|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Lord Snow wrote:
Can't believe nobody mentioned Doctor Who yet. While it's not, strictly speaking, a "fantasy", the science in it is silly enough to be magic. There are monsters, aliens, distant worlds/times, and a pulp adventure vibe. For me, at least, Doctor who certainly suffices when in need of some pulpy fantasy action. Well, it does when it's good, anyway, so not the last couple of seasons, but there are 4 other that are very nice.
Sorry to be that guy, but that's the first acceptable mention in this thread. The others are pretty much terrible. (I don't count Youtube series, though.)
Vikings - while excellent - doesn't count, as it is based on Nordic sagas. It features a lot of mysticism, but there's no magic.
The only other good example I can come up with is Robin of Sherwood. Magic swords, Celtic gods, a diverse group of adventurers combined with good scripts and good actors (though Jason Connery was a let-down). Even the freaking ninja works and he shouldn't.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Why, thank you. *blushes*
If you don't want to change much, I guess the original could work better if you give the PCs more information than originally intended. They need to know more about the Council after part 2. All the background info for the GM is just chaff if it doesn't come into play.
What Lies In Dust:
Also, be consistent. I just noticed today that Aylin pays for information about the whereabouts of all the missing Pathfinders. The thing is: Loremaster Liriam cannot be found in Westcrown, since he left the city for Absalom in the early stages of the Chelish Civil War, which - apparently - Aylin doesn't know. The PCs have no way of finding that out.
You could just tack it on after the 5th, and having all Hell break loose after the PCs exit the dungeon. The problem is that the AP string the players along endlessly until they even come close to the solution.
My players seem to be very careful. They didn't go near the "ball" after it started lashing out at them. They didn't want to be "cured", either.
You could consider leaving out part 4. It reads like it's a very good adventure. It just doesn't fit well into the AP.
My group's just finished What Lies In Dust and I will not send them into the Spiral. Rather, I'll skip to Mother of Flies. I made Ilnerik the shadow leader of the Council by holding Eccardian hostage (and making him a vampire called Jair) and using his sister as a socialite to bring him the city's leaders so that he can dominate them. The PCs don't know about the whole conspiracy yet, anyway.
The downside is of course that you'll have to adjust the encounters to fit a lower level party.
The Morphling wrote:
What book(s) should one read to learn more about the other planets (and about the Malebranche)? I've been trying to get more familiar with the lore of Golarion but I'm not sure where to look. I was incredibly annoyed that the Book of the Damned described what the Malebranche are but didn't name a single one.
I recall that several Malebranche are described in The Book of the Damned I. At the very least they are among the pseudo-deities listed on the inside back cover.
For the solar system, there is only Distant Worlds.
On the topic of Pratchett... Unseen Academicals. Probably the most disappointing Discworld novel for me. It felt disjointed in terms of how it told the story somehow. It's not that I'm not familiar with the concepts the book was based around, I'm a big follower of footall (real football I mean - go St Mirrens!) and know all about the hooliganism associated with it... It just didn't click the way the others have. Initially I thought it was due to his early onset Alzheimer's, but Snuff was released afterwards and is one of my favourites in the series. Still, Pratchett's worst novel is still an excellent read, so I'll probably give it another chance sometime soon.
Firstly, I agree with your last sentence.
I didn't have problems with Unseen Academicals, but Raising Steam probably is Pratchett's worst novel since The Colour of Magic. The pacing is off, the dialogue's in the first half are sub-standard and I didn't care for the characters. He gets back to his usual form in the second half, though. The inside cover lists his wife as co-author, but I don't know how much work she actually did.
Oh gods, I tried to forget about that.
You also forgot "Good Day". ;)
The weird thing here is that even friends greet each other with a shake of hands. Not to mention the he beginnings of a bow accompanying the handshake, especially when greeting women. As much as I want to suppress that, it still happens.
I prefer a simple "Hi" or "Hello".
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, dropping sentences is inventing stuff and inserting an agenda?
Yes, if it changes what the interviewed person said.
Also, invention is featured in my examples. The English version says that the Ukrainian Communist Party "counter-posed" (note the spelling mistake) Russian chauvinism. Which is the opposite of what you can read in the original.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
For example, the answer to the first question should read: "We have strong links to the left in Ukraine and I travelled to Kiev two weeks ago when the situation was coming to a head and the anti-demonstration laws were introduced, which could have made a police state possible.
A sentence from the answer the the question "What are your impressions of the movement?" was cut: "All this is being done by ordinary people, not the parties."
The answer to the question "What’s their [the Ukrainian communist's] attitude towards the Maiden movement?" should read:
"They criticise the Ukrainian nationalism but not from an internationalist perspective. Rather, the argue from a Russian chauvinistic perspective. I advise all leftist parties in Europe to break contact with the Ukrainian Communist Party. We cannot tolerate this policy."
There are a few other issues, mostly cutting parts of the answers from the German version.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The translator inserted a lot of agenda in the English version; he even invents stuff. The original is much more careful in its tone.
They tend to chaos but are not always chaotic; there is variation. They are not outsiders so are not nearly as limited in there alignment selection so you could have a lawful version of any of them if needed.
Yes. However, inventing lawful fey just to have them making deals with Chelaxian administration is a bit contrived, don't you think?
There are fey in Cheliax, much like anywhere else. As far as I know there are no deals between Hell and the First World or any kind of fey on Golarion. It wouldn't make sense anyway, because fey are inherently chaotic, and devils abhor chaos.
Don't conflate real-world stories with Pathfinder mythology too much. In Christian mythology, Hell stands for chaos, not order.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Eh, no problem. I'll just stall you until you give up out of frustration.
Veni, vidi, cunctabar.
I understood that that was a joke.
FreeholdDM is right.
Genetic differences between people are not severe enough to justify the race classification. The same goes for subspecies. Human beings belong to the species Homo Sapiens and the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Of course it's racist. But the usage of an imprecise term helps that along because racists don't accept that.
The usage of "race" referring to people automatically sets them apart.
90 entries later ...
"Crusading" is a bit strong a word, I think.
I'd like to get away from using "race" as a qualifier for lumping people in certain groups based on phenotype (or rather: get US Americans to think about not using the term, as it's not used in this manner in Old Europe anymore). It carries the meaning that there are distinct human races akin to subspecies (which is used to distinguish animals). It has an biologistic undertone and can be used to declare people belonging to said groups as biologically inferior.
Stop using "race" in this way and you can spot racists a mile away, because they'd be the only ones using it in this context.
"Racism" is still useful, if used in a precise manner.
And your point is?
pres man wrote:
@FAbius, I think you are purposefully not seeing the forest for the trees.
I think it's the other way around. The point is that denigrating a certain group of people because of a perceived shared attribute like phenotype, descent or religion is hostile. Pure and simple.
The label "race" is part of the problem because it is simply incorrect in relation to people. It's not even used in biology anymore.
If you keep on using "race", you're making it easier for people to denigrate people based on that term.
pres man wrote:
By using an example from the animal world - and even two different species -, you highlighted the problem with that concept. (Your other example is just ridiculous.) There are no different human races.
Perceptions can be altered. Categories, too. We do it all the time.
@IcyShadow: Discrimination is an action that results out of said hostility.
The thing is, Jeff, that you play into the racists' hands if you keep using "race" to describe groups of people that are not races. The concept simply isn't true when it comes to human beings.
'Racism' is another problematic word. The phenomenon it describes exists, of course, but it's to narrow to use it to explain things like 'Homophobia' or 'Islamophobia', even if its definition has been expanded to encompass those phenomena as well.
These 'phobias' are problematic words, too. Sure, fear is a big motivator for people to reject other people. But it's not the only reason.
However, we need a word or a term that describes all of the above, because they are essentially the same: the rejection of people because of a perceived common attribute. German scientists came up with the word monster "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (basically: "group-related hostility towards people"). It's very accurate, but difficult to say or write.
Liz Courts wrote:
If it comes with blaring bagpipes, it's a Highlander Burial.
el cuervo wrote:
Now that's useful. I only own APs as books.
No, that sounds about right. Prussia was the biggest, most powerful state in the German Empire as well as under the Nazis and also mostly protestant. Rhinelanders are mostly catholic. The division between confessions was still rather high back then, with people in mixed marriages being looked down upon or even shunned. That made for an interesting demographic mix after WW II, when we had to integrate protestant fugitives from the East into the catholic South.
Nowadays, the ire is mostly directed at Muslims (because they're all terrorist thugs, stealing our jobs and only want to receive social security payments). Although of late it's Romanians and/or Bulgarians (because they're all thieving gypsies, are stealing our jobs and only want to receive social security payments). /snark
Well, I feel kind of bad about this. I should have send a PM instead, if anything.
Whipthorn Icescale wrote:
Six threads! That's a whole horde of undead.