EntrerisShadow's page

I think for sure the Cleric of Asmodeus would get along better with the Paladin of Iomedae. At least between the two, there will be a mutual understanding of the importance of contractual obligations and order. (Also, Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily mean malicious. Just ruthless. A merciless assassin who performs his duties without question, for instance, could still find common ground with a Paladin easily.)

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Things I do not get:

-How anybody could enjoy the program 'Dads' enough that it survived past the pilot

-How we first discovered that pineapples are edible. That is a fruit that seems to shout in big bold spines, "DO NOT TOUCH ME"

-The intelligent people I know who are also religious fundamentalists

Dads - it's more of the same crude humor of Family Guy. Seth macfarlane is, dare i say it, an acquired taste. :D

Here's the thing, though: I like Family Guy. I love American Dad. (Honestly a far superior show.) I think even Cleveland Show wasn't really given its fair shake. I found Ted hilarious.

But even loving all of that, Dads is just godawful. The jokes are like 80's sitcom jokes that Family Guy would parody.

Pineapple - my theory is that, if it exists, a human has tried to eat it, shoot it, or have sex with it - or sometimes all three. Just like we figured out pineapples, coconuts, and psychedelic mushrooms, we also figured out from the Darwin Awards that eating nightshade is deadly, live crocodiles don't make good sex toys, and flinging yourself from a trebuchet is a bad idea.

Given, although that does bring up another point I don't think anybody gets.

Religious fundamentalism - contrary to conventional opinion, devout belief and scientific curiosity aren't mutually exclusive - otherwise, we wouldn't have Newtonian physics, genetic theory or certain key theories of electromagnetism (or we'd have had them much later than we did). It takes all kinds, and most importantly people understanding that ignorance and stubbornness is not the exclusive province of any group - idiots abound from Sea to Shining Sea. :)

Yes and no. Newton was a product of his era and was able to push the boundaries of what we knew at the time without running into any glaring religious inconsistencies. But how a person of an intellectual curiosity could believe that the earth is 5,000-years-old or that species do not evolve in the face of overwhelming evidence is mind-boggling.

Belief in the supernatural, I grant, is a philosophical difference that by its definition cannot be debated on an empirical foundation. But it's the obviously, plainly false things that get me.

No, BG2 and NWN yes, but SoA no :)

Not to quibble, but BG2 is Shadows of Amn.

Baldur's Gate
--Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (Expansion Pack)
Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn
--Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal (Expansion Back)

There was also Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, but we'll just pretend that NEVER HAPPENED.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:

Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.

TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.

Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)

Two things about that:

1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.

2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.

People --- almost always family members of course --- who forward you every idiotic, blatantly false chain e-mail as gospel truth.

I am preparing for the onslaught after Halloween passes and we liberals begin our fictional War on Christmas, but just the reminder that I'm related to people who believe this stuff is depressing. Why can't they keep their insanity to themselves?

I love FATAL, it should regarded as the very pinnacle of game design.

Wait, is this one a joke? I honestly cannot tell.

I love using Fey as villains. Here's the thing: Most monsters are just evil. If you encounter a Bugbear, you know the solution is to kill it and just keep killing it until it's properly killed.

But dealing with Fey is a different beast altogether. Even quote unquote 'good' Fey are capricious, mercurial creatures that only offer the most cryptic of help or advice. A few, granted, are just plain ol' "Kill on Sight" baddies, but for the most part, you never quite know where you stand.

Sure, maybe you should kill that Satyr. But he may also be the only hope you have of finding a guide through the treacherous forest. But he may screw with you a bit on the way. But he might reward your diligence if you impress him. (Note to self: Idea for next session.)

Ditto with evil Druids. I think they get less attention because it's harder to picture the motivations for an evil Druid. What does an evil Druid want? A Cleric of Urgathoa is going to raise an army of zombies. A Cleric of Zon-Kuthon is going to 'enlighten' (re: torture) an entire city's worth of victims to appease his dark god. A Cleric of Asmodeus is going to instill a tyrannical dictatorship and trek with devils.

Evil Druids, though? Harder to pull off. Typically it's a noble goal (e.g. The protection of a sacred Grove) taken to an ideological extreme (e.g. Preemptively destroying every neighboring civilization as a potential threat.) but it seems like Paizo specifically introduced things like 'Plague Druids' just to make it easier to use them as bad guys.

I think Neutral Outsiders get under utilized. You see a lot of Angels vs Demons, Agathions vs Devils, Demons vs Devils, and so on, but very rarely do you get to see the Aeons or Kalyrauts getting involved.

Edit: OH! And evil gnomes. Where are all the evil gnomes? I think an evil gnome has the potential to be absolutely terrifying.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

I have zero interest in being challenged in video games, and I really don't get people who do. Seriously. What's the accomplishment there? Are you going to tell your boss you beat Halo on Legendary in one life? Is it going to score you a date with an attractive woman? Is it going to win you a trophy your family and friends give a crap about? No, no, and no.

Some challenge in a game is fun. (The 2008 Prince of Persia was so dull precisely because you couldn't die.) But I have better things to frustrate myself over than playing the same 1/2 hour chunk of Dark Souls just to say I did.

You come off waaaaaay hostile, bro. Cool it, stop acting like you're telling someone they're having badwrongfun.

Are all your accomplishments judged purely on how they are perceived by others?

Interesting...

All right, now I think we're getting the point of the shun thread.

Shun! Shun! SHHHUUUUNNNN!

Although I'd like to point out that confession was sort of meant tongue in cheek. If you do enjoy beating games on Insane Hardcore Murder Mode, knock yourself out. To each his own.

Of course, my experience has always been a sort of snobbish disregard for those who don't. I understand this isn't indicative of everybody who enjoys playing that way, but those gamers---those 'Hardcore' gamers who cannot stand that video games have become accessible to the unwashed masses---irritate me to no end.

Yeah, I know, every hobby has them. But still, perhaps my rant came across a bit harsh because there's always seemed to be a stronger undercurrent of it among video gamers than anywhere else I've encountered.

I have zero interest in being challenged in video games, and I really don't get people who do. Seriously. What's the accomplishment there? Are you going to tell your boss you beat Halo on Legendary in one life? Is it going to score you a date with an attractive woman? Is it going to win you a trophy your family and friends give a crap about? No, no, and no.

Some challenge in a game is fun. (The 2008 Prince of Persia was so dull precisely because you couldn't die.) But I have better things to frustrate myself over than playing the same 1/2 hour chunk of Dark Souls just to say I did.

Oh, this isn't one that comes up a lot, but something that has always been a source of contention between my fellow players and me:

-Paladins don't gamble. They just don't, I'm sorry. If you're playing a Paladin and your GM allows it, fine, cool, whatever. I'll let it go. I hate it, though, and not one of my NPC Paladins would ever indulge. To be sure, in my world you'd definitely get some aside glances from the other Paladins if they caught you doing it. It's not "fall-worthy" (something that's just way too abused) but it's just a really terrible way for a champion of light to spend her time-it would be like if you eyed somebody eating from the bins at the grocery; not something you would turn someone into the authorities for, but distasteful and rude. If you win, you're taking money from poor saps having a run of bad luck. If you lose, you're throwing good coin away that could be put to better use vanquishing evil or helping the less fortunate. Since I am apparently the only person in the world who holds this opinion, I'll include it here.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Tieflings? Pfft. Lame.

Down with Paizo!

I also agree Tieflings are lame, but I do have to admit that's partially a personal prejudice in that I've never seen one played well. As a race, the are apparently very attractive to angry teenage boys and men who never grew out of being angry teenage boys because that's about the only way I've encountered them.

tieflings merely require a player that isn't an angry emo teenage boy

(Sorry I cut the description. Brevity and all.)

I've actually never seen a Tiefling played what you would describe as 'emo'---correct me if wrong, but I would imagine you mean full of angst and pseudo-philosophical. (I did notice a lot of appeal for Drow, among those types when I was younger and some of my friends were really into the scene, and now Dhampir among some of the younger players, but I digress.) Tieflings I've always seen played like ludicrous caricatures of 1990s Anti-Heroes. That is, always played as an excuse to act like an anti-social jerkward. Every Tiefling player I've encountered was essentially Wolverine of the setting turned up to 11.

But again, I recognize that is a personal hang-up. Though it has created a pretty large mental block that makes me cringe a little inside at the thought of playing a Tiefling.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Ironically, a non-evil drow/tiefling/goblin/etc. is much less "cliche" than the evil ones, yet the former was the star of a popular novel series and is thus unusable by anyone anymore.

Not only that, but the depiction of goblins as evil is racist to begin with. I mean, who the hell are you pinkskins to judge?!?

In other news, not only are good drow wicked cliche, but drow are wicked cliche. They're so boring I've only ever used them once, and that was in the Scarred Lands where they were different. They were LE.

Tieflings? Pfft. Lame.

Down with Paizo!

Vive le Galt!

A bit off topic, but I've always hated the Forgotten Realms Drow as a very intricate, powerful society . . . consisting entirely of stab-happy for the evulz CE psychopaths.

Now, I'm not super familiar with Golarion Drow (other than the whole good elves turning drow when they become evil enough, which bothers me in its own way) but the idea of a bunch of chronic needlessly malicious murderers building a powerful underworld society that rivaled even the most powerful human settlements just bothered me. Every other mundane CE evil 'society' is barely held together under strong leadership or external threat and then disbands or implodes on itself due to the nature of chaotic evil. THAT makes sense. What doesn't make sense is a delicate power scheme in impressive underground labyrinths featuring powerful magic. That screams Lawful Evil and Drow should, over all, be Lawful Evil.

I also agree Tieflings are lame, but I do have to admit that's partially a personal prejudice in that I've never seen one played well. As a race, the are apparently very attractive to angry teenage boys and men who never grew out of being angry teenage boys because that's about the only way I've encountered them.

In the games I run relationships tend to play an enormous role, though the mechanical aspects of sex are generally left out. But I greatly enjoy role playing the social aspects. Homosexuality comes up on occasion, though I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that the only gay character outside of a game I ran was when one of our female players played a sex crazed fighter in the world's most transparent closet. In her defense all of her female characters were pretty sex crazed as well, though they were also interested in men.

I have played several gay NPC's. Actually my gay hobgoblin warlord is still an easy favorite among our group for NPC's I have run. So far I have not had an obviously gay PC, although the only time my character's sexuality even came into play was when another player decided to "make a man" of my young Druid by purchasing the services of a lady of the evening, and I suppose even so it would not preclude him being bisexual.

I'm confused...is it Rogues that suck now? Or is it still Monks?

O woe, why tis surely blaster sorcerers too.

I don't think anybody said blaster sorcerers suck, per se, just that they are mechanically not the most powerful route you could go with a sorcerer.

Now monks, on the other hand, get all the hate. Although as a GM I hate our monk because she is nigh unto invincible.

I think very much in terms of general and selfish. In particular, our groups have problems justifying why these people are even traveling together, so I go generous so my character (at least) will be considered indispensable to the group.

The ultimate generous character is, of course, the Bard. IIRC, there is a Bard archetype that trades the Rapier and Whip proficiencies for proficiency with the Net and Trident. You are the penalty stacking king. The wizard can't hit some ultra-dextrous little bugger because of its high touch AC? Start your bardic performance, use your boffo BAB to hit it with the net, and hand it off to the fighter to hold onto. The rest of the time you're casting Good Hope, or Haste, or Grease, or using wands of CLW and so on. Out of combat, you use your high Bluff and Diplomacy skills to get the best deals on trade goods and lead the party to its next quest.

Some honorable mentions: Cavalier (Challenge makes him basically the game's only effective tank and teamwork feats make for a great buddy system), Cleric (Lots of Buffs and spontaneous cures), and Paladin (just by being near her your saves improve, and she has some great Lay on Hands buffs)

The ultimate selfish character? There are two. The monk. High saves, high AC, moves like lightning, giving you the ultimate in survivability. But he hardly hits, and when he does it doesn't really do enough damage to quickly take an enemy out, which is about the only way most martial types can be generous to the party. The monk can penalty stack, too, but honestly the monk usually has to do it just so he can get a shot in. Out of combat your class skills as hardly useful and CHA is about your only dump stat so prepare to sit quietly or muck it up for the party face.

The second for an entirely different reason is the Summoner. A Summoner IS his own party. Druids might get a little out of hand with their animal companion and summons, but they are at least limited to a weaker summon list and have fewer per day. And an animal companion is far more limited than eidolon. An eidolon can be built to outclass a fighter in combat with a summoner spec'd for healing or blasting. Why is the rest of the party even there?!

I've been in situations like some of you have been describing.

Recently, I've been putting the following in my prep materials before starting a new campaign.

Quote:

I give a lot of leeway about character concept and build. I try to provide a reasonable number of plot hooks and motivations. But if you want to make an anti-social, anarchist, loner, hermit; then YOU the player need to find a reason that he will 'play-nice' with the rest of the team and go on the adventure.

{I may need to add shop keeper in there also.}

I will definitely work with a player. But I've had too many players/PC's that just constantly say "my PC wouldn't care about that." As far as I can tell, they really expect me mind read what they want and then to re-write everything for just their character. Without any regard for the other players at the table.

We had a guy like that once. It came to a head when the party had opened a gate to a pocket dimension that was obviously leading to the next part of the story.

(Spoilered for convenience)

Pendagast wrote:

I dont like the rule that doesn't prevent guys from playing chicks.

Sounds like you had some bad experience. And I understand there are players like that, but there are also people who do an admirble job at playing a character of the opposite gender. Some are better at it than playing their own gender.

Actually the most frustrating thing about playing the opposite gender...

1st Player: "I turn to Honora, Favored Daughter of Emerisk and ask him-"
2nd Player: "Her."
1st Player: "Yeah, her. I ask if he would-"
2nd Player: "She."
1st Player: "I ask if she would be willing to assist us after the noble's ball."
3rd Player: "I ask Honora to accompany her as her date."
1st Player: "Dude, why are you hitting on this guy?"
4th Player: "Wait, Honora is a chick? I have to change my notes."
2nd Player: "Screw it. Honora is now Phallus the Masculine, of the Testicular Clan."
4th Player: "Wait, so is Phallus a dude? Because I don't want to write this down again."

I always play my C/E and N/E characters as unflinchingly polite and supremely likable.

If you're going to be doing some horrible things, it helps a lot if you're able to make people like you so they will have a hard time squaring the circle of this nice guy being an utter sociopath.

One of my favorite story hooks are the unpopular heroes trying to defeat a beloved villain. It prevents the typical, "Kill, loot, rinse, repeat" mentality of so many campaigns by requiring the players to first reveal the true nature of the big bad.

Bard, hands down.

No full BAB? No problem, because I can buff/penalty stack. Haste+Inspire Courage+Grease = Extra attacks and bonuses for the whole party against the enemy's flat-footed AC.

Spell list? Not much for blasty, but no problem, because blasting is for chumps. I get some of the best utility spells in the game, including being the only class to get Glibness. With my natural Charisma I can make the NPC's believe I'm the deposed king and build my own army.

I may not know as much as the Wizard about Arcana, but I'll come damn close, and there's not a knowledge I don't have a chance at. PLUS, while I may not get the same amount of skill points as the rogue, I get to roll some of them up into my highest ability modifier and condense them, effectively making me the best skill monkey in the game.

And if I want to get down and dirty like a fighter, or mix it up with some traps like a rogue, there are so many archetypes which give me sweet bonuses as well as my awesome bard spells/inspire courage.

You just cannot beat the bard for all around versatility, effectiveness, and utility. People complain about the Schroedinger's Wizard who is only god-like because of lenient DM's----every Bard is Schroedinger's Bard. There's not a feasible situation he could not be of some use in.

ES...

Just because somebody is cursed with berserker rages doesn't make them chaotic. I'll grant you that Logan is rather iconoclastic, and VERY touchy about taking orders. But I can't see dubbing him chaotic. He's not nearly random or whimsical enough for that. Imo.

To be clear it is not the rage part that makes me think Wolverine is chaotic (although the restrictions on Barbarian alignment seems to indicate that Paizo and WotC think so). I think Wolverine is chaotic because his spot on the team is always as the The Lancer, a person whose role is to challenge the established leader.

To clarify, I also don't think that's bad. This is necessary, and any GOOD leader will have one and afford him great respect. Leadership needs to be challenged. But to constantly challenge authority and do your own thing is the very essence of a chaotic character.

Furthermore, in those instances where he's not on a team, he's usually a disaffected loner with few close relationships who never stays in one place, and makes a point of remaining unpredictable. Everything about the character screams "Chaotic!"

I'd have to disagree there. I've never bought the notion that "Good" characters in most fantasy RPGs can't or won't kill a whole lotta bad things in the course of their adventures and likely not shed many tears over it.

For the record, it's not just that Wolverine has killed. He's killed SEVERAL people who, while perhaps not innocent, did not pose an immediate threat. The justifications ranged from reasonable to flimsy, but it was usually vengeance of some sort. Since morality it not a Zero Sum game, and motivations matter, I would place this at squarely neutral in most stories, good in others, and occasionally downright evil (vengeance extending out to those who were only tangentially related to his previous victimization.)

For the record, both of my nonlethal characters were actually non-good. The monk was trying to intellectualize what he couldn't understand intrinsically, and the other was chaotic evil character who simply saw death as they end of his fun. My good guys will kill if it comes down to it. But I do think violence, to a good character, should be the last resort and never something he seeks out. I don't think a Paladin killing a bad guy in self-defense is an evil act. I do think a Paladin trying to find a bad guy who was currently minding his own business so he could pick a fight and smite him to death would be.

Bard. The answer is ALWAYS Bard. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.

So, in 88 posts I've had one response to my request for an example of how to do evil that is

a: not boring
b: not oh-noes-emotional-trauma

Maybe I just didn't grab anyone's attention and we all got exciting about people twisting words like bandit and greed but I'd still really like to read some examples.

I don't know what's considered boring to you, but I am currently playing an evil character who's not traumatized. He's a CE Fey-blood Sorcerer, so as you could imagine it's heavily focused on enchantment. My challenge was to be as evil as possible while never directly killing a single innocent.

So far he's managed to rack up a higher kill count than most mass murderers simply by using some well placed words and spells.

He fooled his cousin, a well respected public official, into killing his wife and best friend. He tricked a jewelry shop owner into leaving him in charge, razed it and burned it to the ground, and then pinned the blame on a recently freed slave. Then sold the stolen gems back to the jeweler . . . you know, so he could get back on his feet. Currently he's working for both a LE General of an opposing army and a CE pirate lord who are trying to kill one another. And since he couldn't resist, while on the base of the LE general he went ahead and turned half the guard staff against the other half by convincing them there was a traitor in their midst. Didn't even have to roll a bluff check on that one since there totally was. And most recently settled a dispute over 50 gold by polymorphing the other person into a turtle and making it the party mascot. Going to use the gold he got from that to get a druid cast "Awaken" so he can be sure his new friend is 'enjoying' every moment of his new life.

But nicest guy in the world. Totally friendly, talkative, and always quick with a kind word. Has a sort of obnoxious love of puns; just about the only trait I share with him (I hope). No tragic back story. Actually had a pretty good life, idyllic small town, lots of friends, close with his family . . . well, except the ones he framed for murder anyway.

I think the best way to play evil for fun is to remember that being evil isn't about always being evil all the time. It doesn't mean you have to be an anti-social jerk. In fact, it helps if you're not. Be a villain with good publicity.

Firstly, why do people assume every Nader vote would've gone to Gore? For that matter, if Gore was so worried about it, maybe he could've made some concessions to the progressive wing of the party the way the Democrats have moved further to the right after every failed (and victorious) election of the past 20 years.

• that support or opposition to abortion rights doesn't matter to you

Granted, abortion rights are a major difference between the two candidates. (Not so much the parties as there are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who are just horrible when it comes to women's reproductive rights.)

that support or opposition to campaign finance reform doesn't matter to you

that the minimum wage doesn't matter to you

that the way government taxes small businesses doesn't matter to you

that how we approach strong economic rivals like China doesn't matter to you

that support or opposition to union rights doesn't matter to you

This is where Democrats have the weakest argument. Obama has embraced SuperPACs, and no Democratic candidate has taken a hardline stance on the minimum wage, and Obama lackeys like Rahm Emmanuel have shown exactly how much Democrats care about unions. Democrats and unions are in an abusive relationship wherein the Democrats mistreat and ignore unions and cow them back into submission about what will happen if they leave.

that support or opposition to women's workplace rights doesn't matter to you

Granted.

that how the country deals with criminals doesn't matter to you

that support or opposition to curtailing defense spending doesn't matter to you

etc.

How many Wall St Criminals have been persecuted by the Obama Administration? How much reform have the Democrats pushed to empty our prisons of nonviolent offenders and end the whole sale privatization of prison system? Clinton and Obama both increased defense spending, and Obama's plan will increase defense spending AGAIN. Meanwhile, the Democrats are parroting plans the Republicans offered in the 1990's.

These things matter very much to me. Which is why I don't vote for two major parties that have made it very clear it doesn't matter to them.

Loot the body!

Irontruth wrote:

I don't think the Rebecca Watson/Richard Dawkins incident is necessarily all that important in the grand scheme of things. Rather that a lot of the surrounding comments and vitriol are indicative of the level of sexism that still exists within atheist groups and society in general. So I can understand a desire to split from some of the established groups and forge an identity that is both atheist and feminist.

I spend most of my shift today furtively reading articles about "elevatorgate" on my iPhone but couldn't find any examples of sexist remarks aimed at this woman. I don't consider "the guy just talked to you, I think you're overreacting" to be misogynistic in tone.

I'm about 1000% behind Dawkins on this one. Especially the trollish tone.

I agree with Dawkins essentially (The guy was tone deaf, certainly, but hardly misogynistic and saying so doesn't make you misogynistic) but two things bother me:

1) Comparing it to Muslim women. Yes, what happens to them is horrible, but that kind of equivocation is a logical fallacy. Dawkins should know better.

2) Does he really have nothing better to do than participate in a flame war on the internet?

A Man In Black wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Sexism is still an issue within the atheist community. Look at how something that shouldn't have been an issue exploded just last year...

For the love of all that's good and reasonable, do not link Conservapedia. It is the worst.

If there's a factual error in the facts of the incident, feel free to point them out. I'm not a fan of the site either, but they had an relatively accurate and concise summary of the incident. So if your only problem is the domain name, stfu.

I don't think that's a good reason for someone to stfu. I don't know about Elevatorgate, so I can't tell you the factual errors in the story. But I can tell you a site like Conservapedia (which I do know still includes several debunked or wholly made-up statistics on its main atheism page) has no credibility. Knowing that, I didn't bother to read the article. You might as well make an argument about the Trevor Martin case by linking to the Klan's website for all the interest Conservapedia has in telling the truth about a prominent atheist.

As far as the atheist+ movement is concerned, I'm not surprised, but I don't think it's going to gain a whole lot of steam. Like somebody already said, it's pretty much like herding cats in the first place, and I think the majority of us will see it as a No True Scotsman fallacy (That's just speculation on my part, of course) and have no problem identifying ourselves as atheists whether or not some sexist jerks call themselves the same.

I guess what I'm getting at is - you probably wouldn't make a point of specifying that you were "Teaching Pathfinder to a Gorgeous Guy" - even if that's what you were doing - because the gender and appearance of the "noob" in question generally don't seem to matter within the confines of our beloved hobby unless the aforementioned "noob" happens to be a lady.

This is actually kind of genius. Gentlemen, I think we have finally found a way to attract more women to our hobby. Would any of you qualify as 'gorgeous' and consider partial nudity for a series of YouTube videos?

C'mon? Anybody? OK, not even gorgeous . . . just, like, slightly better looking than Seth Rogen?

Since this is just saying our political beliefs without arguing or defending them, I'll just post the basics.

I'm Pro-Choice, 100%, all the time. Abortions should be legal and federally funded. I believe all men should be pro-choice by default. If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say. Period.

The government needs to get out of marriage altogether. I feel that encouraging a lifestyle choice is discriminatory, and it's unfair that as somebody uninterested in being married there are several tax incentives and programs that are denied me because I'm not choosing the 'appropriate' path. That being said, it's unrealistic, and if the government insists on endorsing marriage, the denial of equal rights to gays is unconscionable.

The banks should not have been bailed out. The management should've been fired, the top executives jailed, and the banks nationalized. Iceland is a great model for this.

I support Universal Health Care.

Undocumented immigrants should have the same rights as full citizens, with advocates and the ability to sue for equitable compensation and benefits. Companies should still be punished for hiring them. Remove all incentive to hire, while still providing penalties, and boom, immigration problem solved.

I believe in a steeply progressive tax system in which the first $20,000 of all income is untaxed, with several tiers up to a top marginal rate of 90%. Capital gains would be taxed as income.

Eliminate the current system and replace it with a Parliamentary style government that provides proportional representation. Publicly financed elections with all private funding banned.

We need to stop the preferential treatment of religion. Tax the churches, only established scientific fact should be taught in public schools, and a completely secular government that does not endorse or fund religious establishments in any way. But people should be free to practice their faith individually.

Abolish the death penalty. Rationally, it is expensive and an ineffective deterrent. Ethically, you don't compensate for murder by making murderers of us all.

Scrap NDAA, the Patriot Act . . . bah, I'm not even going to bother listing them all here. You know the bogeymen every civil libertarian is going to put in their cross-hairs; just fill in the list yourself.

I don't like the idea of fantasy armor. That rule people seem to follow where the less armor it covers on a woman, the higher the AC bonus. I can't stand that pic of the Barbarian in the CRB.

While I agree in principal, I disagree about your specific example. Bikini Mail is horrible, stupid, and sexist. But Barbarians are supposed to be lightly armored bruisers who take the hits and keep going in. Having your armor eat the blow is for Paladins, Fighters, and Cavaliers (you know, wimps) --- but not the barbarian.

I think too often, since Bikini Mail is such a common and overused trope, people look for it in every instance of a female character and chafe if she has an ounce of skin showing. Sometimes it makes sense. Conan, the quintessential barbarian, wore a loincloth for chrissakes! Comparatively Amiri is dressed like a nun. It fits her, much like Seelah's cover-all full-plate fits her character.

I still can't come up with a decent justification for Seoni, though. That's plain ol' cheesecake.

Kryzbyn wrote:

No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.

The truth is the media is biased. Period. FOX is right wing, MSNBC is left wing. It's just the way it is.

If you want to be educated about politics you have to either 1) listen to both sides of the arguement with an open mind (which usually means listening to multiple news stations and reading lots of articles from CNN...a hastle), or 2) you realize that everyone has an opinion that to them seems valid, and respect that.

No. I'm sorry, but just no.

MSNBC is a news organization whose opinion shows skew toward the Democratic. (Liberal my ass. There's no such thing as liberal news on television, unless you have satellite and get Democracy Now.) This is more pronounced since they fired Pat Buchanan, but that guy was quickly devolving into racist old codger territory, and no serious organization would want him.

FOX is a 24-hour propaganda machine that not only just reports on stories that support their side of the agenda, but make things up whole cloth. It is NOT a fair comparison.

Just because there are two sides does not mean both are equally valid. If you say the earth revolves around the sun and I say the sun revolves around the earth, it doesn't mean they most likely revolve around one another. It means one person has made their decision according to facts and one has not.

Actually there are SEVERAL candidates that are anti-war and pro-Civil Liberties: Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, and Gary Johnson (even though I have some of the same issues with him as I do Ron Paul) to name a few.

While some of Ron Paul's ideas are actually good, the basis of his platform is still the sort of deregulation that lead to the financial collapse in the first place. How anybody can look at what happened and say, "That's what we need: less regulation!" boggles the mind. And he advocates a return to the Gold Standard, which which history has shown to be a fool's errand.

Paul, for that matter, is still a conservative hardliner on women's and gay rights, and has that nasty racism cloud hanging over him. Unlike other Republicans, at least, I would say a lot of Paul support comes from camps of well meaning people who only know a couple of things about him and are not seeing it anywhere else since our two party system effectively shuts down outside voices.

I'm not surprised by this at all. Republicans are huge consumers of adult entertainment, despite all their lip-service to the contrary. For instance, you only need look at the preparations Miami's adult venues and escort services made for the Republican National Convention. And the state with the most internet porn consumption? That bastion of social conservatism, Utah. Jameson knows, despite having to play to the political game and claim to stand up for 'traditional values', Republicans will ultimately be good for business, and as a 1%er they'll be good for her tax returns as well.

Now, why anybody who isn't absurdly wealthy or a religious loon would want a Republican in office is beyond me, but her stance I understand. It's crap, and she and the rest of her ilk can take a long walk off a short cliff, but I understand it.

I'm glad you posted this since I had actually crafted a pretty long post about it in a locked thread. I tend to dislike the idea of having law refer to anything but the laws and customs of the land. It's why I dropped the Lawful Requirement from Monks. I hear all the time about typically 'chaotic' individuals having a personal code they follow, and I think almost all of us do. Even 'If it feels good, do it!' is a personal code and a sort of ethos that will inform the character's actions. I'm only concerned with how that 'code' influences how you will interact with your surrounding world, and define lawful in accordance with that. So this is how I would define it:

LG - Do what's right within the confines of the law; if law and good conflict, Good supersedes law. But you will exhaust every legal option possible before getting to that point. It's not necessarily 'more' good, but it's usually the most respected since lawful good does everything within the confines of the law and satisfies itself with gradual, lasting change.

NG - Do what's right. Period. You won't hesitate to break an unjust law, but you will worry more about what good you can do than the underlying order of it all.

CG - You actively seek to agitate and overturn laws and social orders which harm or denigrate others. It's the difference between, say, helping slaves escape to freedom under cover of darkness, and attacking the slaveholders plantations in broad daylight. Both are breaking the law, but one wants to get away with it, while one wants to engineer immediate upheaval.

LN - I see this as similar to Lawful Good, but when Law and Good collide, Law wins handily. I often hear this described as the alignment that will, by definition, follow the law WITHOUT QUESTION but that's far more the realm of LE (more on that later). More likely they trust that those in authority know better than they do, or if they're in positions of authority, are willing to make hard choices that trade off lesser evils for greater goods.

TN - You, me, and just about everybody you know. Will usually commit victimless crimes if they're unnecessary. Will be altruistic to their friends and family, but probably don't do a lot outside of their social circle. Have probably balanced some good deeds and random acts of kindness by also doing thing that were dishonest and selfish, although they regret the latter.

CN - Flouts the law often and openly. Like CG will try to agitate and upend the system, but are more concerned with the stuff that prevents them from doing what they want than major injustices. This is a small 'l' libertarian (not the political party, just to be super clear) on steroids. Alternative interpretation is, I suppose, somebody with a severe disorder that has a view of society that follows no earthly logic and is completely incomprehensible.

LE - Two flavors: The person who uses the law to their greatest advantage at the expense of others. Lobbyists are the quintessential example; sure it's not illegal, per se, but it is harmful to large swaths of the population. The second is somebody who follows the law mechanically, without question of wrong or right. LN may not question torture if it gets results, but to be the one doing the torturing, even if the law says it's OK, is an evil act and even a mostly neutral person will be disgusted by it.

NE - Like TN, but with victims. I needed money, so I robbed somebody. I couldn't have witnesses, so I murdered them. Has done incredibly selfish and dishonest things without regretting it, so long as they got away with it. Every thing a NE person does begins and ends with the question, "How does this benefit me?"

CE - Hurts others for the sake of hurting others. Can be self-interested, but it's unnecessary for the equation. A NE person is defined by their selfishness, but a CE is defined by their maliciousness. They'll kill, maim, steal, rob, rape, torture unless doing so would be actively detrimental to them. And sometimes even then.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)

Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.

We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.

When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?

Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.

Since I posted this just before work and have just now come back to it, I got ninja'd several times on the "pro-life" murderer thing. I feel that's been answered more than adequately.

But as far as calling it asinine, good for you for being more 'respectful'. I prefer to call a spade a spade. The solution was asinine, and that is about the kindest word I can come up with. (Racist and Fascist sprang to mind.) I'd take it further and say Social Conservatism, and all of its answers, are asinine. It's a 'philosophy' based on a delusional adherence to prejudice and bigotry that dresses itself up in flowery terms like 'traditional values'. It's entirely the province of the dull-witted, the heartless, and the fundamentalist. I have no more respect for a social conservative's "solutions" than I do that of a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist's rantings because they're usually grounded in about the same amount of reality.

Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)

Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.

We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.

Cornielius wrote:

Huh?

You are looking for rules that would encourage in-character sex so you can give a player character a wasting std?

Why?

I suggest you turn in your GM card.

Back when we still played Star Wars instead of Pathfinder, my Balosar infiltrator got an unfortunate case of Gamorrean gonorrhea from a Twi'lek prostitute. Sometimes that's just where the game goes. Just because our content != your content doesn't mean we're invalidated as players (or, for that matter, GMs).

QFT. It depends on the group. It's not WrongBadFun just because it wouldn't be your cup of tea.

As an atheist, there are unfortunate implications to calling the nation that 'hates' the gods atheistic. All of us have been accused on more than one occasion of hating or having an issue with god. It's an obnoxious stereotype used to dismiss our philosophy as the rantings of angry children.

I will thank Paizo, however, for taking the right step away from D&D and not making the nation they dub atheistic an Always Chaotic Evil human-drow equivalent.

NE : Follow the Laws of your country unless they get in the way of your enjoyment of others suffering? (true evil) (Michelle Bachman)

Fixed it for you.

I'd rather ask what is the best for each type of character, so what is the best...

melee damage dealer?

Two-handed Fighter 100%.

arcane spellcaster?

Wizards are the popular answer, but it's the Summoner, hands down. Especially when you account for archetypes like Master Summoner and Synthesist Summoner.

divine spellcaster?

I would have to inverse your answer and say Druid, with Cleric a close second. Clerics have a somewhat better spell list, but Spontaneous SNA is way better than spontaneous cure, wild shape is one of the most powerful class abilities around (even with the nerf) and the animal companion puts it right over the top.

tank?

I have to say Paladin here again. They do sacrifice the armor training of the fighter, but have better saves, immunity to fear and charm and disease, and self-healing ability. The healing in particular is huge.

Skill-monkey?

Bards. Rogue gets more skill points, but Bards get free knowledge (whoo!), get to condense several of the class skills into their perform skill, and have buff spells out the wazoo. The only thing the Rogue has over the bard is the ability to disarm magical traps, and last I checked, Bards can summon.

Dammit, sorry for the double post. Had an issue with Firefox and I didn't think it posted the first time.

Anyway...

Ned Stark was Lawful Stupid.

I disagree with that. He wasn't accustomed to the sort of intrigue and shady dealing he encountered in the south, but he wasn't stupid by any means. The man managed to hold a peaceful reign for twenty years after being suddenly thrust into it, put down an uprising and was a brilliant military strategist.

Truthfully, he was right about almost everything---in particular Daenrrys Targaryen---until... (this is a major spoiler through Feast of Crows, so if you're only watching the show and have not yet read the books, I strongly suggest you don't open the tab)

I'm known as a pretty giving GM. You want to play an unusual race? Awesome, I've got the Advanced Race Guide PDF on my laptop; have at it. Evil in a non-evil campaign? Sure. I won't ban any spells. The fun of being a caster is all the cool spells you get to choose, and you have wait a while to get the REALLY awesome ones. You've earned it. But I do have one major mental block that I absolutely cannot get past:

I HATE guns in fantasy. I might run it in the right system, but never Pathfinder/3.5. There will never, ever, ever, ever be a gun in my campaign, nor will there be a gunslinger. Guns are so blase. Cast a damn fireball. Slay a dragon with a sword. BE FANTASTIC!

Instead of letting your Evil one just lay down and die...put up a fight! Or just up and leave the party ... live to fight another day. If the evil one is partial to the party you could cast magic from a distance...don't let them know you are tailing them to look over them.

If that isn't an option a fighter with a bow and the right feats is lethal!

Oh, don't misunderstand. I'm not going to just up and kill the Evil character. There's a chance I'm not even going to use this new character. But the GM did me a great favor in letting me play an evil character (They're typically banned, but he loved the concept so much he let me roll with it) and while my character essentially made his own plot hooks a big part of the main narrative is tied to the Paladin. It would be a lot harder to justify having him roll up a new character than me. When you play token evil, that's a possibility you have to accept.

Inquisitor all the way. Bane and judgement make every enemy a favored enemy.

And we have a vote for Inquisitor. With the lack of enthusiasm for the suggestion I was beginning to think I was mistaken in my initial assessment of them.

So I'm currently playing as a Chaotic Evil sorcerer in an ongoing campaign. Problem is that, despite my ministrations to prevent it, the party Paladin was able to catch on and while we are going to be role-playing it out, there's a good chance that one of us will have to leave the party. As evil is harder to keep in check with good and neutral (the rest of the party is LG, VERY TN, TN-leaning-NG, LN), I volunteered that should it come down to a him or me situation, I would allow my character to be killed/incarcerated/split from the group.

It saddens me, because I loves this character, but it does provide an opportunity to bolster the party with something it desperately needs: range. We've got a couple of decent melee combatants and a battlefield controller, but once the target pulls away we're screwed.

I know I don't want to do a straight Fighter. (The poor saves and lack of skill points are going to hurt badly.) I'm thinking Human Ranger (Only problem is don't want to deal with an animal companion, and the alternative nature's bond ability S-U-C-K-S.), Human Paladin, or Half-Orc Inquisitor but am open if there are better suggestions out there. The rest of the party make-up:

LG Half-Elf CHA focused Aegis Paladin
TN Human Longsword Wielding Magus
LN Half-Orc Dex Based Monk
TN/NG Halfling Rogue
CG Human Greatsword Wielding Battle-Cleric (Good STR, but WIS highest)

Mostly have to stick to Core and APG, but alternative feats and builds allowed with DM approval.

"I'm sick/I have a work obligation/my boy/girlfriend is giving birth" are acceptable reasons to miss a game. This is a hobby, not a life sentence.

I don't know about you, but I would never accept "My boyfriend is giving birth" as a valid excuse.

Shadowborn wrote:

I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!

I heard that you can be a lawful good paladin now.

Actually, if you replace the name and the baggage that comes with them, one could easily see Satan as the hero of the Bible. (A former slave fighting insurmountable odds to overthrow a horrible tyrant.) And lots of Gnostics saw the creator god as evil and the serpent in the Garden of Eden/Lucifer as good; some went as far as to make him and Jesus the same person.

Point being, there actually can be very good Satanists out there that give hugs and eat lollipops.

I think this hits my problem with the elves of Golarion... In the other settings, the 'player races' are innately good. The npcs are all over the place, but the heroes come from the so called 'goodly races.' It's what sets the elves and dwarves apart from the orcs and goblins.

Having Calistra a CN, Vengence driven, sex obessed deity who favors whips and lashes as their 'preferred' diety puts a distasteful spin on my previously favorite race.

Honestly, this was always my biggest problem with the more fantastic so-called 'goodly' races.

A) It's so DULL. Every elf is intrinsically good! Even the 'evil' ones are simply overzealous Knights Templar who went too far! But they're still on the side of good. All their gods are good. All of their activities are good. They're all bisexual polygamists or ascetic spiritual gurus so there's no petty jealousy or bigotry. They're even kind to the faulty, pitiful humans---which brings me to my next point:

B) Not just Elves, but Dwarves, Halflings, and Gnomes are all so GOOD in big bold letters! Two of them are so good (Dwarves, Elves) they had to be given evil counterparts just to provide villainous foils. (Even the gnomes got Svirfneblin, who if not evil, are Less-Good.) Why would any race that perfect put up with or accept humans? They don't belong in the same category. They should see humans as a race marginally above Orcs in terms of civility. There would be ongoing wars, and if not outright slavery, then elves would probably insist on ruling.

I can set aside the unfortunate implications of one race being universally better than another, since we're talking different species, but it smacks me as wholly unrealistic that anybody accepts human beings as the dominant race. I know on Golarion they have a big historical write-up about how the elves came to accept humans, but considering just about every human society on Golarion (with two exceptions, and one of those exceptions being a military dictatorship eternally warring with the hordes of the Abyss) seems to be a hive of thieves, thugs, necromancers, and tyrants it boggles my mind.

I much prefer Elves have their own foibles. 'Goodly' doesn't mean perfect. And falling short of perfection themselves would explain how they could accept other less-than-perfect races.

Texans, Arizonians. All just a bunch of yanks to me. ;p

Don't let a Texan hear you say that.

Actually that's another one of my big gripes about the South. I always hear politicians on the right go on and on about the REAL America and say how much we northerners and coastal dwellers hate America, but "Yankee" and "Yank" specifically means America. We don't define ourselves as being something else and then call everybody in the southern reaches by the term that means American.

For that matter, we don't fly the flag of the greatest traitors in this history of the United States and call it national pride. You want anti-American? THAT'S anti-American. But you won't see Joe Arapaio making a big stink over those people's citizenship.

I doubt people would be offended at all, in fact. That god is already called Dionysus.

And now a message from your hippy left wing gay atheist Canadian, aka Me.

Don't like Texas then don't move there, otherwise grow up and leave Texas be. That is all.

That's just great for a gay atheist Canadian.

Here's the problem for any gay atheist Americans: Texas is our second largest state by mass, second largest in population (and therefore has the second largest representation in our House of Representatives), second largest in GDP.

In particular, the economic realities of Texas means that every time their agenda turns toward the stupid (which is more often than not) the rest of the nation suffers. So, for instance, if the entrenched power structure in Texas decides that they have had enough of this new fangled science mumbo jumbo and would rather live in the Bronze Age, the education of the rest of the nation is dragged down with them.

The fact that Texas is doing well economically (for whatever reasons, and whether you could say that's because of or in spite of the federal government) just makes it even worse. No matter how many jobs they provide as long as Texas (or at least its government) remains a steady contributor of anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-equality Good Ol' Boys their impact on this country is going to be deleterious.

HarbinNick wrote:

-It's interesting how people are talking about pornography likes it's addictive. This is a mental addiction, not a medical addiction. Heroin Junkies, and Alcoholics suffer actually medical dangers when they stop taking the drug.

-However, the majority, if not all, the posters are saying "seek expert advice." That would seek all the advice one needs, or can really give.

Marijuana and tobacco fall into this category, yet both are just as difficult to quit as alcohol. Please note that I didn't mention heroin, as that has an added effect when it comes to withdrawal.

My understanding is that nicotine is physically addictive; although THC is not.

I find this quite interesting. The way you feel about AA is how I feel about the culture of therapy, 'professional help', and medication.

Fraudulent, cultish, and self-perpetuating.

I'm conflicted about that, truthfully. I think medication is prescribed far too often, certainly, and therapy is offered as a default solution for every problem that was once considered a part of life.

On the other hand, I do believe some people have mental conditions caused by chemical abnormalities that need to be treated medicinally. And psychiatry, imperfect though it is, at least operates on a foundation of scientific inquiry. AA begins with a self-defeating mindset (You are diseased and will NEVER, EVER be better!) that creates a codependent relationship with the group and then has you grovel to a higher power that is paradoxically A)necessarily bigger than yourself and B)can be anything from Christian God to your dog. It's utterly asinine.