|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?
I'm not sure what you're saying.
The whole thing is a balancing act. Everbody gets offended sometimes. Articulating this should not be met with distrust first hand (which would take the argument in bad faith), especially if the offended party explains why they feel that way - which is a good idea, but not always possible, depending in which the state the person is. The "key" is not to look for the fault in others, but rather to consider what you did before you start accusing someone else of wrongdoing, openly or not.
There may be times when someone uses being offended to "win" the discussion (which is a silly concept altogether, but not entirely avoidable, I guess), not or only vaguely explaining why they were offended. In that case, I would still try to give them the benefit of the doubt and rephrase my argument once. If the other side still insists on dying on that particular hill, withdrawing is the best option, because there is nothing to be gained anymore. They may think they have won, but you didn't concede anything, and "winning" is meaningless in this case, anyway.
OTOH, I'm bad at following my own advice and as a result, I rarely get into arguments on these boards - or anywhere - anymore.
I don't agree with you on the sexual harrassment issue, but that is not the subject of this thread.
If you think someone is playing the "offended card", you might try to rephrase your previous statement. If the same happens again, you disengage because the discussion is over. However, if someone is really offended by what you said, you don't get to decide whether that is justified or not. People have different thresholds of what they find acceptable.
The matter here, I believe, is whether one takes an argument in good faith or not. Thinking another person is playing the above mentioned card could be just taking the person's argument in bad faith.
I also think everybody should remember the wise words of Raylan Givens (apologies for the swearing): "If you run into an a!*+@~@ in the morning, you ran into an a+$&$#!. If you run into a+*@$!+s all day, you're the a##+@#$."
You have to remind yourself that we are more used to tell others our opinion in a straightforward manner in Germany, while that is not so much the case in Anglo-Saxon societies, for example. We might have better mechanisms to deal with direct confrontation.
You may be careful about how you frame your opinion, but that is still coloured by how you are generally used to argue a point.
Rakshaka, I think he's talking about the
dead Kyton that serves as a power conduit for the Nessian Spiral.
Urath DM wrote:
People in general a really bad with that.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
If you don't mind me asking: why was the Divine Fighting Technique feat changed?
Eric Hinkle wrote:
I got the book and I like it, but I would like to ask if game information for the Stateless Agent drawback or Heir to Corruption trait has been listed anywhere. Neither are described in the book itself though they're both listed for sample backgrounds on page 5.
I would like to know this as well.
Advice re Twinings: only drink their product if you live in the UK or maybe Ireland. The company's export teas are dreck. (If you are in Ireland, there are much better teas available, notably by Lyons and Bewley's.)
I also would stay away from anything called "Irish Breakfast" in the beginning. That stuff usually is pretty strong.
I would recommend starting with a Darjeeling. It's the mildest sort of black tea. If you don't like the grassy taste, move on to Ceylon. And don't go for the cheap stuff.
There is a difference between abstractions like HP and abilities that enable non-magical classes to do the same things as magic-users. A certain level of reality-bending is expected in heroic fantasy. Putting magic-users and non-magic characters on the same level, however, has been tried and it was a failure.
I'm going to regret getting involved, but here goes nothing:
@Goblin_Priest: Martials that don't break the laws of physics have no reason to exist in a world of widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. If you don't like that, don't play Pathfinder.
Magic in Golarion is neither widely available, nor is it altogether safe.
If you want non-magical martial characters to have quasi-magical abilities, there are games for that. Pathfinder is not one of them (if you count out certain 3pp books).
And yes, Ricochet Toss is pretty silly.
If somebody wants to try the original Berzerk, I suggest to start with the second episode. The first one has next to nothing to do with the rest of the series and you might expect something very different after watching it.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It doesn't seem to have what I'm looking for - I just want the official updates put out by the company that made the game. The auto-updater doesn't seem to be able to find them anymore.
I seem to have found them: Neverwintervault.org, although you might have to fiddle around with the search parameters at the top.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
That may all be true. However, nothing in D&D or Dreamscarred's Pathfinder psionics deals with electronics (although you could say that since brains run on electricity, they are biological machines).
There also is a significant overlap between D&D/Dreamscarred psionics and Paizo's psychic spellcasting in overall methods as well as in powers.
I couldn't care less about some random nobodies inside the ship, honestly.
If they are the protagonists of the show, their portrayal is neither random nor are they nobodies.
It certainly does make more sense to have them do the jobs instead of showing the main commanding officers and the bridge crew going on away missions.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
When you've finished with Breaking Bad, give Better Call Saul a try. That show is much better, mainly because it much more focussed and has a somewhat likable main character.
I suggest The Americans as replacement for The Man in the High Castle. No Nazis involved, but a couple of Soviet sleeper agents in the US of the 1980s.
A clinically depressed person who has difficulties feeling anything. She tries to find a way to cure her ailment, but it is hard for her to care for anything anymore. The person works with others out of necessity, but would rather remain alone. An Alchemist or maybe a (Transmuter) Wizard would work. (Any sulky teenagers will receive a dose of a mild poison from her so that they finally have a reason to complain about something.)
A person who has lost her memory who is trying to piece together her former life. I'm thinking a Mesmerist trying to find ways to send herself in ever deeper trances.
What do you mean?
Just seeing this now.
I expect older whiskeys to at least have a more complex aroma (if that makes sense) than their younger selves, but the 15-year-old Glenlivet is basically the same as the 12-year-old, although it may be a little smoother.
Still, it is not a bad whiskey. And it beats the Green Spot, which I was looking forward to due to high praise. Maybe pot still whiskey is not for me.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I wasn't aware that they had trouble financing Arise. That sucks.
I suspect Johansson's presence alone will not help much, though. GitS may be pretty high profile for an anime in the Western world, but the movie came out 21 years ago. I don't think that most people know either the series or the sequel. It's not exactly a household name. I doubt that the screenwriters and the director have the experience to turn this into a success.
People are upset because they took a thoroughly Japanese story set in Japan told through Japanese characters and mainly cast non-Japanese actors without even bothering to change the characters' names. They could have adapted the Laughing Man story by setting it in an alternate universe. There even is precedent within Ghost in the Shell lore, as the series and movies only share characters and themes.
There is also the question that if the filmakers can't even be arsed to remain faithful to the original in casting, how can they faithfully adapt the rest of the material in its complexity to a live-action version?
Nothing against Johansson; she's good, as are a lot of the other actors. But this white-washing nonsense has to stop. I'm getting tired of always seeing the same type of face on the screen. Rinko Kikuchi would have been a better choice for the role of Major Kusanagi, for example.
As for financial success: I couldn't care less. The franchise is not doomed; Arise just came out last year. It wasn't as good as Stand Alone Complex, but good enough.
Same here, although I treat the 'I' as a 'J'.
You have to take into account that the Tales line is not only genre fiction, but sub-genre fiction, i.e. Fantasy RPG novels. They primarily exist to show off the setting. That's why many of the Tales are not great, even when written by experienced, previously published authors. Some of them read as if they were rushed through editing. The best ones probably will not offer you anything new, only refreshed old fantasy tropes. Still, they can be enjoyable to read.
Nightglass by Liane Merciel is one of them. The Worldwound Gambit by Robin D. Laws is basically Ocean's 11 with demons. Death's Heretic by James Sutter deals with an atheist who's working for the church of Pharasma against his will. And Wendy N. Wagner's Skinwalkers has a former pirate trying to protect her clan against raiders.
However, if you want something akin to literary fiction in the fantasy genre, you should check out Steven Erikson's A Tale of the Malazan Book of the Fallen. It is 10 thick books long and the first one can be kind of hard to get into, but I rarely have read anything better in any genre.
I repeatedly found that the general public's sense of enjoyment and mine differ wildly.
No, they are not. They just have different standards than the average member of the audience, whose opinion generally boils down to "I had fun" or "I did not have fun". That does not tell anything to anyone.
Critics are usually exposed to a wider variety of movies (music, art, what have you) than the average audience member, even if their individual knowledge of the matter differs in composition.
So if a majority of critics say that a movie is not that good and qualifies why, I'm bound to trust their verdict rather than the one of the general public.
I'd say don't use it. The whole sequence is - probably inadvertently - created to bore and frustrate players. I suggest simplifying it; get the PCs lost a couple of times, have them meet goblins once or twice, maybe an Armiger patrol, and throw in some encounters of your own. Then get them to the exit.
Drinking ale instead of Irish whiskey on St.Patrick's day makes me just a little sad. Kind of in the same way as seeing Bono singing somewhere back behind the Dubliners in the video.
That's where he belongs, as far as I'm concerned. Way behind Shane MacGowan.
You could drink Irish red ale.