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

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. 5,870 posts (5,875 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

well, in pathfinder, DC10 check to tread water. Assume Str +3 and 1 rank in swim, then they still have a +1 after ACP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know people IRL that can swim in platemail, so the idea that relatively high level Paladins can do it (or at least the one whose career is based around the water) can doesn't surprise me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, I was just a little too old to realize how amazing Gargoyles was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
archmagi1 wrote:

It's a black Sabbath song but that's beside the point.

It's a generational identification, I think. As a stereotypical 90s kid, marvels most identifiable characters were unequivocally Spider-Man and the X-Men. This is almost purely due to the weekly awesome cartoons of both. Every boy I knew watched them. We collected xmen and Spider-Man trading cards. I even bought a few spider man comics even though i had 0 comic interest.

There were half a dozen 16bit era spider man games and as many xmen games. Yeah we may have seen hulk Thor or iron man as a cameo, but that's all they were was secondary.

The late 90s came and gave us the before mcu movies. Then Ang Lee's hulk put him into the forefront again. And we had the raimi spidey films. And the singer x trilogy.

For me and my ilk, it's only spider man and the X-Men. Cap and iron man and hulk popularities are all products of the recent films.

During that same time though, dc kept pumping Batman thru the movies and superman in video games.

As another 90s kid who didn't really read comics, I will totally agree. X-Men were huge, Spider Man was less for me but I knew people into him. Batman was amazing. Cartoon exposure was everything, and those were the big 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Why are you sad? If you don't like the character, just don't watch the show.

Because Punisher works amazingly as a reoccurring antagonist and really s$#!tily as a protagonist. By giving him his own show, they eliminate their ability to use him as the former.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Marvel.com: Netflix has ordered a full first season of “Marvel’s The Punisher,” with John Bernthal

:(


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

at any rate I think it best we not go into the motivation and pros and cons of the sad puppies. This year they did distinguish themselves from the rabid puppies by not doing a voting slate and don't seem (IMHO) to be trolling the Hugos.

Although I am curious to see the reactions of the personalities involved. So far I can only find, from that faction, Larry Correia, who blames the Chuck Tingle nom on the Hugo's voting No Award. Which...err...yeah..doesn't make sense to me.

It's clear though, even if there was maybe a bit uncertainty last year, that the Rabid puppies slate is much more problematic, and almost certainly their efforts on putting tripe like dinosaur erotica on the nom lists will ensure that the proposed voting changes will pass this year.

They never were trolling the Hugos. Seriously.

I think Synova's comment about Straw Larry from Larry's post sums up a lot of the Sad Puppies feelings. They ignored Sad Puppies complaints when reasonable people were complaining, then mocked and made fun of them, so now they get the unreasonable people who just want to see them burn.

Again, can you point me to some of these original reasonable complaints? I quoted earlier from the Sad Puppies 2 slate post. Was that reasonable?

Yes. Calling some of the things I've seen nominated outside of the puppies screed is a compliment to excrement.


MMCJawa wrote:

at any rate I think it best we not go into the motivation and pros and cons of the sad puppies. This year they did distinguish themselves from the rabid puppies by not doing a voting slate and don't seem (IMHO) to be trolling the Hugos.

Although I am curious to see the reactions of the personalities involved. So far I can only find, from that faction, Larry Correia, who blames the Chuck Tingle nom on the Hugo's voting No Award. Which...err...yeah..doesn't make sense to me.

It's clear though, even if there was maybe a bit uncertainty last year, that the Rabid puppies slate is much more problematic, and almost certainly their efforts on putting tripe like dinosaur erotica on the nom lists will ensure that the proposed voting changes will pass this year.

They never were trolling the Hugos. Seriously.

I think Synova's comment about Straw Larry from Larry's post sums up a lot of the Sad Puppies feelings. They ignored Sad Puppies complaints when reasonable people were complaining, then mocked and made fun of them, so now they get the unreasonable people who just want to see them burn.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'd have no issues with the existence of a separate video game category, but I feel video games really shouldn't fit into any existing category.

I'd rather not have a video games category.

If you're going to have video games, you should have multiple video game categories. FPS/MMO/Strategy/etc. Even limited to SFF, they're all very different things.

There are awards for video games already. I don't think they fit in the Hugo.

Why Not? The Hugos award Science Fiction, regardless of media. Video games are just as valid, and to many people are more valid, a media for telling a story as movies or books.

Partly, as I said, because you'd really nee d a whole bunch of categories and I really don't want to see them take over the Hugos.

Whatever, it's not a real strong opinion on my part, but I don't find it really fits. Yes, you can tell a story in video games, but would "story" actually wind up as part of the criteria?

I wouldn't be horribly opposed, but I'm not in favor.

I've spent a lot of time with people who lament that video games are not taken seriously as a storytelling medium and art form. I think it is important that we begin to recognize that they are not just for children.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'd have no issues with the existence of a separate video game category, but I feel video games really shouldn't fit into any existing category.

I'd rather not have a video games category.

If you're going to have video games, you should have multiple video game categories. FPS/MMO/Strategy/etc. Even limited to SFF, they're all very different things.

There are awards for video games already. I don't think they fit in the Hugo.

Why Not? The Hugos award Science Fiction, regardless of media. Video games are just as valid, and to many people are more valid, a media for telling a story as movies or books.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You realize this was one of the biggest complaints Sad Puppies made, right?

Which complaint?

Video games?
Different size categories?

I don't really remember either of those, but I could be wrong.

That the categories no longer match what is actually being published, so things like multi-book series get completely ignored while the focus is on the short literature that doesn't actually pay authors enough to live on. Correia has had it as a major complaint since the beginning.

Do you have an early source for that? A quick look at the first Sad Puppies posts and few other places doesn't turn up anything about it. Lots of more political complaints stuff about message fiction vs good old-fashioned SF, but nothing about categories that I saw. I might well be wrong, I didn't dig that deeply, but I didn't see anything now and I don't remember seeing it from the Puppy side when I was looking at this last year.

The first place I came across it was here. Where it was raised as an alternate explanation, in contrast to the Puppies' claims.

Looking. now that I'm thinking about it, I think it was in his reason for continuing with Sad Puppies 2, not in his founding with 1. 1, 2 and 3 all had works chosen with different agendas in mind, to prove different points.


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You realize this was one of the biggest complaints Sad Puppies made, right?

Which complaint?

Video games?
Different size categories?

I don't really remember either of those, but I could be wrong.

That the categories no longer match what is actually being published, so things like multi-book series get completely ignored while the focus is on the short literature that doesn't actually pay authors enough to live on. Correia has had it as a major complaint since the beginning.

No. His biggest, and at the root of it, only complaint was that he and his buddies aren't getting nominated for them and claims that because stuff he doesn't like is beating him it has to be a left wing conspiracy. As opposed to, you know, the WorldCon membership not liking his books.

Of course it's all rubbish as the first librarian points out.

Have you actually read any of his complaints? Sure he is an acerbic a#~#$@~, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You realize this was one of the biggest complaints Sad Puppies made, right?

Which complaint?

Video games?
Different size categories?

I don't really remember either of those, but I could be wrong.

That the categories no longer match what is actually being published, so things like multi-book series get completely ignored while the focus is on the short literature that doesn't actually pay authors enough to live on. Correia has had it as a major complaint since the beginning.


You realize this was one of the biggest complaints Sad Puppies made, right?


Joana wrote:
Caineach wrote:
There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.
Except for the existence of this feat.

Why are you arguing that that somehow contradicts what I am saying? Its a feat I wasn't aware of, but is literally the designers already creating what I said should be able to be done. I think the combination of a feat tax, action requirement, bardic spell use, and contested perform check is a little overboard though.


Atarlost wrote:
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:
It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.
Bard spells always have verbal components so they can't use it.

Verbal components aren't defined as to what they are. There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.


Anyone else getting a Matrix vibe from that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
You mean to say the last SS trailer sucked?

My response immediately after watching the last one

Caineach wrote:
Wow, I didn't think they could make me want to see their movie less, but they somehow managed


Finally a DC trailer that doesn't suck.


I feel FA was highly overrated. It ranks below Iron Man 3 for me.


Not sure how I feel about casting

Spoiler:
Is that a British accent on someone outside of the Empire? Preposterous.


Howard the Duck withstands the test of time.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering a lot of the recently locked threads are similar to topics that have been discussed here in the past, I think a lot of it has to do with the current tone outside of the site and not wanting the flamewar to expand here.


And now I am looking at specking out a new computer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea. Not sure about implementation, will need to look it over more.

One of the most frustrating things I have found in game is trying to play an enchanter. Charm Person is a completely worthless spell in almost all circumstances. Trying to play a manipulator is impossible if everyone around you realizes that someone just got magically whammied by you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
So I started watching Erased ("Boku Dake ga Inai Machi") last night. I only planned on watching one or two episodes, but the series hooked me so hard that I ended up watching the entire thing in one sitting. It was just that good.

Honestly, I'm not sure it is the best series to blitz. Waiting time between episodes allowed the suspense to build pretty well.

But yes, definitely is that good.


Krensky wrote:

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a Shonen Jump property, therfore aimed at Junior High School boys.

Also having seen an episode or two of Free and such I think you're projecting the American tendency to call any sort of serious masculine friendship or bonding as homoerotic onto it.

No. I haven't actually watched more than an episode of it. I'm basing it off of the half dozen female fangirls I know who gush over it and ship the hell out of it and the 0 guys I know who give a s#&~ about either series. From what I've seen, both of these shows are have tapped into the female demographic huge but get only mildly above average reviews from guys. And seriously, the amount of skinship in Free pegs the charts, not counting the massive amount of female fanservice there is with the underwater shots.


Misroi wrote:

Part of the Matt/Foggy dynamic is that Matt doesn't deserve a friend as good as Foggy Nelson. He keeps secrets, he keeps people in the dark, he breaks promises, and he lets people down. Constantly. He desperately wants to be a good man, and use his abilities to clean up the Kitchen, but he constantly either makes bad decisions, or has to select from the least terrible of several terrible options. Matt does not deserve Foggy's friendship.

And yet, Foggy is Matt's closest friend, because of their long history together. Matt and Foggy are both good lawyers, but they never really achieve greatness unless it's as Nelson & Murdock. They make up for the parts that the other lacks.

Matt does not deserve Foggy's friendship. But he has earned it, over and over again.

I think my problem with the case was that Foggy was covering for Matt, but in the one part where they gave Matt a chance cover one of Foggy's weaknesses, the plot required him to blow it, and they only gave him that chance to actually show he could be a good lawyer in the courtroom.


Krensky wrote:
Unlikely since its targeted at boys. 'Serious' sports manga in general don't translate very well, especially if you're not into the sport.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the changes in the genre with Free and and now Haikyu. The addition of homoerotic undertones is strong. So much shipping.


Started Haikyu after massive amounts of recommendations. Its decent, but I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Maybe its because I'm not female.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be awesome if they chose any power metal band for the soundtrack.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, apparently they will be going with dark and gritty The Tick


Scythia wrote:
I'm less enthused that the DLC has a level minimum. I preferred the approach of 3 and NV with giving access from 1 and letting you decide when to hop in.

Honestly, I kinda like that. It prevents you from rushing a level scaling area and getting the DLC gear at the beginning of the game. Fallout has always had that problem.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trying to decide if I'll watch the dub with Mrs TOZ or not.

Then you would miss out on the Engrish Twinkle Twinkle Little Star


Finished The Lie You Told in April. My god I loved it, but I could not watch more than a few episodes at a time. The second half made me cry way too consistently.


Aberzombie wrote:

Stoopid time travel.....

** spoiler omitted **

Seriously. Its amazing how much he ignores all advice about interacting with other worlds/timelines.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Best line from the crossover

Spoiler:
You look like the attractive yet non-threatening racially diverse cast of a CW show


MMCJawa wrote:

You know it wouldn't have taken much to fix green lantern. Sub in a practical suite for the cgi costume, and reduce the crowding in the movie by focusing on one villain and saving most of the Lantern core stuff for the sequel (Maybe just have Sinestro train Hal on Earth instead).

The tone at least was fine and I think all of the actors did well with the material. I think they just tried to cram far too much stuff into one movie.

That was my general impression as well


3 people marked this as a favorite.

currently 41% on rotten tomatoes


Orfamay Quest wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Precedent for what? Proving that public questions cause injury?

Wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

On the one hand, you don't need a precedent because there are already thousands of precedents, many of which predate the United States itself. If you publish something injurious, you are responsible for the injury that it causes under civil law.

On the other hand, you can't establish a precedent that public questions in general cause injury -- you (or President Whoosis) would need to show that the specific public question caused a specific injury in a specific case, in which case, there wouldn't need to be a new precedent (see previous paragraph).

The third is that President Whoosis still couldn't use this as the basis for a criminal complaint or enforcement action; the DoJ still couldn't arrest the publisher and the courts couldn't imprison him, because arrests and imprisonments are reserved to criminal law, and this is a purely civil matter.

In practical terms, what would happen is that President Whoosis would sue -- and he'd have to sue in his capacity as an individual, under civil law, paying for it out of his own pocket, and all he could ask for is monetary damages. Some wealthy benefactor of the opposing party would step in and pay for legal representation, and then milk it for all it's worth in terms of negative publicity for the president's party. There's a very good chance that this could backfire on the president and his party, especially if he sued and lost.

If the DoJ got involved at all, this would rapidly escalate the stakes, but only negatively. That's called "malfeasance in office," and while a sitting president can't be removed from office for that, he can be tried, convicted, and imprisoned, even while holding the office of president. (Furthermore, he can't pardon himself.) At the very minimum, the civil case would be thrown out immediately, and if the president weren't also impeached, I'd be very surprised.

I'm not at all...

Can you name another case where publishing the truth has resulted in a lawsuit? That's what makes this case different. There was no libel or slander, because they didn't lie.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.

Not really. "Freedom of the press," like any other Constitutional right, has its limits. And in particular, "freedom of the press," like any other Constitutional right, does not apply in disputes between private parties (like this one). The government may or may not have the authority to tell Gawker not to publish something -- even there, there's a lot of case law saying when the government actually does have that authority -- but Hulk Hogan certainly has the right to say to Gawker "you injured me, now make restitution."

Furthermore, Hulk Hogan has the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of this grievance, and the government has not only the right but the duty to consider both sides and render judgment. Which they did. Gawker is in the wrong and owes Hogan $100 million plus. With punitive damages atop that.

Just because something is not limited by the government does not mean freedom of the press is not impugned.
Actually, that's exactly what it does mean.

It depends on whether you are talking about the ideal or law, since the same term is used interchangeably in different contexts.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.

Not really. "Freedom of the press," like any other Constitutional right, has its limits. And in particular, "freedom of the press," like any other Constitutional right, does not apply in disputes between private parties (like this one). The government may or may not have the authority to tell Gawker not to publish something -- even there, there's a lot of case law saying when the government actually does have that authority -- but Hulk Hogan certainly has the right to say to Gawker "you injured me, now make restitution."

Furthermore, Hulk Hogan has the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of this grievance, and the government has not only the right but the duty to consider both sides and render judgment. Which they did. Gawker is in the wrong and owes Hogan $100 million plus. With punitive damages atop that.

Just because something is not limited by the government does not mean freedom of the press is not impugned. The government is not the only body that can interrupt the ideal. This verdict will have a chilling effect, as it opens up news organizations to lawsuit for non-libelous behavior.


Tacticslion wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
While you're out there championing the freedom of the press for an organisation that makes the National Enquirer look respectable, maybe you should review the Right to Privacy as well.

This seems needlessly condescending.

Caineach wrote:
Hulk Hogan brought the conversation into his bedroom when he talked about his junk on Howard Stern. If he wants to boast on national media about his penis size, he has to deal with the fact checkers.

As does this.

Please. Let's keep this civil, yeah?

You and I have very different definitions of condescending.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.

I know it's popular to blame Obama for everything up to including hurricanes, but I fail to see the applicability here. Gawker made the unethical decision to post publicly a video that should have been left private. They then made the arrogant move of ignoring a judicial order to have them taken down. It wasn't until AFTER that process that Hogan launched his lawsuit.

Freedom of the Press is an important ideal, but you're seriously picking both the wrong battlefield, and the wrong side here.

I disagree that the video should have been left private, and the initial judicial order was wrong. Choosing to post a newsworthy video should never put a news organization in the position of defending itself from a lawsuit.
While you're out there championing the freedom of the press for an organisation that makes the National Enquirer look respectable, maybe you should review the Right to Privacy as well.

Hulk Hogan brought the conversation into his bedroom when he talked about his junk on Howard Stern. If he wants to boast on national media about his penis size, he has to deal with the fact checkers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.

I know it's popular to blame Obama for everything up to including hurricanes, but I fail to see the applicability here. Gawker made the unethical decision to post publicly a video that should have been left private. They then made the arrogant move of ignoring a judicial order to have them taken down. It wasn't until AFTER that process that Hogan launched his lawsuit.

Freedom of the Press is an important ideal, but you're seriously picking both the wrong battlefield, and the wrong side here.

Judging from the context of Caineach's quote, I'd imagine he meant "precedent" and got sneak-attacked by auto-correct.

That is correct


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.

I know it's popular to blame Obama for everything up to including hurricanes, but I fail to see the applicability here. Gawker made the unethical decision to post publicly a video that should have been left private. They then made the arrogant move of ignoring a judicial order to have them taken down. It wasn't until AFTER that process that Hogan launched his lawsuit.

Freedom of the Press is an important ideal, but you're seriously picking both the wrong battlefield, and the wrong side here.

I disagree that the video should have been left private, and the initial judicial order was wrong. Choosing to post a newsworthy video should never put a news organization in the position of defending itself from a lawsuit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a terrible president for freedom of the press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Freehold you will be disappointed too... not for the same reasons I was. I know how much you love fanservice and there isn't any to be found here. No it's just a couple episodes where they portray polygamy as this amazing situation. Well no. Even the apostles of Lord Jesus said during an age when it was not only legal but globally accepted; they said polygamy is a horribly unfair and unequal situation to place women in. So they started the ban on polygamy for good reason.

I feel I should elaborate more on the child soldier disappointment. It isn't new to Gundam to use children as warriors. But this show seems to take it to a whole new level. The whole platoon is child warriors... sticking it to their elders. But every time some adult reacts with horror to the child soldier situation they are downright dismissive of the sorrow. I guess that is the part that rubs me wrong... don't be so dismissive. Let the horror of what these kids have had to endure sink in. People should be horrified by it.

Knowing a couple dozen people in loving, stable polyamorous relationships, I have to say I find this comment very disturbing.


I watched half of Your Lie in April on Netflix last night. In a lot of ways it reminds me of a sports anime with classical music. In other ways its reminding me of My Girl. I'm looking forward to watching more tonight.

1 to 50 of 5,870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.