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

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher's page

540 posts. Alias of diana ratcliffe.


1 to 50 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Archae wrote:

i think this is just something we won't be able to come to some sort of even view on. thank you for your input though.

You think he is as evil as they come

I think he is just he is some form of neutral. A darker type of hero than some would allow

i mean yea he does some evil things, but he does just as many good things.

just because one does something evil or is willing shouldn't condemn them to the evil alignment immediately

Lots of times, people have gone into complicated situations with the best of intentions, and done terrible things. Hence the phrase: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But children are mostly treated differently according to their (perceived) gender from birth (babies dressed in 'girly pink' as opposed to 'blue for boys'), so "boys like sports" is implied before they can even walk, and reinforced by the choice of games adults play with them (talking to dolls or playing catch with balls). It's a distinction that occurs very, very early and is very pervasive.

What will he do about dissenters? People who aren't criminal in any way, but simply want to govern their own affairs?

To what extent will new laws impinge upon peoples' ordinary lives? Or how and with what beliefs they rear their children? How (harshly) will laws be enforced?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Russia knows WWIII is not going to be kinder on them than on anyone else. They are a poor country, in poor shape regarding production and civil society. Getting involved in a serious war would quickly see them in a very precarious situation. Not to mention, the West would quickly unite against them, and China would love to see a chance to carve out a piece of them. It is not a winning concept for them either.

Regarding shooting pilots... It is not something you should expect going in that your opponents will follow the rules of war, unless they are representing a nation, and often not even then. It is quite simply a very bad idea to eject in the wrong place.

Staying on a plane that's going down isn't a viable option though.

Ed Reppert wrote:

"You can't create artifacts."

Fair enough, but they had to come from somewhere. So where do they come from?

Read as "PCs can't create artifacts". (Maybe they can if they reach 20th level.) Nor can anyone that they might be able to commission one from.

Deities can, so can Baba Yaga, creatures having suitable mythic powers, maybe by accident in bizarre circumstances...

How about "you misunderstood me", or better still, 'I must have not explained clearly" and try again?

People are posting from all around the world, with different beliefs and assumptions. Mistakes will be made. And people sometimes either can't explain themselves clearly or grasp someone else's point of view. It doesn't mean it's malice, just different viewpoints.

Rynjin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I am pretty happy that this thread (and, it seems, the Paizo community overall) is proving an island from the bigotry I've been seeing from other people I know. Paizo's community doesn't agree about much, so that's actually a pleasant surprise. I always brace myself reading this thread for a "the refugees should fight off Daesh themselves instead of asking us to do it" poster. Hasn't happened yet.

This is just so horrible, and one of the greatest tragedies from it is going to be the ensuing backlash against an already very poorly treated minority.

Not to nitpick, but that "minority" is the second most popular religion in the world, with over a billion (close to two billion I believe) adherents.

Which is part of the reason why Muslim radicals are such a big deal. They currently make up something like 1% of the total Muslim population...but nobody knows which of that percent is poised where to do what. Which is where the paranoia and panic comes from. Close to two billion "potential terrorists"...and no concrete way to weed out the ACTUAL ones from that crowd.

Muslims are FAR from a minority in any realistic sense, and that's exactly why knee jerk anti-Islam reactions are so dangerous. Setting aside that bigotry is clearly not a good trait to have, it's also not practical.

At best you look silly by saying "I hate roughly a third of the Earth's population", at worst you turn the innocent ones against you by making them fear for their lives and legitimize the extremist propaganda.

Even if it were somehow the right choice, genocide of Muslims isn't exactly a feasible option. There's simply too many. So people need to just deal with it.

Also, IS have declared a caliphate over the whole Islamic world, the vast majority of whom do not want them or their version of Islam. We're just not hearing much about their attacks in Islamic nations.(They also, apparently, intend to retake Spain.)

Detect magic can detect a 'lingering aura' after the magic source dissipates (from d6 rounds for faint (3rd level spell or lower) up to d6 days for overpowering (10+ or deity level)). As long as the spell is running, and a little after, there should definitely be an aura detectable with det magic, which can be identified with knowledge arcana. It shouldn't matter what the source is.

Trekkie90909 wrote:

My rules-fu regarding the spell Magic Aura:

Magic Aura specifies that it affects "Target: one touched object weighing up to 5 lbs./level"

The description further specifies that "You alter an item's aura so that it registers to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilities) as though it were non-magical, or a magic item of a kind you specify, or the subject of a spell you specify."

Now, since you're targeting the item with magic aura, magic aura is included under its own effects, since it is now part of the item's aura, so we continue to:

"If the object bearing magic aura has identify cast on it or is similarly examined, the examiner recognizes that the aura is false and detects the object's actual qualities if he succeeds on a Will save. Otherwise, he believes the aura and no amount of testing reveals what the true magic is.

If the targeted item's own aura is exceptionally powerful (if it is an artifact, for instance), magic aura doesn't work."

So the only way to determine that magic aura has been placed on the item is to cast identify on the item, and then succeed on a will save.

Where this line of thought breaks down:

At the very end of the spell description there is the following line: "Note: A magic weapon, shield, or suit of armor must be a masterwork item, so a sword of average make, for example, looks suspicious if it has a magical aura."

Which seems out of place unless the spell detects as a magical aura regardless of its own verbiage, so YMMV.

Regarding Illusions: By strict RAW, yes detect magic would foil all magical illusions the caster can see, since they would have illusion auras. There's a little room for fudging, since the caster might only know that the illusion aura is coming from a direction, or a group of objects, rather than the specific illusionary object itself, but that seems beyond the intended scope of the cantrip to me. I personally require a will save, as otherwise the spell "true seeing" is redundant, or meta-issues arise.

Smash-and-grab raids, where you might concentrate on grabbing anything with a magic aura.

A magic aura on a non-masterwork object suggests it might be a decoy. It would be prudent to check for contact poison as well.

I have a question:

did the 'crazy scientist' trope originate with Dr Frankenstein (and perhaps Dr Jekyll)?

Because I think 'mad Dr Frankenstein' is more akin to 'mad hatters' than mental health issues.

Hatters were 'mad as hatters' because the processes they used involved mercury and they breathed mercury vapours, which are very, very bad for you. And I've always felt there were at least elements of 'what had Frankenstein (or Dr Jekyll or any scientist using chemicals, probably not safely) been breathing'?

If you encounter someone apparently irrational, the questions you're likely start with are are they drunk? Or drugged? Or poisoned? In a world with magic they might be cursed. Perhaps a belief that little men are spying on them isn't paranoia but actually creatures spying on them (a soul-bound doll would be good for this). Malnourished in some way (vitamin deficiencies can have bad effects)? Sleep deprived?
There are lots of potential mechanisms for 'crazy' without getting into mental health issues.

(I've written 'apparently irrational' because if someone is hallucinating or delusional their actions might be entirely in view of what they're perceiving.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 'first modern British' vampire story is 'The Vampyre', written by John William Pollidori, who was, for a while, Lord Byron's personal doctor. A documentary about them and the Shelleys (when Mary wrote Frankenstein) claimed that the Vampire (Lord Ruthven) in this story is pretty much based on Lord Byron. (Another Lord Ruthven, in a story written by Caroline Lamb, is definitely based on Lord Byron.)
Byron was, it seems, very attractive but not a very nice person.

It sounds like the sense of something 'off' that spooks animals and the like. You don't actually have to spot anything definite to trigger the fight-flight reflex. I'd use perception to notice 'animals seem spooked' if there are any, or 'the hairs on the back of your neck are standing up', or something similar. Then probably spell craft to realise there's some bad magic around.

Where was the sea level?

In what context do lizardfolk refer to humans as pink?

Have they always done so, or is it since Sargava was colonised? Did lizardfolk and humans get on after a fashion before, and did the colonists upset the status-quo?

White Northern Europeans quite notably turn lobster-pink when exposed to too much sun, and some never tan (probably most Ulfen for starters).

And, if we're more or less comparing to British Victorian colonists, I believe they tended to stick to British fashions rather than dress for the heat, so they'd be quite pink too. (And collapsing from heat-stroke quite often.) Endure elements wouldn't be available to all and sundry.

So it might have reasonably have first applied to pale-skinned colonists in Sargava and then spread to other humans over time.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up" -- although one did melt down, which is an entirely distinct thing; (b) Chernobyl was the direct result of a known design flaw that was corrected in U.S. reactors and not Soviet ones.

I would be very shocked if the UK could ever gather enough sunlight to meet more than a tiny fraction of its energy needs through solar. Even with wind thrown in, you're not even coming close. So, if the options are to turn off all the lights, burn a lot more coal, or keep a few nuclear reactors, what's the best choice of the three?

Solar panels can probably make a bigger contribution than you think. It seems feasible at least in the South to put enough solar panels on the roof of your house to provide all your domestic electricity and feed some surplus back into the grid (and nobody can turn your lights off). And there are a lot of domestic properties in the South of England. One of the local schools has 1 wind turbine that I believe also runs a surplus. Thousands of households contributing to the grid instead of draining it is surely more than a tiny fraction.

I haven't looked for the figures, though, or the breakdown between commercial and domestic, and I'm feeling too lazy to look for them when I'll probably be told they're unreliable anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Haladir wrote:

Probably about half of my PCs have been female, and a few of those have been bisexual or lesbian, but it very rarely comes up in play. I'm currently playing my first gay male PC, and his sexuality really hasn't come up in play either, aside from the gender of his lost love.

(On a side note-- why do so many PCs have dead parents/siblings/lovers in their backstories? I'm guilty of it too!

Everyone has or had parents and it's an easy/lazy way of explaining them away so that you don't need to interact with them. Otherwise why don't you ever visit them or ask them for help or go and help them? They're also not at risk of becoming GM plot device.

Rynjin wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

As for Pharasma, it may not be so much that she doesn't care as that it's not her responsibility.

So what you're saying is Pharasma is the deific equivalent of that guy who looks at a car wreck and does nothing but film the accident even as the car catches fire and the people inside start dying.

"Lol, not MY problem, that's what firemen are for!"

Sounds pretty awful to me, even if it isn't technically evil.

Assuming she is doing nothing. It depends on the consequences if she stops what she's doing. What if other people will die instead if she helps?

Perhaps the equivalent of Atlas looking at it and saying "Someone else will have to help with that - I'm holding up the world here!'

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nethys is, I'm thinking, too completely obsessed by magic to even notice. And magic is used for good things as well as bad.

As for Pharasma, it may not be so much that she doesn't care as that it's not her responsibility. There are afterall 8(?) good aligned gods. We ask our undertakers to undertake, (if that's a word), not go around healing people or rescuing them - we have doctors and nurses and rescue people as well. It seems to me that her tasks - dealing with the births and deaths of mortal souls - doesn't leave any time for any other concerns.

Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man is about what happens on Discworld when Death is sacked and the few days before a new one forms, when nobody dies...

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

It is worth noting that you must own the resource the item is from. In this case, you would need a copy of the Advance Class Guide. PDFs or book version counts. You then need to bring this resource with you when you play your character.

Welcome to PFS!

How does this apply if I want to play a PFS play-by-post? Obviously, it's not possible to prove ownership.

Then again, I've been considering creating a PFS character for pbp for a while now, but not having a scenario or any other PCs to co-operate with, I'm finding I can't even decide on a class.

I just can't resist...

Monty Python

FLite wrote:

Also, remember that false knowledge can be more common than true knowledge.

To take a "real world" example, to kill a vampire, you need to:

Stake it
Cut off the head
Bury it under a cross roads
By exorcising the body
By recreating their original funeral
By filling the hole in the back of their neck with their hair.
(I seem to recall more, but these are the ones I could find fast)

Probably only a couple of these are true.

Many years ago (playing AD&D) we encountered vampires and wound up trialling every rumour we could remember (I recall they all involved cutting the head off). There was something about lemons, and my Magic User summoned some, but the magic in the region was whacky, and she wound up buried under a cubic metre of them! Fun times :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Thanks. No details on the grading in the summary, but still good to see a bit more detail. At least I've got something to reference next time it comes up.

I'd like to suggest that the teachers doing this are completely unaware of it. That's what some of the other bias studies show. It's not like they think girls shouldn't be good at math so they're purposefully down grading them to discourage them, but that they know girls aren't good at math, so their actual perception of the work changes.

Human minds are funny things and nowhere near as rational as we like to think they are.

What my ex-husband said about marking lab books, was that he would recognise the hand writing, and when an explanation wasn't very clear, he found it hard not to think, 'I know this person understands this', or not, and mark it up or down based on them and not their work. Which is obviously open to bias. I suppose at least he was aware and tried not to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

So, Orfamay, did I get you right:

Everyone wants to get into higher education, particularly STEM, but not-white-men are blocked from doing so.

Everyone who is not a white man ends up working in a job they didn't want.

Everyone works the same hours, and still not-white-men get lower salaries.


It isn't "blocked" but "discouraged."

A recent study (published in the last month or so) demonstrated that teachers of middle school math graded assignments with girls names lower than the exact same paper with no name. Likewise, they graded assignments with male names higher than the exact same assignment with no name.

The cultural bias is real and really does discourage young girls away from STEM fields and young boys into STEM fields.

...How is that even possible? It's math, it's either correct or incorrect.

I thought that once, too. Then I actually had some to mark! You generally try to give some marks for the bits that are right but sometimes what was written was so convoluted you couldn't work out what they were saying at all.

Silver for were creatures, a stake through the heart for vampires, at least. I would think 'trolls regenerate' is up there too.

My first line of defence as GM, though, is to describe the creature, not name it. So they'd see 'a Large humanoid creature, about 10 ft tall' (if that's the right height), and then they can make knowledge rolls, and 'the wounds look to be closing', rather than 'it's regenerating'. I would hope if they're sent to look for trolls specifically, they'd also be told the hazards.

(It helps, actually,that I don't have tokens for everything, so they can't assume that's the actual creature.)

Earthbeard wrote:

The problem with any real world analogies, is that we have vast swathes of information and education available to ourselves, that, in a faux-medieval style magic world, they probably don't.

The reason we all know silver vs werewolves, is purely down to pop culture (or a Common monster DC, i.e 10 or lower).

Trolls are such a menace to anyone, without the correct knowledge to deal with. That fire kills them should be fairly common knowledge, imho, or at least the common ways to deal with regeneration?

Other stuff is nicely and decently dealt with via various Knowledge checks, though revealing pure rules versus fluffier aspects, is one I've always felt a little uncomfortable in siding for one side or the other! I feel it cheapens the game or story by flat out stating a save mod or AC, but agree that using a fluffier message can sometimes lead to massive problems in interpretation.

They still had bards and story-tellers and singers and such, though. For example, a lot of myths and fairy tales were oral, and only survive because someone wrote them down before they disappeared. We watch telly and listen to the radio. Pre-radio, everyone would to any (live) performances that were on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not all thinking is philosophy?

Because, believe me, there is nothing philosophical about my thoughts if, for example, I tread on a d4 in bare feet!

BigNorseWolf wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Your rhetorical definition that philosophy=bad and discarded philosophy is precisely as disingenuous as if I were to define science as only bad and discarded science

The definition of philosophy I'm using is that its investigation of the universe done chiefly by speculative means.

So you think there is no place for speculation in science or maths? You'd be wrong on that. Admittedly, the speculation is followed up by working out how you might test speculative ideas, but it still has a place.

In fact, mathematical staples, like proof by negation or proof by contradiction seem to me to both be essentially speculative - i.e.. what would happen if the thing we wanted to prove was actually false...

According to wiki:

In Scotland, 10% of the population have red hair and approximately 35% carry the recessive redhead gene. In Ireland as many as 10% of the population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair. It is thought that up to 46% of the Irish population carry the recessive redhead gene.

I don't think comparison of anything to the prevalence of red hair is helpful

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

Where and how are you fitting maths in this?

World most complicated game of Jenga?

Math is math. You need it to understand reality but it is not itself reality. The physics people tell me they need what the math people do, so I'll take them at their word. The equals sign provides a trash can of sorts and objective ways to test if you're wrong (though I do find the whole multiplying negative numbers methodology suspiciously arbitrary...)

I think this is the stumbling block in the arguments, then.

Because maths is absolutely fundamental for understanding physics (speaking here as a totally unbiased pure mathematician, of course :) )
but philosophy and mathematics are also historically intrinsically linked. Many of the ancient greeks, like Thales and the Pythagoreans were both mathematicians and philosophers, and many skills, like making logical deductions, are common to both.

I've just caught up with the UK X Factor and thought you might like to see Seann Miley Moore.

First audition,

In Boot Camp,

A bit of Hotel California

Hope this link works...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The reason you're wrong is that the modern scientific method is fundamentally different then what people have done throughout history.

What is the fundamental difference?


I have no idea any more what you're talking about when you say "science".

In many ways science is the rejection of philosophy.

Philosophy is investigation of the world through primarily speculative means.

Science is the investigation of the world primarily through observational and experimental means.

In philosophy you try to take your knowns and advance them them rationally as far as you can. If your knowns are true and your reasoning is sound you arrive at a correct conclussion.

This is what I said at the beginning, on the first page, and have repeated multiple times since. If you don't know what I and the dictionary use for a definition and instead decide that I must be using your own completely definition the confusion is entirely on you.

Where and how are you fitting maths in this?

Christopher Dudley wrote:
And I will submit as my personal favorite creepy love songs: anything by the Smiths.

Surely Marvin the Paranoid Android's favourite band

Kate Bush's The Kick Inside?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My son (aged 13 or 14 at the time) failed UMD for a wand 3-4 times and threw down the dice in disgust, when (naturally) it rolled a 20. In response to the inevitable 'Oh, now I get the roll!' (and subsequent swearing), I came up with
"As you throw down the wand, a beam of energy shoots out and, luckily, hits the door accross the courtyard. You hear a distinct click. It seems to be a wand of knock, with the command phrase 'Bl***y well work, you bl***y stick!'. Probably not what the creator was intending."
A good rescue, I thought - you kind of have to for younger players :)

"Money (That's What I Want)" originally by Barrett Strong, covered by The Beatles
or (my favourite) THe Flying Lizards

Muse's cover of Frankie Valli's Can't Take my eyes off of you

Sinead O'Connor covers House of the Rising Sun

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Having got into a discussion about poisonous fungi, my daughter, intending to say a certain fungus caused hallucinations in blue-and-white monochrome, told me it caused hallucinations of blue-and-white metronomes.
I love the visual of blue-and-white metronomes ticking away in all those hallucinations.

I would definitely recommend a short, fun module of some sort and explain as you go along and things come up.

I introduced my kids' grandma by sitting down with them and her and playing 'We be goblins' with the pre-generated characters. They were happy to show her what to do when as things came up. (The only problem we had was I didn't properly describing the size of the spider they were attacking.)

Geocentric is surely just placing your coordinate system with the earth at the zero point. I think you can still let it revolve.

Masked Maiden wrote:

Well, that was an odd day. I was so anxious I pretty much wasted my workday staring at the screen until the therapist appointment. And I said the words. "I have been questioning my gender identity for almost two years. At this point, I am pretty such to be female, despite my looks."

And after a short moment of feeling like a deer in headlights, he just jotted down a note, asked a few questions on how I got to that point - and continued the initial talk without giving it much more room.

I feel... strange. A little more free. A little more able to face other parts of my history. As if just saying it to another person instead of just typing had removed a burden from my shoulders.

I salute your courage. Well done!

I've been giving some thought to whether you could design a key of sorts:

perhaps, 'suppose you're travelling to meet friends (or associates or whatever) and when you arrive at their camp, they've been taken prisoner by bandits.

Do you 1. reach for weapons? (refine for ranged or charge in with melee)
2. sneak around to scout and perhaps sneak in to free them (rogue type?)
3. draw on your divine training (cleric type) or knowledge of nature (druid or ranger)?
4. use your arcane skill?
5. come up with a cover story and try to bluff your way in?

and so on. I don't know how many options would be reasonable though.

You'd hopefully give your player a working idea of the options and they'd be better able to choose the most fun option for them. Which is what matters most for a beginner, I think.

As a fairly inexperienced GM, I keep an eye on WBL, so I know I'm keeping the treasure reasonable. So that I have an estimate on how much to give out on average over the next 5 encounters, say. Because I don't like having the exact same amount in each.

So, mathematical theorems are, pretty much, make some assumptions and then prove your deductions.

And if the proof is correct, then the deductions will follow as long as the assumptions are valid. Or be pretty close, mostly, if the assumptions are close.

So you might assume the problem is on a flat surface, and know your answer will get worse as the Earth's curvature matters more.
Or you might assume that gas molecules are points and get the Gas Laws (which are very, very close to what's actually observed), but is obviously going to break down if the molecules are close enough that their volumes matter, or they start chemically interacting, for example.
And there isn't a similar set of laws for liquids, because some, like water, interact (giving surface tension for example) and others, like sugar molecules, are long chains that tangle.

So, physics is, in a sense, looking at the world, making some deductions and some simplifying assumptions, proving it mathematically, deducing as much else as you can, and looking at the world again, to see where it fails - which are usually because your assumptions don't fit well enough (if, for example, you can't ignore the curvature of the Earth).

Of course, for something like global warming, there isn't a 'proof' in this sense, I doubt if we even know all the factors. But people have been looking and collecting data, and looking for correlations, and trying to explain them. And poor or unsatisfactory explanations do not mean the correlations aren't there.

My kids dragged me to the PC once to watch a you-tube clip which was one person's walk through of part of a game, and someone else deriding the 'fake cockney' accent he was using. The thing was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't 'fake cockney' but actually a genuine accent from south of London on the coast (roundabout Hastings, for those who now where that is).
Moral - do your research before deriding fakes and make sure they are in fact fake, or you'll sound like a prat. And be laughed at. :)

Is it necessary that in every group of survivors someone gets infected and either turns on them or heroically sacrifices themselves? Every group?

Ok in 28 days, it's the first film and a trope, but again and again in 28 weeks as well?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Old school- being traumatised by the grapple table

New school - Nope, still too traumatised to look at grapple rules

Monty Python, anyone?

Imbicatus wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Rennaivx wrote:
I use Welsh for Dwarven on my ranger; it seemed a decent fit, although not quite right.
The problem with Welsh being, if you're getting right, you should be spitting over the rest of the group. :)
Which makes it extremely appropriate for Dwarven. Where do you think that -2 CHA penalty comes from? :)

The character's supposed to get the -2, not the player!

Marik Whiterose wrote:

28 Days Later

28 Weeks Later

I haven't seen either, I didn't know they were set in the UK :)

They seem a bit bleak...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was watching a documentary about The Tower of London with my daughter, and she turned to me and said, "All those zombie apocalypse films? They don't work in Europe because we retreat into all the castles!"

She's right, we've got fortifications all over the place, many in not that bad repair, like Dover castle, Warwick castle, Kenilworth with walls at least, fortified manor houses and town with walls like York and Canterbury, just for starters in the UK. Most of which have, or had wells, and at least a bit of farmable land.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be a massive population crash, but totally wiped out? Not even close.

Of course the premise of a contagious virus complicates things a bit.

So, are there any zombie apocalypse films set in Europe (apart from Shaun of the Dead)?

1 to 50 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.