any plans for a Modern Pathfinder, Age of Sail Pathfinder, Steampunk Pathfinder, or any other deviation from the standard medieval/early renaissance tech level? Any chance of there ever being such plans?


Gary Teter wrote:
Generally you can just email webmaster@paizo.com about stuff like this, though starting a thread here is fine.

Let me know where the thread should be and I can put it somewhere more appropriate.

Thank you. I thought Pathfinder RPG General Discussion was fine, and where I originally posted it, but if it isn't I'm not really picky. I just don't want it in Pathfinder Campaign Setting when I know nothing about Golarion.


I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a mod just moved one of my threads to a location that I HIGHLY protest, and I'd like to speak to them about it. This isn't meant as an insult or challenge to the mods, I'm just really upset about it being moved to somewhere it honestly has no place being in, especially considering the fact that I never once said the word Golarion.


WHY was this moved to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting? It does NOT belong here. I'm discussing medieval warfare and magic in general, not Golarion, which I have never bought into, know nothing about, and have no interest in knowing anything about. When I say "typical Pathfinder setting", I mean swords and sorcery, not any particular campaign setting.

Please move it somewhere else, mods. It makes no sense to put it here when this thread has nothing to do with Golarion.


TarkXT wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
oh god please don't start an edition war
Too late! ROLL INITIATIVE!

G#~!*!mit cheapy you're supposed to be checking for traps.

1d20+10 Initiative

1d20 + 10 ⇒ (12) + 10 = 22 Initiative.

Gods damn it all! Though shalt have first move, knave!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
that castles were largely made of wood is not an advantage in a world of fireballs and scorching rays.

Many castles WERE built of wood, and were seen as permanant structures. Many of them lasted for 2 3 or even 400 years. (longer than there's been a united states) It wasn't because no one ever said "hey, thats made of wood, lets set it on fire". We just don't think of them because we can't go visit them today, both because they were in vogue earlier and don't last quite as long as stone castles.

A foot thick oak beam is NOT easy to set on fire. You need some sort of accelerant, and even oil is just going to make the outside nice, black, crispy and carbonized... in other words even HARDER to burn than regular wood.

Furthermore, can't mages or alchemists create some sort of fire repellent, then pour it over the walls when attack seems imminent? Better yet, use some sort of resin that lasts years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
oh god please don't start an edition war

Too late! ROLL INITIATIVE!


Shifty wrote:
Fireballs, for example, funademtally change the structure of conflict... and those are 'early' spells.

I agree that fireballs fundamentally change the conflict, but can you elaborate?


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Wizards are the easy part.

Castle walls vs. Froghemoth?

Castle owners will want to send local druids regular gifts. In fact, that is going to be the most significant change in castles. Castles will be designed to be environmentally conscious.

This leads to smaller populations with more skilled staff.

That makes sense. Nothing could change a battle like magic capable of altering the terrain and defenses, and nothing does that like a druid.


Jeraa wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think a smart army would have to look like ww1. Troops have to be behind cover and spread out, because if you show your face you're a dead man from some sort of fireball.

A wand of fireballs is cost comperable to a man in full plate on a horse, so it makes those apprentice wizards kind of dangerous.

I get what you're trying to say, but how does a horse (300 gp) and a guy in full plate (1,500 gp) equal 11,250 gp?

You can't make wands below 50 charges.

Don't make it a wand. A single use, use-activated item (Say, a bomb you throw. Grenades.) of fireball would only cost 750 gold. The country would be making them themselves, so half that (375 gold). Expensive, but you can make 4 for the cost of a single knights armor and horse. Each one capable of taking out a large number of soldiers. And unlike wands, anyone can use them. You have no idea if that soldier over there can decimate your entire squad until its too late.

How do you think it would be countered? Zig zag trenches?


I have a thought. With all the flying stuff around, would it not behoove castles and fortresses to have some sort of roof? Perhaps stone? Or is that to heavy? Wood, then?


thejeff wrote:
It's supposed to be medieval flavor + magic, not what medieval tech with magic would really be like.

Well, what medieval tech with magic would really be like is what this thread is about. Why? Because I think it'd be an interesting discussion.

Plus, maybe I want to have a campaign with what medieval tech with magic would really be like.


Now, Pathfinder is generally set in the late medieval period. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that Pathfinder militaries follow IRL medieval patterns in structure, strategy, and tactics. However, that discounts the wide availability of magic in a typical Pathfinder setting. One would think that it would have far reaching effects on how militaries are structured and battles are fought. Precisely what those effects would be, however, is anyone's guess.

So, lets get to guessing.


Also, be careful with cavalry. Infantry shoot very fast in this mod, and will cut them down. I assume machine guns would be even worse, but have not trained any yet. Then again, that is pretty realistic, so I'm not complaining.


Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds awesome.

It is. So far my play has been limited to about an hour and a half of the British, and I am highly pleased with what I have so far seen.

You do not start out with any armies, but you do start out with your major cities (London and Edinburgh) well developed. You may train troops immediately, including conscript battalions, British infantry, Canadian infantry, Highland infantry, and Australian infantry. Some of the icons are from vanilla Total War, but that is to be expected. The menu has been restyled to look in place in WW1. I have not done any naval battles yet, but unit cards are WW1 style. A new line of technologies exists, including machine guns.


I just downloaded.

This looks unbelievably awesome. I'll be back with more info once I've tried it out.


LazarX wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
Somewhere between strict and totally unreasonable. You can get them, it just isn't easy. At all. As liberal as I am, I feel that aside from keeping guns away from violent felons and the insane, gun control has no real benefit, and that as long as you do not belong to one of the two groups mentioned above, you should be able to arm yourself.

There's nothing proposed that would prevent that. The major issue with gun control is leakage of guns from states with no controls on sales at all, to states that do have controls. It's the bloody gun fairs in those states which are the problem. The only solution at this point is to make gun control a federal standard, not a state by state one. In otherwords eliminate the loopholes that a Mack truck can drive through.

Ever state in the Union regulates and licenses who is allowed to drive on our roads, I fail to see the logic on not doing so with deadly weapons as well.

Need I point you to the purely cosmetic and stupid Assault Weapons Ban?

As for gun control being a federal standard, fine. Then California will finally have some of the more egregious stuff off the books.

Stupid? Assault weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians... period. They're no good for hunting, and not for home defense. They're for killing lots of people at once. I wouldn't expect to get a driving license for an Abrams tank either.

It's stupid because existing laws already handled automatic firearms in such a way that a legally acquired automatic firearm hasn't been used in a crime in decades. The assault weapons ban was therefore unnecessary.

Second, the whole idea of an assault weapon is stupid, as it is basically a category applied to any gun that looks scary. Here is the definition of an assault weapon from Wikipedia:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

Folding stocks, pistol grips, barrel extenders, handgrips, barrel shrouds that can be used as handholds, high capacity magazines, and detachable magazines all have legitimate civilian uses, grenade launchers are covered under other laws, bayonets are not particularly useful in crime (or anything else, for that matter), and pistol magazines that load outside the pistol grip are no more threatening than those that do (and are rather clumsy).

In short, the ban is f#!@ing retarded. Most of the stuff that defines an assault weapon either has legitimate uses or isn't going to be more lethal than something that lacks such attributes. All it is is a completely useless feel good measure that bans things that look scary.

Oh, and it's legal to possess a functioning tank in the US. It's ammunition and parts for the weapons you can't have. Granted, I have no idea where you could actually buy an Abrams. I'm pretty sure nobody is selling.


Callous Jack wrote:
Gark the Goblin wrote:
[threadjack]I declare this thread the Talk About Australia thread! Now, I always thought "dropbears" was just more weird Australian slang for "crocodiles."
If you throw shrimp on the Barbie, what do you throw on Ken?

Kerosene.


LazarX wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
Somewhere between strict and totally unreasonable. You can get them, it just isn't easy. At all. As liberal as I am, I feel that aside from keeping guns away from violent felons and the insane, gun control has no real benefit, and that as long as you do not belong to one of the two groups mentioned above, you should be able to arm yourself.

There's nothing proposed that would prevent that. The major issue with gun control is leakage of guns from states with no controls on sales at all, to states that do have controls. It's the bloody gun fairs in those states which are the problem. The only solution at this point is to make gun control a federal standard, not a state by state one. In otherwords eliminate the loopholes that a Mack truck can drive through.

Ever state in the Union regulates and licenses who is allowed to drive on our roads, I fail to see the logic on not doing so with deadly weapons as well.

Need I point you to the purely cosmetic and stupid Assault Weapons Ban?

As for gun control being a federal standard, fine. Then California will finally have some of the more egregious stuff off the books.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

She looks ready

Quote:
I don't care if you are purple, blue, or green, worship the flying spaghetti monster or think that the Star Wars prequels were good
I have to object to that last bit. Anyone with that level of mental defect should not be allowed to operate a spork, much less a tank. :)

I found awesomeness liked to in that thread.


GentleGiant wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Well, women have been able to serve on the front line in the Danish military since 1988. As fighter pilots since 1992.

We have lost one woman in action in Afghanistan (IED - June 1st 2010).

Times, they are changing. Don't Sweden and Norway have female infantry, too? It seems vikings like warrior women.

I also heard something about the Irish having a gender neutral military.

Yes, they can serve in combat roles in Norway and Sweden too. Don't know about Ireland, though.

More info here:
Wikipedia: Women in the military

Wikipedia sez:

Ireland

The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1979, allowed women to join the Irish Defence Forces for the first time and was passed by the Oireachtas in 1979.[21] There are no restrictions for women to the "full range of operational and administrative duties."[22] As of January 2010 the number of women in the Permanent Defence Forces is 565, 5.7 percent of the total.[23]

Sounds like a gender neutral military to me.


GentleGiant wrote:

Well, women have been able to serve on the front line in the Danish military since 1988. As fighter pilots since 1992.

We have lost one woman in action in Afghanistan (IED - June 1st 2010).

Times, they are changing. Don't Sweden and Norway have female infantry, too? It seems vikings like warrior women.

I also heard something about the Irish having a gender neutral military.


Mothman wrote:
Twigs wrote:

I'd heard of women on the front lines before, but I didnt realise it wasnt quite so far-reaching. This is good to see.

At risk of derailing this thread any further, are our gun laws really so bad down here? I sleep a lot easier knowing I don't need to carry a gun to feel safe, and I'm sure the sport shooters can wait a bloody month to keep the guns away from the crazies.

I think it's a bit laxer up in Darwin, thanks to the crocs and all. But a rifle ain't gonna do a thing against a drop bear. No sir.

I think it's largely a cultural thing. Australian gun laws probably look as crazy to the majority of Americans (or so I’m given to understand) as gun laws in the US look to the majority of Australians. And it’s one of those issues that people on both sides tend to get very emotional about. Violent crimes rates, and whether they increase or decrease with stricter gun laws are always debated, and people on both sides seem able to pull out dubious statistics and reports to support their point of view.

Of course there are a lot of people in Australia who think our guns laws are too strict as well. Interestingly enough though, the debate for and against in Australia only rarely seems to touch on self defence as a good reason for owning guns. As far as I can tell the majority of that minority of people here who support laxer gun laws just want to be able to own more, bigger and more highly automated weapons for their sports shooting and hunting. You don’t really hear the ‘I’d feel safer carrying a gun’ argument much here (in my experience).

And yeah mate, if a drop bear is close enough that you can shoot it, it’s already too late...

I do my best not to flame and name call over it, but I do feel strongly about gun rights.

I think the reason self defense doesn't come up a lot is because of the low crime rate. I bet if it looked like America's, things would be different.


Mothman wrote:
Mothman wrote:

It should be noted that no women have as yet been approved to fight in frontline, infantry combat roles in the ADF. The legislation is in place, some commentary I heard on the issue a couple of weeks ago suggested it will likely be minimum two years before we actually have women serving in those roles.

It should also be noted that women have been serving in frontline and combat roles (but not frontline infantry) in the ADF for decades.

Actually, just read a bit further on this. The legislation will be phased in over 5 years from 2012.

It may take time to implement, but what matters is that it happened.


Twigs wrote:

I'd heard of women on the front lines before, but I didnt realise it wasnt quite so far-reaching. This is good to see.

At risk of derailing this thread any further, are our gun laws really so bad down here? I sleep a lot easier knowing I don't need to carry a gun to feel safe, and I'm sure the sport shooters can wait a bloody month to keep the guns away from the crazies.

I think it's a bit laxer up in Darwin, thanks to the crocs and all. But a rifle ain't gonna do a thing against a drop bear. No sir.

Australia just doesn't have a high crime rate, period. Giving more people guns won't change that. You guys just don't have a particularly crime ridden society. It's America and Britain that have issues, and Britain's handgun ban has accomplished nothing at all. The issue with Aussie gun laws is that they make self defense an illegitimate reason to own a gun, and I feel that is wrong. It doesn't really cause issues due to the low Aussie crime rate, but I stand against it on principle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Luminiere Solas wrote:

i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.

you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.

I love this post so much.


Cheapy wrote:
Gary Teter wrote:

Private messages have been on the todo list for a long time.

We will have them someday, I swear!

ARE THEY HERE YET?

Grammatik-Nazi missbilligt!


Charles Scholz is banned for making Rammstein illegal in their home country.


Granted. Instead, they created a bushranger class with giant bladed boomerangs and slouch hats.

I wish I were in the Australian Navy.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Granted, but every wish you now grant shall be ninja'd.

I still wish I were an Australian sailor.


Mothman wrote:
Ringtail wrote:


Slightly off topic, but what are Australia's gun laws?

Australian gun control laws.

To summarise, you must apply for a license, to gain a license you must show genuine reason why you need to own a gun (self defence is not considered a genuine reason under Australian law), there is a one month period after getting the license before you can actually buy a firearm, there are (apparently) some fairly thorough background checks (I believe you can’t legally own a gun if you have a criminal record or have been diagnosed with certain mental illnesses) and the number and types of guns that you can own are (to my understanding) more strict than in the US.

Yes, and self defense not being a valid reason to own a weapon is b@#+&&&s.


Ringtail wrote:
Lame. I love my gun (slightly more than I love cinnamon whiskey, slightly less than I love my cats).

I love guns too, but I don't have one. I don't need my little brother getting his hands on one. Plus, I'm moving out of state to go to school soon, and the school I'm going to has a no weapons policy.

Horrid gun laws aside, if I had the money, I might still shoot for a visa.


Ringtail wrote:
Australophilia wrote:
So, yea. Aussie women can go into battle as infantry now. Who's excited about it? Who things America and Britain need to follow the Aussies, Canucks, Jerries, and Frogs?

Excited? Not particularly. But it is nice to see more countries valuing gender equality.

Slightly off topic, but what are Australia's gun laws?

Somewhere between strict and totally unreasonable. You can get them, it just isn't easy. At all. As liberal as I am, I feel that aside from keeping guns away from violent felons and the insane, gun control has no real benefit, and that as long as you do not belong to one of the two groups mentioned above, you should be able to arm yourself.


B. Definitely B.


Proof.

The Australian military has followed Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and New Zealand in deciding that letting women into all roles of the military is not that bad an idea.

I knew my love affair with all things Australian was justified. If it weren't for absolutely stupid gun laws, I'd move there and become a citizen.

So, yea. Aussie women can go into battle as infantry now. Who's excited about it? Who things America and Britain need to follow the Aussies, Canucks, Jerries, and Frogs?