In the third thread linked, there was a post by a Paizo staff member that said, "We accept the use of this word only as x." Some posters then repeatedly posted the use of that word in a different way, or defended doing so, after the Paizo basically said, "don't use that word this way or defend it." So I assume they locked it because they were being unheeded.
They are doing it only if they are getting ready to ship out to you, assuming "you" are in the next block of people to be shipped to. My friend who got his in April, got his address confirmation email in April. It may be a large number of people getting the confirmation email, but that large number are still the next in line to be shipped to.
Oh my god I loved this movie.
Anyone who gives this a bad review is incapable of feelings or joy. This is fact.
There was one fight scene that did go waaaay too long though (but it was still immensely more entertaining than watching a crystal grow for 20 minutes. *looking at you, Superman Returns*).
I never believe unnamed sources. It's a holdover from my (few) days as a journalist, when my editors wouldn't let me quote anyone I didn't get the name of, because they wanted us to be able to trace back our facts to a definitive source. "An unnamed source tells the readers that you made it up." Based on what I read of the internet "journalists" who often cite "an unnamed source" or "rumor" usually that turns out to be true.
But I hope my cynicism is wrong. It would be nice if they would find more--especially Troughton episodes, since so very many are missing.
Apprentice rules would be cool.
If it's of any interest just on the subject of low power play, even if it has nothing to do with Ultimate Campaign... I am running a campaign right now where the PCs are 1st level NPC classes. When they "gain a level," they will gestalt their NPC class features with the 1st level PC class they take (but will be a 1st level character still, just graduated from "ordinary" to "heroic").
After that they'll level normally in PC classes.
Basically they net some extra class skills (and depending, some skill ranks) that make sense for their past profession, and maybe an improved hit die or some spells. It doesn't add a whole lot of power when they "become" a heroic PC, but allows well for low level play that graduates into "normal" level play pretty well.
Note I did house rule an "Apprentice" NPC class (which is largely similar to the Adept but casts arcane spells and has a spellbook) and I beefed up commoners very slightly (they are proficient in dagger PLUS their choice of club, quarterstaff, sickle, or scythe, and they have their choice of starting play either with some bonus skill ranks or a pet, which is an ordinary animal--chosen IIRC from list of cat, dog, pig, sheep, or mule--with no companion/familiar features, but is trained with one Trick).
So far it's working pretty well. I may repeat the campaign at some point in PBP.
The wierd thing about a child being an adept, is that there's no good way to model them becoming the equivalent of a first level PC over time. What happened to those Adepts spells they used to know, like Cure Light Wounds, that aren't on the Wizard spell list? And keeping the level of Adept just makes them suck, due to the way the class/level system is designed.
I would just allow them to add whatever spells they knew as an adept to their personal spell list, even if it is not on the sorcerer/wizard list. There aren't that many spells that differ, and it's conceivable to research an arcane or divine version of a spell that is normally the other. And it's still taking up room in the spell book (or a sorcerer's very limited "spells known" list). Consider it a very slight and not game breaking at all bonus for them having earned their way up to PC-hood the hard way.
Oh dear. That is hilarious and sad. And ancestrally, I am half Polish so... it makes me especially sad. (And hell yes, hard language. Of course I know about two phrases and a few food words, so obviously I am an expert.)
But then if the opposition's that idiotic, it gives bonus points for the other side, I hope!
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Also, I usually run games point buy. Interestingly enough, people tend to give themselves strengths and weaknesses but seldom minmax. If I ran a game where everyone maxed out one stat and dropped the others to bare minumum, I'd be concerned about point buy, but I've never seen that happen in the games I play.
Also, have them pick their class and race BEFORE they roll stats.
Older versions of D&D had prime requisites (and thus had you pick class after rolling) or a reason... some classes really can't be played if you roll certain stats.
In Pathfinder, while this may be less the case in general, it can be doubly true for spellcasters... since you need an ability score of 10 + spell level to cast spells, and thus a minimum of 10 to cast cantrips, 11 to cast 1st level spells, etc. If you picked a spellcaster and then rolled a 3 for your primary stat, you'd have very little you could do.
I think the OP's proposal could be interesting as a method of character gen, but as others note one would have to design the campaign carefully to make it pay off in a desirable and fun fashion.
Buzz I've scanned of E3 is that at least in the circles I read (which is the caveat to take), people are generally more psyched about the PS4 than the XB1. I did see one particular rave about the XB1's controller.
My vague impression also is that, the PS4 seems to have hard core or hobby gamers excited, where as XB1 is being pushed hard as a "family entertainment device" over something specifically that caters to video game hobbyists only.
As an aside, Gail Simone has been mocking the XB1 endlessly on Twitter. Bear in mind she has little or nothing to do with the gaming industry, but it's kind of amusing. :)
Take all that or leave it for what you will.
I'd suggest looking over the E3 buzz as you will yourselves.
Jim, I never meant to frustrate I was only pointing out that the rules are already being written so it doesnt make a lot of sense for another rule version to be made. I understand though and apologize that my post came off harshly however it does seem that if we want paizo to write everything why have 3rd party publishers at all who can pick up the slack in areas where paizo may not be focusing? everyone's mileage may vary but just pointing out an alternative.
I think in this specific case there is room for both, as I imagine if Paizo comes up with a psychic magic/psionic system, it will look dramatically different from Dreamscarred Press's. And I have a feeling the people who like DSP's will be less fans of Paizo's and the people who like Paizo's will be less fans of DSPs, so it's not a case where one draws away from another--each group's fans keep their fans. And in the best case, people like both and buy both, applying whatever they need for a given campaign, and everybody wins.
Look, honestly, I'm not a big fan of psionics myself. I like them for sci-fi and "weirder" fantasy settings, but I don't feel a dramatic need for them in standard adventure fantasy like what Paizo produces. If Paizo never produced psionic rules I would be just fine and happy. And yet at the same time, I know a lot of people would like to see Paizo's take on the concept, and that as Jim pointed out earlier in the thread, they've even made room for psionics to exist in their campaign setting, they've just not filled in the rules yet.
I think you are absolutely right in your concern that Paizo leaves gaps for 3PPs to fill in.
But I think this is a particular case where there would not be an issue of a moderately sized beast stepping on the little guy's toes. Or at least--that it could be avoided as long as all parties involved were aware of the potential issues. Especially as AFAIK, Paizo's always been very supportive of both 3PPs in general and DSP's efforts to "Pathfinderize" 3.x psionics specifically.
As the others note, Spellcraft does not let you cast spells. As a rogue, she can use it to identify spells as they are being cast by spellcasters. That's pretty much it at the moment.
IF at 2nd level, she takes "Rogue Minor Magic" as her rogue talent and chooses detect magic as the spell-like ability she gains, then she can also use Spellcraft to identify magic item properties when she casts detect magic. For example, if she studies the magic aura of a sword she finds, she can use Spellcraft to determine that it is a +1 sword.
As this is a solo campaign, I would strongly, strongly, strongly recommend she train the Use Magic Device skill if she has not, as that will enable her to use this skill to cast spells from scrolls and wands, which she otherwise would not be able to do as a non spellcaster. This can give her some versatility and give her some access to magical healing, should she find an appropriate item, such as a wand of cure light wounds.
I would not use the term "cast healing"; the Heal skill isn't magical, it's literally doing the work of a first aid provider or physician--bandaging wounds, etc. The description of the skill is pretty clear about what you can do with the Heal skill. To herself, she should be able to heal bleeding damage, heal damage done by caltrops and such, do the "Treat deadly wounds" action (provided she has a healer's kit), treat poison, and treat disease. She can't do the "first aid" action on herself, which is to stabilize a dying character, because dying characters are unconscious. And you are correct, she cannot provide long term care to herself.
Remember for regaining hit points in general, she will also regain hit points equal to her class level plus her Constitution modifier for every 8 hours she rests. This requires no skill check.
I am not sure what you mean, but let me try to help where I can:
Dodging during an attack is static--she doesn't have to roll anything; it's why Dexterity is folded into Armor Class, that accounts for your ability to dodge. If she's dodging a magical effect, that is covered under Reflex saves; you only allow Reflex saves if the spell or effect she's avoiding says you can roll a Reflex save explicitly.
Otherwise, she's actually making it harder on herself than it needs to be.
If a skill can be used in combat, it will be described as such in the skill. Most skills are not used in combat; you roll your attack roll and combat maneuver bonus as needed; defenses like AC and CMD are static; again your ability to dodge, etc. is already calculated into the number. You will roll your saving throws.
Skills that are used in combat, most often:
- Bluff: You can use bluff to feint. Not going to repeat the rules for feinting here; they are in the core rules.
- Knowledge: You can use Knowledge skills to identify a creature's weaknesses and special abilities. The CRB describes which Knowledge subtype applies to which kind of monster (e.g., use Knowledge (planes) to id a demon, use Knowledge (religion) to id undead, etc.).
- Heal: You can heal bleeding damage, caltrop etc. damage, and give first aid in combat with the Heal skill.
I don't know of any combat guide that is not the core rulebook combat guide. What kind of guidelines are you looking for? I would guess the Beginner's Box has the easiest breakdown.
Lastly, a word of unsolicited advice:
If you can, find yourself a group. Solo adventures are cool, and sometimes if you have trouble finding players or scheduling, it's the choice you've got. But balance wise they can play very differently, and then when you join a group later it can become challenging. You'll both learn the system better with a group of people to help corroborate how the rules work, and get a much better feel for how the game was really meant to be played.
But however you play, have fun and good luck.
Jim Groves wrote:
Ooh. I just imagined an archetype or prestige class designed around aerial combat.
I'd like to see an Advanced Game Mastery Guide. The original GMG was broad in scope but only very shallowy touched the topics it covered, and was clearly oriented toward new GMs.
An AGMG that went seriously in depth with advice about world and campaign design, maybe with some random NPC generation tables and solid frameworks for things like low and high fantasy settings would be my dream book.
I'd totally buy a book called "The End of Pathfinder: Going back to 3rd Edition D&D".
Paizo can't do that, they don't own the rights to "D&D" in any edition. They can use the OGL rules all they like, but they can't ever call it D&D.
I know you were joking (or rather, provoking for the lulz) but still.
Jim Groves wrote:
Yeah. I was originally going to skip it and then realized it was needed to fill in some gaps for certain kinds of modern and sci-fi settings. I felt more comfortable working with the "normal" magic system then try to wrangle with 3.5 psionics, which I never grokked very well and felt there were some balance issues, personally.
I don't play in Golarion much but I will say they are good about leaving the door open for all kinds of possibilities for things to exist in it.
I think it's cool there's a 3PP that supports psionics as something closer to the system 3rd ed psionics fans liked.
But I am with you that Paizo should do its own thing--but that also there is room for it in fantasy and that having a system for it therefore would be a good idea.
Also, if it's different enough, people can use DSP or Paizo's or both.
It's not necessarily what I personally want to see next (I'm with other posters on something focusing on skills/dungeoneering) but I think you have a point that there is a niche carved out for it, so one does wonder when it will be filled.
I did this before stuff got online... IIRC I generated a halfling wizard from a poor peasant family but with an ancestral history of magical tradition, who murdered a child for justice, but quietly feels bad about it. Got into adventuring via a friend of a friend, and has a true love.
Off topic, but I'm pretty certain they didn't intend "dance hall" as a euphemism for "brothel." Dance halls are/were their own real things, pretty much exactly as described in the book. The contemporary equivalent would be a nightclub, more or less. Which can have lascivious things happen at, but are most definitely not brothels.
Brothels would more or less use the same stats as a tenement. Maybe some would have a common room and bar added. Add a team of laborers for the prostitutes; the last part the book itself suggests, which indicates they are not afraid to discuss prostitution by its name.
Jim Groves wrote:
Interesting. That's what I've been doing with "psionics" for a revision of d20 Modern I've been working on for fun.
In Hama's defense, I felt Hama was pretty clear with the details of what happened the first time. But I appreciate the minor added pieces of information.
And while it's always nice to get both sides of the situation, "I invited someone into my home, tried to be a good host, and they insulted me repeatedly," is enough for me to suggest this person not be invited into their home again (even if there's information missing, it's enough to suggest that the two are not going to get along and thus should not be in each other's homes). It was never just "she is a horrible person" it was always about specifically host-guest courtesies and when not to tolerate a guest.
I would counter, Lord Snow, that you give us the benefit of the doubt as to reading comprehension and being able to make up our own minds for ourselves. I agree with you that jumping to conclusions is a dangerous place to go and there were a few extreme comments, but I don't think most of the reactions here were out of place. Just as you advise us not to be too swift in our judgments, I would turn the advice straight back around on you, and don't immediately jump to the conclusion that we all ran to one side without truly considering the situation and its possible angles.
The other thing that occurs to me is that if he's almost never showing, it sounds like he's not actually very interested in the game. It could be a situation of he's not into the game, but doesn't want to say so because you're his friend and he doesn't want to hurt your feelings, and no one wants to kick him out of the game because he's their friend and they don't want to hurt his feelings.
So instead in the interests of not hurting everyone's feelings, everyone's frustrated and miserable. Way to go for regard for feelings.
For regular wear and tear, I assume PCs are maintaining their equipment during downtime--it's not something that really needs to be roleplayed.
Mending (and make whole) is useful though, besides sunder, for repairing broken objects in dungeons and the like.
As a house rule, I also assume mending has a similar cleaning function as prestidigitation so divine casters can clean off uck as needed. This is something my players tend to pay attention to so that's what I've set up (explicitly because a cleric player of mine complained they didn't have prestidigitation for its cleaning effect).
Disclaimers: I just found this thread. I didn't read all of it, so I apologize if I am bringing up moot points or repeating something someone else said:
Scenario: PC's encounter big bad. There is child in room. Big bad promises he has other child they are supposed to rescue. Their choices, as I see them:
- Paladin specifically kills child, maybe rescue other child--but BBEG could be lying, and they could end up with two dead children, and at least guarantee one dead child, plus fallen Paladin.
- Paladin does not kill child. Everyone--including first child, if I understand this correctly--falls through portal which is unidentified except as "to your doom." GM may allow PCs to roll to identify. PCs in process risk two children's lives--the one they opt not to rescue at this time, and the one that falls through the Gate with them. This one does not guarantee death of either, however, but it's little comfort.
The question I would not be asking is, "is this evil?"
The question I would be asking is, as is the question I would ask for ANY scenario I design, is, "Will my players HAVE FUN roleplaying through this scenario?" Because while moral dilemmas CAN be satisfying to play through, there is a fine line between a moral dilemma that is a fun challenge, and moral dilemma that just says "f* you, players, I enjoy your pain and anguish."
I don't know about the OP's players. If I were GM and I were thinking of the usual pool of players I have, my answer to that would be, "No, my players would not have fun choosing, essentially, which child dies, and worry about a paladin party member falling in the process." And so I would, personally, change the scenario. The OP will have to decide based on his best judgment of his players.
If I were to change the scenario:
- I would make the situation that the child in the room is the only one, the one they are looking for. The choice they are given is that you can kill him and leave the dungeon safely--perhaps with some other large, tempting, tangible rewards as well that the PCs can be guaranteed of having--or you and the child can go through the portal to hell. This means the PCs still have to protect the child when they go through the portal, and he could still die if they make that choice, but it gives them a little more agency and the choice is a little less f-you. It also gives the party an evil option that might be fun to play through if they are game with going evil, as they can get real immediate rewards from doing it (but still the shame of going evil).
- I would make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that it is a portal to hell. They can see it's a gate and they can clearly see Hell on the other side. No rolls necessary.
- I would also and most importantly make it absolutely 100% crystal clear, with meta-commentary as necessary, that going through the portal is a valid option and you have adventures planned for that if they go that way.
Mark Norfolk wrote:
Or Mary Tamm for that matter... before she passed away I used to fantasize they'd bring her back to play the queen.
Memento Mortis wrote:
I agree, with some qualifiers.
If you've read an adventure, it is hard not to metagame. I ran Crypt of the Everflame once. I then had to play it as a player--GM knew I had run it (I gave him my dungeon map, IIRC), and just promised not to metagame. I had to be careful not to assume where the zombies or giant frogs were going to pop up where they thought they were. So that can mitigate the fun factor. At the same time, I still enjoyed playing that module, and in fact knowing some of what was ahead forced me to focus more on roleplaying with the PCs and really really trying to see the situation from my character's POV rather than my own, since I was forced to even more than usual separate my knowledge from my PC's. This in its way actually made things more fun. So it can be challenging, but it doesn't ruin fun, and can actually positively affect how I play. So some fun is taken away, but other fun is added, so ultimately, I'm still having the same amount of fun.
The other thing to be always aware of is even if I've got the module/AP, I've got GMs who tend to liberally alter "the script"--or the players themselves derail thing and the GM has to improvise. So then my prior knowledge is pointless and I have to go along with it as normal anyway.
And that said, I think I'd prefer to play an adventure I didn't know the plot of, BUT that's also because it makes it easier to establish trust with the GM. 'Course if I and the GM know each other really well it doesn't matter. But I've had a great time replaying stuff I've known before so it isn't a big deal.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I don't want you gone (or to stay; I don't care either way). And I don't want to have the power that would make you or anyone else gone, as I'd be likely to abuse it. ;)
If you stop, take a breath, and reread, you will see I am suggesting that if you dislike how Paizo handles its private property, you will remain unhappy here, because they are unlikely to change how they handle things. Yes, this is the status quo for this board. It is one established by Paizo, because they own this place (and can shut it down at any time). Only they have the power to change it, "defenders" or detractors be damned. But yes, I do defend it, because in my perception and opinion, it is a status quo that encourages discourse and respect rather than ultimately nonproductive bickering, and I am proud of my defending that. I am aware your perceptions are different, vastly enough that it's unlikely we'll see eye to eye, and that is what it is. That said, if I disliked the status quo here, I wouldn't be here.
And thus, given the circumstances, I am therefore suggesting as a corollary that you may be happier if you choose stomping grounds that suit your preferences better, and the sooner you find them, the better, for your own sake. If my vulgar but concise wording undercut the intention there, I apologize.
If you prefer to be miserable and angry, however, by all means, remain miserable and angry. That's your choice.
And I and my fierce would-be murderer of Dr. Lucky are always happy to entertain. :)
And have a lovely day, 3.5 Loyalist. If message board discussions and some fairly basic and common message board practices get you this worked up, I hope the rest of your life is more satisfying at least. :)
Lord Snow wrote:
I absolutely agree judging this one event as a baseline for establishing the rule is harsh/unfair. But it sounds like from his other posts that this is one of many negative experiences with guests, just the straw that broke the camel's back.
But as a separate issue I think the flack thrown "Amanda's" way is right -- being abusive and rude to your hosts because you want to "teach your boyfriend a lesson" is no sort of behavior that is EVER acceptable, anywhere. You can be mad at your boyfriend, but the moment you make it my problem (and when I am neither you nor your boyfriend), that's when unacceptable lines get crossed. I don't personally agree with some of the extremes he prefers, but I can totally understand why Hama's pissed--and he has every right to establish whatever ground rules he needs to make sure everyone in is group is having fun.
Lol. I am rusty on my schools of anarchy, but I think that sounds about right.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Paizo has rules for how people behave in their private property, which is this message board. You can call enforcing those rules "tyranny" if it makes you feel better, but it's likely not going to stop them from having those rules. There is certainly no "tyranny" of anyone who is following the rules and flagging posts when they see ones that break them. And if you dislike places with rules and people who follow them and work toward others following them, then my advice is not to let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
Well, if that's what works for you, then that's what works for you! I'm glad our groups haven't had to go to that extreme, but then most of our (rare) guests are capable of entertaining themselves without being dicks. If that's generally not your experience I can understand your wanting to draw a harder line.
We've had little kids at table at times and while it can be distracting normally we've had little problem with them. I do wish sometimes some parents of kids would hire a sitter on occasion, but that's also a general wish for social activities, coming entirely selfishly from a single friend amongst many parents. Cost issues aside, it seems parents of this generation are very loath to do this for some reason, perhaps because of abuse horror stories and the like. Thank god my parents' and slightly younger generation weren't like that, or as a teenager, I never would have earned any spending money! I LOVE the idea of chipping in for a sitter, though, that was very sweet and a good idea.
Guys guys guys. I went to the Capital Pride parade and had so much fun. Everyone was so nice and friendly of course. And there were drag queens in superhero costumes, which for some reason is just the most awesome thing ever. (If you didn't click on the link above, the theme of the festival was "Unleash the Superhero in You" so there were lots of superhero costumes, both of RL superheroes and people in rainbow capes and such. Of course this tickled both my queer heart and my geeky heart.)
Sadly, just as Lynda Carter's car passed, she turned to talk to her companion in the car so I didn't get a good look or get to wave to her (amongst the other thousands of people trying to) but she was still like 20 feet away from me, which I am fangirl enough to be happy about. From what I saw of her, I'm guessing she's from the version of Amazons who were granted agelessness by Aphrodite. ;)
One thing that was really touching at the parade was that some of the loudest cheers for the floats and marchers that past were for the PFLAG groups and the churches that had LGBT clergy and married same sex couples.
There was only one very small group of religious right preachers at one corner of the park where the parade passed who were shouting the usual "repent or go to hell" stuff through a loudspeaker. They were utterly drowned out by the parade once it started, and they were a paltry few and rather anemic in their "ministry." The many pro-LGBT churches in the parade vastly outnumbered them and were vibrant and loving. I was bummed the local Friends meetings weren't in it, but as my sister joked, they were probably still in committee trying to work out what wording they wanted to put on their sign. (We are a strangely bureaucratic religious society at times.) This makes me also want to urge my own local meeting to march in our home city's parade too, so that's a project for the coming year (as it's much too late this year, as the local parade is next week).
Based on the information you provided, I agree you handled the situation as best you could. If there's fallout from the girl, that's not your fault, just as it's not your fault that, based on your description, she's an attention-mongering loony bird. Being insulted by a person like that is a compliment (i.e., if a nutjob has a poor opinion of you, then you're probably alright).
I wouldn't say that this means someone can never bring friends--on occasion we've had RPGs where an SO or friend was there for some reason and didn't want to play but watch. Usually they watched and sometimes asked pertinent questions about what was going on, or went into the other room and read a book/played on the computer and didn't disturb us. Sometimes we've had peanut gallery commentary, but usually in GOOD humor, not meant to be unduly distracting or cruel. Sometimes we'll ask an attending SO to blow on our dice for luck and such.
But if it's common that your gaming group's friends are disruptive, I'd at least talk to your group about establishing some ground rules for guests, and make sure that if any guests are invited, that they know they are expected to behave by a certain code of conduct, or will be asked to leave, because of bad past experiences. While normally one shouldn't have to say outloud things like, "Please be aware this is a game with violence, do not watch if you find violence upsetting," or "Please do not insult your hosts," or "Please understand this is game that requires our concentration and accept we will not be chatting with you very often," maybe it'd help to set that up should you be pressured to let a guest attend again.
I'd keep Etta athletic and active. I'd also keep her zaftig.
Like this. She's not massive like her golden age predecessor (although I love her too), but she's got some meat on her bones, and she's absolutely hot. All the skinny minnies in comics get boring. Etta's a real woman.
Part of Wondy's issue with supporting cast, is especially in the last 20 years or so, every major writer has wanted to give her a new one, with characters they made up. They use Wonder Woman's cast as a chance to put their "stamp" on things, but it means Wonder Woman has very little continuity cast-wise.
The thing is a lot of her cast are really GREAT characters. They just keep getting discarded or reinvented.
A lot of the cast you mention I think were the Perez cast? And the names you are looking for are Helena and Vanessa Kapetelis, IIRC.
You've forgotten a very important cast member too -- ARTEMIS, created by Messner-Loebs. The fall of Wonder Woman plot she was introduced in was contrived as hell (it was that part of the 90s when DC was in one of its phases of killing/maiming/shaming the Big Three. Superman "died"; Bane snapped Batman's back, and Wonder Woman got demantled by a crazed Hippolyta). Artemis temporarily replaced Wonder Woman; a Bana-Mighdall Amazon (they were exiles who lived mercenary lives), she was this lovely mix of innocence and violence (kind of reminiscent of Leela from Doctor Who). "I am not violent! And I will cut the throat of any man who says I am!" Is one of her actual quotes. She had some great character development arcs on her own and is a lovely foil to Wonder Woman. I don't think she's been seen since Flashpoint. Artemis also had her own sidekick in her Requiem miniseries (John Byrne I think?), an ex-cop named Sojourner, who was awesome but sadly never used again. (Requiem is also hilarious because the superhero team Requiem joins, Hellenders, is clearly a parody of the Image comics team books popular at the time.)
Rucka gave her a very cool ambassadorial cast. I can't remember her assistant's name but she was cool, and there was Ferdinand the Gay Minotaur, who despite as ridiculous as that sounds, was fairly amazing, amongst others.
Heinberg, Picoult, et al gave her DOMA, including the head of DOMA and Tom Tressor. Simone kept that cast, and FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY added Etta Candy back into the gang, and a properly kickass version at that. "Woo f*~&in' woo."
OH! One more villain--Veronica Kale. A Rucka invention? I am not sure. She was pretty awesome, a business woman trying to discredit her basically, but she had a lot of flair. The ONLY thing David E Kelley got right for that awful pilot was using Veronica as a villain.
I am not sure what the point of this is except to say, Wonder Woman has LOADS of amazing friends and family and supporters to draw from, but they need to pick a cast, keep it, and develop it.
99% of the time, I personally feel a thread is locked for good reason--and often in fact feel relieved or grateful when it happens.
Every once in a GREAT while, I've had the sense that a derailed thread was getting back on track and the conversation was getting constructive again, but usually there's one idiot who keeps beating the dead horse of derailment, and because of that one idiot, the thread gets locked, because the admins' patience has run out and are tired of having to trawl the thread to delete all of the idiot's posts. And it's a shame when that happens, but I don't blame the admins for hitting that point, they're only human after all.
My personal inclination is to protest the existence of the idiots, trolls, and asshats who wouldn't know how to have a civil or decent intellectual argument or discussion if you hit them over the head with one, not the threadlocking itself. Threads wouldn't be locked if people could learn to concede an argument when they're proven wrong, respect others' differing opinions where the subject matter is subjective, or learn that the point of discussion is not in fact to have the discussion end in, "I'm sorry, idiot-man! You are right about everything, and I shall agree with you wholeheartedly on everything you say henceforth!" Some people are SO OBSESSED with being right, that will go to great lengths in making themselves look like idiots with all the social grace of a slime covered rock to prove just how "right" they are. They go through threads, looking for quotes they can take out of context to spin them toward their arguments, people get pissed off at being misinterpreted, or another "pathologically needs to be right" asshat takes on the other POV, and things get ugly.
Sorry, that appears to have turned into a rant.
Anyway, I'm sorry threads have to be locked, but it is not the admins' fault those threads get so awful and mean (and certainly not "interesting" at all in my opinion).
Grey Lensman wrote:
*shrug* It was alright. The Amazons were too straw feministy, and Steve Trevor was way too important. Steve Trevor is a useless wet blanket and any story prominently featuring him is going to be a snooze, IMO. It's hard to put my finger on it, but every time you bring in Steve Trevor, even if you make him black and call him Trevor Barnes or put him in a deaging machine and call him Tom Tressor, he's just always bland and boring, no matter how many peach pits Diana tosses his way (if you don't understand that, don't worry about that). Who ever gets in the dreaded Steve Trevor role instantly becomes cardboard and vanilla, and the best Wonder Woman stories are without him. Part of it is damsels in distress are boring, regardless of their actual gender. Even the TV series figured that out and slowly wrote him out of the series--the TV series was not known for its stellar writing, but even it could tell when a character just didn't work. If you're gonna use Steve at all, I liked him best I think as Perez established him, an older guy who provides more mentorly advice to Diana on what "Man's World" is like, rather than a young man who is enraptured with her.
Really, Batman sums it up best.
I'm of two minds about the secret identity. The reason it was done away with was because Wonder Woman is/was seen as an emblem of truth... and you don't hide who you truly are if you're an emblem of truth. There is a logic to this I appreciate. It also follows in the universes where she is an Ambassador from Themyscira and basically needs to be herself at all times.
If she has a secret identity, she needs a reason for one; the two generally used that I can think of are
1) Themyscira/Paradise Island is a secret and contains secrets; therefore she needs a secret life so she isn't put in a position where she ends up revealing her home of origin and its arcane knowledge. This one runs counter to the "ambassador" thread so if you use one, you can't use the other. On the other hand, it stops asshat editors and writers from making the Amazons do un-Amazonly things like attack and slaughter the residents of Washington, DC. *grrr*
2) She just needs a normal life where she can have some privacy/time to herself--or where she can gather information low profile. There's some logic to this, although the person you might have the hardest time convincing herself it's important is herself. If you're restarting the story from scratch and doing the "innocent new to this world" angle on the character, however, she might come up with the Diana Prince persona to help learn about life in "Man's World" without drawing attention to herself. That might be the best way to go if you want to do the secret identity thing.
Most importantly, if she does have the secret identity, she must wear hugely ridiculous glasses. This must be her own idea, she is not just copying off Clark Kent.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Agreed. It also explains why Bruce's GRRRR persona never intimidates or gets to Diana. Love conquers fear. :)
Silver Swan is another one. The second version was a bit interesting as she had been a friend of Wonder Woman's, then kidnapped and cybernetically augmented to become Silver Swan, and she blamed Wonder Woman on what happened to her. Although she could get irritatingly self pitying, but I liked the idea of a former friend turned enemy, because it really gets to Diana the way no other foe would.
There was an older villain called Dr. Cyber I kind of liked, but that may be through the filter of childhood memory.
GreenDragon, I don't know if they will use New52 WW --or any character -- for the Justice League movie. I imagine they will establish their own continuity. Most movies and TV shows haven't been paying much attention to the comics--if anything, if the movies and TV shows are popular, the comics change to match them, rather than the other way around. (If the movie or TV show sucks, they forge ahead.) For example, Arrow is firmly in its own Elseworlds, and most resembles Green Arrow Year One from years ago, than anything going on with Green Arrow in the DCnU.
These Deviant art finds are amazing and gorgeous guys.
Kajehase, the "amazon" looks reasonable to me. Looks like a Xena redesign.
It's also of note that she is not posed to show off her bare legs, simply they appear bare for easy movement.
Lord Fyre wrote:
That may also well be the case. I think there are good writers out there, but they may not be in the majority.
Hmmm. I don't look a lot at those but mmm... maybe that's why I don't.
I specifically referenced "the earliest Golden Age [stories]," which was accurate. I did not intend to imply anything else. I apologize if I was unclear.
I actually don't mind the Max Lord storyline. Her choice was kill him, or let him mind control Superman to destroy the world, and that was confirmed by her lasso. I think it was manipulative and annoying to build up the story so that that WAS the only choice, but with the circumstances set up as they were, it was the only outcome that makes sense. As much as I am a champion of Wonder Woman as an avatar of love, I think it was a RARE circumstance where the villain death was called for, and that moreover of the major heroes of the DCU, she was the only one with the spine to do it. She also turned herself in afterward.
But the point of it was that it was a VERY rare, extreme circumstance, and she was acting out of desire to protect her friend and the world, not out of vengeance or bloodlust. You can kill in the name of love, but you do it after all other options are explored and exhausted. I felt confident at the time that was the case. It was shocking that she killed because it IS something she'd avoid at all costs if she possibly could.
Turning her into just a violent warrior whose first solution to anything is to punch it is antithetical to what she's supposed to be about, however.
The current writer of Wonder Woman is Brian Azzarello. J. Michael Straczinski's run on Wonder Woman ended before the New 52 reboot, almost 2 years ago now.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
The character's origin, as first presented in "All-Star Comics" #8 in 1941, didn't say anything about being clay. If I recall correctly (from reading "Wonder Woman - Archives, Volume 1" years ago) she had many adventures in the pages of "Sensation Comics" without any revision of her origin, before the comic titled "Wonder Woman" got started. I believe (again, based on my unreliable memory) that Marston rewrote her origin, this time including the clay bit, in the first issue of the comic actually titled "Wonder Woman", in 1942. But I'm sure that the original story in A-SC didn't say anything about clay, because I have that one in "All Star Comics Archives Vol 2".
This is correct, when she got her own title, that origin was established. But it was not her first origin.
The earlier stories in All-Star and Sensation Comics suggested Wonder Woman's strength came from Amazon training techniques given them by Aphrodite. Part of this was with the agenda of teaching girls they could be strong if they believed in it, as suggested in this frame here:
Amongst other places.
So it is not the first/origin source of her powers. Marston later come up with the clay idea probably to explain how Amazons reproduced without men (not my original speculation, but discussions I've seen).
Absolutely the clay story is a longtime origin, a known one, and the most often used. Not undercutting its existence or significance in the slightest.
But it's not the only origin of Wonder Woman, it is NOT the first, sorry thejeff, and it hasn't always been used. And personally I don't believe it is an essential part of her character. You are of course welcome to disagree on that last.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Knockout's bi. There was a bit in one of the mini-series where she bedded Deadshot. Then offered to kill him because it upset Scandal.
That's right. Sorry Knockout. I think Knockout is one of few bi characters around. (Gail Simone noted once that she saw Black Canary as bi but they wouldn't let her do anything with that. I don't have a link, but she said it on Twitter.)
(And in my Wonder Woman Reboot, Jeanette at least would be a semi-recurring character)
Jeannette was AMAZING. Good call.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Really? I don't remember that at all. Ah well. Fair enough, but I think the live action show probably had a broader viewership than the cartoon. Even so, good point.
Anyway, I don't think it needs to be a fact for Diana that is incontrovertible. I don't think it's the equivalent of "saw parents murdered" or "last of his kind raised by a farmer and his wife." For her it's, in my opinion, that she's an Amazon, she's the best of her kind, and that the Amazons are a peace-loving race.
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I saw a discussion of this site on the Escapist and it looked interesting:
This takes artwork from comic books and video games, and redresses the female characters so they don't look like they're from a soft core porn or are exotic dancers by trade.*
The amazing thing is, at least in my opinion, the every single "fixed" picture so far results in a far nicer, more aesthetically pleasing, and all-around sexier and more exciting image.
Also, inb4 BUT I LIKE HALF NAKED CHICKS STOP OPPRESSING ME. You are allowed to like half-naked chicks. Half-naked chicks, and naked chicks for the matter, are all well and good. I enjoy them too sometimes! I am not oppressing you. I am not, through the power of this post, going to make all the half-naked chicks go away. I am not suggesting that you should stop enjoying the things you enjoy. I am simply writing about the things I personally do and do not enjoy, and assert my right to have those opinions. If you respond to this post with any implication to the contrary, i.e., suggesting that I am oppressing you and your enjoyment of half-naked chicks, I will find you, and I will shove your computer up your rear orifice. Should I fail to find you, please perform the procedure on yourself in my absence.