|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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 useful thing - index cards or NPC sheets for each creature I'll use. (NPC sheets a free download and printed off at home).
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.
Maybe it does have.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.
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.
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.
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?
My sincerest apologies to you on behalf of the movie makers and video game makers.
James Jacobs wrote:
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. 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...
It's currently suspended over the UK.
James Jacobs wrote:
Have you seen Tim Burtons's Sweeney Todd (which I don't think has any choreographed dancing)?
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:
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.
An aside, I know, but does a flesh golem that becomes self aware gain a soul?
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.
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.)
Did the Baker St Irregulars do any more than gather information for him? (I suppose sometimes 'acquiring' items.)
I'm hoping the upcoming strategy guide will help with this:
How does sneak attack work? That belongs in the Core Rulebook. But if you're a rogue with sneak attack, how do you take advantage of it? What do you consider when deciding where to move, and whom to attack? That belongs in the Strategy Guide.
Bran Unden wrote:
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.
I'm British, and Dr Who started a couple of months before I was born. The first episode I remember (dimly) was the second doctor being exiled to earth and regenerating into the third doctor (who was 'my doctor'). That would have been 1970 when I was almost 6. I loved the Brigadier and the car, Betsy.
Not the point. The point is that sometimes the ranged specialist has to fight with a melee weapon and sometimes the melee specialist can't get close enough to melee.
A lot of people feel they are not.
Not everyone agrees that eg. all Abadar warpriests should be crossbowmen.
That's why Sacred Weapon should apply solely to the deity's favored weapon.
I see three problems with this:
1. Some favoured weapons are ranged, some melee. I'd expect a martial character to want to be at least viable with both ranged and melee.
2. Some favoured weapons are simple, not martial. Again, seems reasonable for a martial character to want (at least the equivalent of) martial weapons.
3. It doesn't leave room for e.g. racial preferences such as dwarves liking axes/hammers.
Bear in mind that simple/martial isn't just the flat weapon damage, it's also the increased effect of critical hits.
Count Coltello wrote:
Yes it is, but most of the time it doesn't interact with anyone. In this case I run it because it definitely has its own personality and agenda, which the player doesn't know about.
When I used to play (1st edition) we started with a large group of PCs which became a smaller group of PCs and assorted NPC hangers-on as players dropped out. Players played the NPCs with the GM stepping in if he thought they were being abused (eg expected to give valuable items to PCs or doing something suicidal).
My son badly wanted an intelligent item for one of his characters. It keeps very quiet most of the time, because it's previous owner is searching for it and it doesn't want to be found. It can cast the occasional helpful spell if things get desperate, or offer advice if the party seem stuck.
(By the way, I find your posts quite hard to read without any capital letters or full stops. Paragraphs help too)
For a paladin, the end does not justify the means. Tracking down the creature is only one part, the other is the lengths he is prepared to go to (in extracting information for example).
If you want to add a bit more treasure to the vault, then perhaps add a trap or some guardians with no treasure of their own (like vermin, skeletons or zombies). If the players are new to rpgs, perhaps drop hints that there's a trap (bloodstains or scorch marks or even the corpse of the goblin that tried to break in).
Weird question: male gamers role-playing female characters...how do you handle speaking "in character?"
Concentrating on the first few encounters in a module or AP helps. Focus on what you need for those (which monsters, which skills, basic combat or diplomacy or whatever). For example, no need to know rules for poisons unless and until it turns up in your encounters.
Eric Saxon wrote:
It's reasonable for every settlement to have access to a midwife, and to someone who performs marriages and burials. Who will often be some sort of caster. In either case, it might be one person who travels around half a dozen or more hamlets.