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

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher's page

316 posts. Alias of diana ratcliffe.


RSS

1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

My personal weekly award for misuse of language in a fanfic goes to

"He was severely emancipated."

My first coherent thought was is it possible, but would it possibly apply to someone from Galt?

:)


Perseverence.

Reading this, I've realised that I'm a lot more confident voicing characters now (I'm the GM) than I was a year ago. Although I find the hardest is running a conversation on the spur of the moment, when I don't know the character well enough, or even at all, sometimes.


It's also vitally important to get the right meds. Anti-depressants for someone who is actually primarily suffering from anxiety will turn them into a zombie


DerCed wrote:
I'm scared of introducing my own hooks, NPCs and encounters beause I fear of introducing elements that will not fit into the logic of the main plot line. My players are quite an intelligent bunch and pick up on plot holes very easily. I tried to explain them to be a little gentle because I am a beginner as well, but I'm still a bit reluctant and this might reduce my creativity..

Take it in steps to build up your confidence. Accept you're going to make mistakes - the alternative is not trying.

You can start simply with one off random encounters unrelated to the plot, for example random encounters with monsters when travelling A to B or perhaps an opportunistic pickpocket.
Don't plan on the PCs taking certain actions - they quite likely won't. Figure out what the NPCs are trying to achieve, and how, and if it turns out it wouldn't work, then they overlooked that.


Another thing to consider -

bats typically sleep suspended upside down, many birds sleep perching on branches - their grip does not fail when they fall asleep (I think, unlike human hands, they kind of lock in place?) so I don't think they would release their grip and fall if stunned.


The core rule book does not contain creatures, though. They are in the bestiaries. And also on the rules archive : prd .

You don't precisely need the bestiary, but will probably want it sooner rather than later.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

I can't find any links for you, but assuming more open attitudes correlates with use of contraceptives, then a major advantage is a reduction of maternal mortality in childbirth.

Basically, the more pregnancies a woman has already had (and probably the closer they are together) the higher the risks of a fatality during pregnancy and birth.


Have the unseen servant drop it and leave it unattended?


Crystal Frasier wrote:


And as a side note, Annabel, it is super not-cool to throw around terminology like "raised a man." It ignores any agency or identiy I had in my own childhood, invalidates my experiences and perspective, and pushes the tired old "really a man" line of thinking.

If you wouldn't mind, what terminology do you prefer ?

(With regards before, during and after the various - staging posts? milestones? steps?)


Zhayne wrote:
I highly recommend it. I try very hard to dissuade new players from being spellcasters at all.

I might never have started playing at all if I'd been banned from spellcasters. I did, however, watch at least a couple of sessions before asking to join.


NPC Dave wrote:
Hama wrote:
Someone please explain it to me.
I certainly agree at least half of those above are human rights. For example, no one has the right to deprive you of a good night's rest.

Except babies under about a year or so. And you can't explain to them how badly you need sleep either :)


Between scenarios, I've started to keep a log, or maybe timeline of NPCs, what they're doing, how (if at all) the PCs' actions have affected them and how they'll likely react. If a nameless NPC has escaped, I'll decide whether they flee, find another line of work, bear a grudge or whatever. That way, sometimes familiar faces can appear again.


Somewhat analagous to looking through infrared goggles. You alter your own vision, not anyone else's.


I don't know about the specifics that are bothering you. I do know, that when I'm driving, if something suddenly appears in the road, I don't decide to do an emergency stop, I find I have done one without thinking about it at all. And that's a good thing. Some things are reflex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

So, thinking about this a little more...

I wonder though, there are tons of half race babies that their mothers don't even want. Why wouldn't they abort?

I imagine Pharasma would disapprove strongly. And she's a goddess and very powerful.

Edit: I would think Pharasmins would also run reliable orphanages and reliable adoption services. And all rather pragmatic, since Pharasma is Neutral.


My first mat was a sheet of A3 paper that I drew a grid on.
Next, add overhead projector sheet to draw terrain on. I still use these a lot, even though I've got a dry erase mat, because I can draw several sheets before the session.

Next useful thing - index cards or NPC sheets for each creature I'll use. (NPC sheets a free download and printed off at home).


Sissyl wrote:
Christianity varies pretty widely in how you look at it, really. Parts of it do "Unless you lead a PERFECT life, you need God's forgiveness to get into Heaven when you die", while others dispense with that and phrase it as "you're tainted with Original Sin (tm) because a woman who did not have The Knowledge (tm) chose to eat an apple a few thousand years ago, and because of this it doesn't matter how well you live your life, you're going to Hell unless you beg forgiveness to God and he chooses to grant it". Some even try "You're either going to Heaven or to Hell, because it's in God's plan and nothing you do can change where you end up". Other variations of the same theme exist.

Probably according to strict scripture, yes. To be fair, the Christians I have met here in the UK seem a lot less strict. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door Friday.

I think I'm viewed more as a lost sheep out on the hills somewhere that's going to get eaten by wolves or something, and I'd be much happier and safer as part of the flock. Problem is, I'm not a flock animal and I'm not prepared to let the shepherd dictate my life.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:


For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.

There's a number of problems with that.

1) Who says the universe can't have contradictions in it? Is it a particle or a wave? Solid yet juicy...

Maybe it does have.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


2) Religions are composite things. Hey, maybe christianity is mostly true but there's reincarnation.

3) You're not proving anything about the specific religions.

Organised religions tend to be 'the whole package'. I'm sure there are people with their own personal composite ideas (are they still called out as heretics?)

Pretty sure Christianity is 'You get one shot and you will screw up, so pray sincerely to Jesus and you'll be let off'. I don't think it compatible with reincarnation.

I don't want to get into specifics about religions as it tends to upset believers in the religions.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.

But if you can't prove anything (or anything other than your own existence) then what do the words proof or disproof even MEAN? If your definition includes nothing then it doesn't define or describe anything at all.

Because there are lots of things I can prove, and lots of things I can disprove. Just not everything.

For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'

is fine (at least in my opinion).

'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.

What you're saying though amounts to NOTHING ever being proved false, ever. Do see the problem with that?

An exaggeration, but I suppose I don't, no. Life's full of uncertainty. Much of life revolves around other people, and I can't prove anything about them at all. Over the internet and depending on the web page I can't even be certain I'm communicating with a real person.

Maths (and science) is a tool. You choose the tool appropriate to the problem. Newton's Laws of Gravity are accurate enough for plotting the ball playing table tennis and for launching satellites. Einstein's theory is a better model for very high speeds or very high gravitational fields.

But that's the easy stuff. You can propose theories and set up experiments and test things. My daughter's doing a Psychology A-level, with for example, different theories of child development, none of which explain all the case studies, so none of them are 'true'.

So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

er response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).

Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.

But math isn't always right either. So you're stuck at either epistemic nihilism or having to make a judgement call after a small enough chance.

The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'

is fine (at least in my opinion).

'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.

In what sense our you saying maths isn't always right? The hypotheses don't always match the real world terribly well, but the conclusions drawn from them tend to be tested thoroughly.


thejeff wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?

Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.

Which is all well and good and if pressed to be pedantic, I'll agree with you, but returning to the original topic that doesn't mean I'm any more agnostic about the existence of God than about the existence of Santa Claus or Russel's Teapot or that I'm not just a brain in jar somewhere.

I can't prove or disprove any of them, but that doesn't mean that believing in not quite impossible things without evidence is basically the same as disbelieving not quite impossible things without evidence.

No one uses a 100% proof of Truth for anything in everyday life except arguing about the existence of God.

I should have stayed out of this thread. I only posted anything because I have strong views on what constitutes a proof. And I'm too tired to put together a proper response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).

Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.


Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.

I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).

(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)

Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.

Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.

There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.

Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?
Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.
You're still conflating my opinion of one thing and assuming that it's true for all things, even though I am flat out telling you that that is incorrect. I'd like you to realize that in certain areas I agree with you and find this mode of thought...

Could you run the whole thing past me again? Because now I have no idea what either of us are saying. Or think we're saying. I'm now horribly confused.


Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.

I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).

(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)

Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.

Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.

There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.

Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?

Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer wrote:
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
Whats annoying is this idea that math is better because its 100% proof and nothing else is. This is both incorrect and much easier to approximate with an abstract concept than a very complicated reality.

I didn't say maths is better, nor that nothing else is 100% accurate. And you're right, it proves theorems from hypotheses, so only reflects reality as closely as the hypotheses do (so sometimes, not very). But it does underpin all our science, so definitely has its uses.


Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.

I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).

(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)

Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.

Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.

There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.

Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.


Irontruth wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:

-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)

All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.

Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.

Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:

Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.

Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.

The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.

Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.

And you can't prove you're not a brain in a jar.

Is that a...

What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.

I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).

(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)


Irontruth wrote:

The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:

-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)

All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.

Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.

Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:

Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.

Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.

The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.

Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Is there a perpetual motion machine under your bed?

Is there a 50 foot long st george and the type fire breathing dragon in your bathroom?
Is there a 1958 Chevy under your mattress cushion?

Do yetis exist? I don't know for sure, and neither does anybody else. Nobody has ever produced a yeti so there's no proof they do, but equally, there's no categorical proof that they don't. The regions they're believed to live are so remote that it's a possibility even if a very small one. There are (regrettably few) animals that have been believed extinct until living examples were found, like the coelacanth.


Hama wrote:
Self-medicating with harmless, well known medicine is not the same as doing drugs. It never will be. When I feel sick, have a fever, I will pop an aspirine, take a cup of hot mint tea and go to bed. But I will not take meth.

In the UK, I legally buy paracetomol+codeine tablets over the counter, for for my son's migraine headaches. They are clearly labelled addictive, and we avoid using them unless necessary. I wouldn't describe them as harmless.


Hama wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Having just watched the walkthrough, and speaking as an Englishwoman, I have to say I find the 'English' accents awful. Laughably so. Enough that I don't know if I could tune them out enough to actually play the game. This could bomb horribly in the UK

Now you know how we eastern Europeans feel whenever we are portrayed in movies and video games.

My English is so good, for instance, that American tourists often mistake me for a guy either from Seattle or Chicago. Sometimes NY too. Most of my friends speak it at least as well as I.

So. with regards the video games, do you play them any way and tune out the accents, (does it work), or do you avoid them?


Hama wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Having just watched the walkthrough, and speaking as an Englishwoman, I have to say I find the 'English' accents awful. Laughably so. Enough that I don't know if I could tune them out enough to actually play the game. This could bomb horribly in the UK

Now you know how we eastern Europeans feel whenever we are portrayed in movies and video games.

My English is so good, for instance, that American tourists often mistake me for a guy either from Seattle or Chicago. Sometimes NY too. Most of my friends speak it at least as well as I.

My sincerest apologies to you on behalf of the movie makers and video game makers.


Having just watched the walkthrough, and speaking as an Englishwoman, I have to say I find the 'English' accents awful. Laughably so. Enough that I don't know if I could tune them out enough to actually play the game. This could bomb horribly in the UK


You might try reading 'Wolf Brother' and it's sequels by Michelle Paver, which are set 6000 years ago and look up her web site for her sources. Because it's very clear that she did extensive research for them.


James Jacobs wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

My disinterest in musicals is essentially a combination of a dislike of most of the songs that appear in musicals combined with the fact that the way suddenly everyone breaks into choreographed song and dance in the middle of a story breaks my verisimilitude and ruins the storyline. If I'm into the story, having everyone suddenly singing and dancing and all that is too distracting and annoying. It's FAR less annoying when the movie is animated, but still not a favorite at all.

Have you seen Tim Burtons's Sweeney Todd (which I don't think has any choreographed dancing)?
Nope. It's a musical, and therefore I choose to spend the hours of the day I spend watching movies on other movies.

Sometimes, circumstances dictate :) I never planned on watching Les Miserables, but watching my daughter in the chorus of her school production was kind of compulsory :) And it was briliant (seriously - at least 2 soloists won scholarships to music colleges).

I like to keep an open mind.


I don't think marrying cousins has been illegal anywhere in Europe. If it had been, considering how many grandchildren Queen Victoria had, married into lots of European royal families, the last century's history might have been very different.


yellowdingo wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

If it doesn't stop snowing... I think there may be reason to worry... because the atmosphere will run out of water one day... and since it keeps on snowing, more water must be coming from somewhere. And it's not from the oceans, since the termperature is too low for water to be vapourized...

Hopefully we'll find the Decanter of Endless Water eventually.

It's currently suspended over the UK.

I love that these blizards freezing the USA are turning into stormfronts pounding Britain. Lets hope for perpetual winter/storm in the northern hemisphere.

fimbulwinter indeed.

I don't. We've had storm after storm after storm for weeks. My sense of humour's growing mildew. My whole brain's growing mildew.(Mustn't...rant...about...rain...Mustn't...rant...about...rain...Mus tn't...rant...about...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

If it doesn't stop snowing... I think there may be reason to worry... because the atmosphere will run out of water one day... and since it keeps on snowing, more water must be coming from somewhere. And it's not from the oceans, since the termperature is too low for water to be vapourized...

Hopefully we'll find the Decanter of Endless Water eventually.

It's currently suspended over the UK.


James Jacobs wrote:

My disinterest in musicals is essentially a combination of a dislike of most of the songs that appear in musicals combined with the fact that the way suddenly everyone breaks into choreographed song and dance in the middle of a story breaks my verisimilitude and ruins the storyline. If I'm into the story, having everyone suddenly singing and dancing and all that is too distracting and annoying. It's FAR less annoying when the movie is animated, but still not a favorite at all.

Have you seen Tim Burtons's Sweeney Todd (which I don't think has any choreographed dancing)?


Queen Elvanna fron Reign of Winter is venerable. Doesn't look it, though. So she doesn't really add to the visibility of older women.


An alternative explanation...

(May not help :) )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NewEmpire543 wrote:
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else.

Them and theirs, I would think. Things that benefit their families and friends. Which would work ok for a small enough group/clan/tribe.


Fabius Maximus wrote:
aeglos wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:

I'd really like to expand from Irish whiskey into Scotch, but the whole affair is just too expensive for me.

My experience with the stuff is limited to Ballantine's (acceptable), Johnny Red (unacceptable), Johnny Black (quite nice) and Racke Rauchzart (German, undrinkable).

Glenkinchie, Thamdu and Glenfiddich 12years are good starting Single Malts that you can get in most German Getränkemärkte for a reasonable prize
I tried to look up Thamdu and couldn't find it. Are you sure you got the name right?

Could be Tamdhu, which is very nice. I'm partial to Jura as well. But I live in Britain, and don't know what's easily available in other countries.


Mikaze wrote:
Journ-O-LST-3 wrote:
As for the soul thing, they have one because they can be raised from the dead, so I guess the process that makes them gives them a soul, maybe it's a magic thing?
I was wondering if it might be an automatic process of the multiverse. Like any living being automatically getting a soul, whether their origins are natural or artificial.

An aside, I know, but does a flesh golem that becomes self aware gain a soul?


Jaelithe wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
I've never heard The Hobbit called a children's book before.
Odd. I've never heard it not called a children's book.

My father read it to me as a bedtime story. In fact he also read it to my older sister (6 years older) as a bedtime story, so I probably first heard it before I was born.

I very much enjoyed returning to it to read it to my own children. For which it is very good, partly because the chapters are quite episodic, so very readable a chapter at a time over successive nights.


Rynjin wrote:
Well, so far they don't seem to have escaped that risk very well.

I think they have in the UK at least. David Tennant and Christopher Eccleston have been in a lot of British TV, and you don't think "Oh, it's Dr Who" when you see them. David Tennant's doing a lot of stage work too. (Eccleston might be as well, haven't heard.)


Tom Baker was sort of Dr Who for the rest of his life. I don't think his career really escaped from it. I think the actors for the new doctors don't want to risk having it overshadow the rest of their careers.


Xaratherus wrote:
Trout wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
A talent about getting a sidekick would be nifty. Maybe as a Cohort that has a certain number of base skills per level. Maybe just an Expert that you can 'store' Inspiration in and make use of it later, like a ring of grit.

One thousand times yes.

Every Sherlock needs his Watson.
Every Dr. needs his Companion.

Put a talent tree in for this and I'm sold.

(Maybe an archetype that replaces mutagens?)

I know that it's a dirty word at many tables, but granting Leadership to said archetype could be interesting as well. After all, Holmes not only had his Watson, but also his Baker Street Irregulars.

Did the Baker St Irregulars do any more than gather information for him? (I suppose sometimes 'acquiring' items.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bran Unden wrote:

I really like the way this class evolves but there are still two minor issues that bother me:

1) Cognatogens: if I remember correctly, Sherlock Holmes needed a lot of opium to solve some of his cases but at the moment the investigator cannot even get cognatogens. I would like to see at least the possibility to choose the cognatogen alchemist discovery for my investigator. Or maybe even allow to get cognatogens without getting mutagens first?

Well, no, I think. At least not in the original stories: he used cocaine in between cases to stave off incredible boredom. He smoked tobacco (a 3 pipe problem) during cases.

1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.