Hmmm ok, that may or may not alter things... stuff from the US can be relatively quick (my Pathfinder stuff always arrived quickly!) but wonder how they will be shipping out the Reaper sets?
All of the bones are in the Reaper warehouse in the US.
They just need to sort and send lots and lots of orders.
I find it weird disappointing that a bunch of 3pp and PFSRD are chucking the word 'official' about in a potentially confusing way.
I'm glad Owen Stephens chose his words more carefully.
So, let's try to be clear. Completely clear:
Hey, Mavrickindigo, There is no official Paizo psionics product.
It seems that Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed is the most popular psionics ruleset available. As such it also has the most support from other publishers. However, PsionicsUnleashed has no official Paizo support and has never been used in any Paizo product.
Finally, to finish answering your question, Paizo has not currently announced any plans for psionic rules. Some Paizo employees (notably James Jacobs) have suggested that if they made Psionics rules they would be Vancian, rather than using Power Points, and would be called something like Psionic Magic.
And, beyond that, what possible reasoning could there be behind lumping atheists together as having anything in common with one another, beyond simply not believing in a deity? Their atheism is a lack of belief, not the presence of a massive set of core tenets of faith.
Most of us are guilty of seeing the world through our own prisms.
I've met plenty of religious people who view atheism as another option on the menu of religions.
They don't realise that, in the terms of that metaphor, atheism is choosing not to eat. Ever.
For a long time, I used to do the reverse: I perceived the religious as insincere and/or dupes. This was unfair and it came about because I viewed them through my own prism.
He doesn't seem to understand how easy it is to just apologise and move on.
Instead he's moved some goalposts around from
A: This reviewer is deliberately corrupt. Creighton Broadhurst is probably gaming the system.
to
B: Reviewers should have to sign up to some kind of code.
His style is scary too... writing in a way that implies that Creighton is dodging some kind of issue because 'he won't come out and back a reviewers code like he should!'
Incidentally, a reviewers code is a terrible idea.
And if someone is for sure that the slightest hint of that kinda thing could seriously disrupt the fun of their group, then by all means find something different to run.
If it doesn't jazz someone, it doesn't jazz someone. You can't force that kinda thing.
All said and done, I *DO* hope people at least read the adventure.
I'm not sure how the logistics of this would even work, except spending a very suspicious amount of time in one's LGS...
I was speaking about reading the adventure, but not necessarily running it.
Oh, I know! You were clear. My comment still stands. That's a lot of reading while standing in one's LGS...
(Unless, of course, you're actually suggesting one buy the book that one is not interested in, which is a terrible idea. There's a significantly higher probability that it will be a waste of money, as well as contributing to the skewing of sales figures and thus popularity [as Paizo employees have stated in the past that they look at sales as one measure of how popular certain products are]. A person not interested in the subject matter should absolutely avoid making such a purchase, lest they be saddled with more of that unpleasant material in the future. But I'm sure you're not actually suggesting that, given the above. Hence my logistics comment.)
Isn't there a difference between 'this wouldn't jive with my group' and 'I would not enjoy reading this'?
Also, plenty of us, especially subscribers, might by an AP volume for all of the other neat stuff (fiction, bestiary, setting info, etc.). Maybe we're part of the target audience for that post?
Even if the ruleset advanced that does not mean that Golarion has to.
Golarion has already seen one ruleset change without advancing the timeline.
I would be really resentful if Paizo decided to invalidate major portions of hundreds of pounds worth of books I have bought from them without a much, much better reason than: "Ooh, new ruleset."
And, anyway, this just begs the question: why even have PF2.0?
Paizo are creating great adventures in a great setting right now.
"Hey, guys, is this thing broken?"
"No, it works really, really well."
"Ah, right, better change it then..."
Actually, I have to kind of agree with them here to a degree. It is indeed possible to be impartial. I can play a game of chess with myself and attempt to win on both sides without showing favoritism to either side.
Likewise, I design a lot of encounters. I generally keep them within the expected standards of the game with some few exceptions. I root for the party. I want them to succeed. But I don't engineer it that way. I believe - very firmly - that it is a greater honor to them to not rig the game in their favor.
And that is your interpretation of the rules.
You are interpreting things... Even your definition of 'expected standards of the game' is probably up for debate.
Everyone homebrews.
Ashiel wrote:
Here's the thing. If you don't want any challenge you can have your character erect stick figures back in town and cleave your way through them heroically as a child at play would. It lets you slay lots of kobolds like a superman without breaking a sweat and you can do it daily. The problem is, over in a real adventure, bad guys are using things like metal weapons and they want to kill you. And I'm not going to dumb down encounters because it robs my players of their sense of pride and satisfaction. The only reason people feel gratification from defeating the dragon is because the dragon is hard and they could have been killed. Not because the dragon was made out of paper mache with boffing sticks for claws and teeth.
Psychic powers are awesome. And make-believe.
That may be the only reason you and your group might find dragon-slaying satisfying but... your playstyle is not the playstyle.
"Ashiel wrote:
Meanwhile the critical hit aspect is a tactical consideration. Just yesterday I played in a game that had a random encounter with like 4 bugbears and an ogre. Several of the bugbears were wielding longspears and spiked gauntlets, the ogre was wielding a longspear and spiked gauntlets, and some of the bugbears were wielding shields and battle axes.
This is a great example of playstyle variety.
For me, I would regard it as super-metagame-tastic to have random ogres (intelligence 6) and bgbears (intelligence 10) employing tactics like reach-weapon+spiked-gauntlets to create a zone of death and would actually find it more tactically interesting to allow my 2nd level PCs the option of getting inside their reach.
So, you do homebrew, you do have playstyle.
That's great but it doesn't mean you should make easy assumptions about what others enjoy, what others find satisfying or how others respond emotionally to gaming circumstances.
I think it was fairly clear that the OP was advocating their playstyle in response to a feeling that a different playstyle was more commonly advocated on the Paizo forums.
And this thread has proved her right so far, the hard-mode (as he/she sees it) advocates are out in force once again.
It is nice to see that we have such variety, I guess that means we are all more likely to find games which suit our own individual enjoyment.
I won't say sanctity but I do appreciate the impartial fairness of the dice. I've found fairness is very important in the trust between a player and a GM, and fudging dice leads to mistrust and can lead to hurt or resentful feelings later on (this is especially true if a PC dies and you let them die after fudging for another PC earlier in the campaign, because even if they were "asking for it" {such as a level 3 insisting to find and melee a great wyrm} they'll feel favoritism).
I have never experienced this. So, maybe in your group but it is not a universal constant.
The impression given is that your group has distrustful, atagonist GM/PC relationships with competing, fragile egos.
To be honest, my group don't try to figure out if the GM has fudged or not so we'll never know.
I think, if I played a game and a fellow player was second-guessing the GM and trying to figure out if he fudging dice or not... I'd get sick of that player way before I got sick of the GM.
I guess anyone can get confused, but I don't know how much more prominently they can display that this is for Pathfinder rules. They have made a lot of changes to it already trying to clear this up including the FAQ. But as you are now clear what rules set it is for why not now chose to back the project and help promote it?
Honestly, constantly calling it "City of Freeport Third Edition" seems like the kind of thing that should have been picked up when planning.
"So, if we use the term Third Edition over and over again... will that cause confusion?"
"Yes, yes it will."
"Okay, let's call it 'City of Freeport Ultimate Edition' instead."
"Good call."
"Or, City of Freeport Unchained Edition?"
"Also works."
"How about City of Freeport Badass Edition."
That's good too, as long as people don't mix it up with the ruleset we're using."
"Yeah, exactly."
...
Hey, who want to buy City of Freeport Third Edition?"
"Not me. I play Pathfinder now."
...
Hey, who want to buy City of Freeport Ultimate Edition for Pathfinder RPG?"
"Ooh, Ultimate Edition. And you changed it to Pathfinder too! Cool. I'm in."
As for funding, I spent my gaming budget on something else.
Got to wonder how they figured this one out, seems pretty meta-gamey unless they captured the elf, broke her power over him and then got great diplomacy rolls.
I'd feel really uncomfortable if someone felt like they had to stand up and help me with my coat, unless I was obviously struggling for whatever reason... it might be out of chivalry or niceness or whatever, but it's still kind of weird to me.
Holding doors is one thing (because it's really rude to let a door slam in someone's face or let the elevator close when someone's clearly running towards it) but helping with someone's coat or chair... yeah, no. Maybe it's because I'm fairly young, but if anyone did that kind of thing for me I'd feel really weirded out. Like, personal space intrusion kind of weirded out.
And after all, you wouldn't do that for a guy (I assume), so why do you do that for a woman? The reason is because of learned behaviours related to gender roles more than anything else. And a lot of chivalry stems from treating women as weaker than men... so yeah, feminists often take affront to it.
EDIT: I'd also note I've never seen anyone stand when a woman stands / help her with her jacket or chair. So it might be an age thing. (Thank god!)
It also has a root cause that women are more important than man to a society.
Standing when somebody leaves is a sign or respect. You will see it in courts and such when a king leaves a room...or a judge enter or leaves a room people are expected to stand.
Men stood when a woman left to make it clear that she wasn't one of the serveants. They wouldn't stand for each other because they would be hanging out all night and would move from place to place together (nobody stands when anyone pops to the toilet, regardless of gender).
John Kretzer wrote:
Men are taught never to hit a women...not because they a weaker but because they are more important than you. I mean the old saying of 'Never getting between a Mother Bear and her cub"...or "Hell has no fury like a women scorned" don't seem to me to stae women are weaker.
Nope, men are taught not to hit women for the same reason they're not allowed to hit infants: "Pick on someone your own size!"
Picking on an inferior opponent (like a woman) makes you seem weak and cruel. Just like when the villain is established in a movie by having him beat up some old guy.
John Kretzer wrote:
I am not saying men have not mutated this to be 'women are weaker'. Or even that now women are more important than men...and we don't need to change this. But to put as chivalry as means to oppress women...I don't think is entirely accurate.
Chivalry was a way to encode slightly less destructive morals on the aggressive amorality of wealthy aristocrats who bullied, killed and raped their way through life. It always emphasises the notion that women were weak (men fighting and being virile while women sit simpering is the classic image of chivalry).
Huzzah! The owner of the beer store I usually shop at has expanded into the space next to his store with a separate store - Bottles, Packs & Growlers!!! He serves food, which means he can bypass the usual Pennsylvania law of only selling by the case. He's got singles, six packs, four packs, you name it!!
After getting a Facebook notification they had opened, I finally got a chance to stop in yesterday. Picked up a 4 pack of 90 Minute IPA, a 4 pack of Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout, and 3 big bottles of Hellhound On My Ale!
Bought 24 cans of Guinness and 24 bottles of Harp for my next Kingmaker session which happens to fall on St. Patty's day. I used to get Bass but I find I don't really like Bass anymore (than learned that its no longer brewed in England but NY now).
I know that the beer-is-awesome thread probably isn't the place to be culturally sensitive but...:
I've only ever seen the term 'St. Patty' on the interwebs.
I have a bunch of Irish friends and when we got together to watch the Ireland v Wales 6 Nations game (yes, Wales lost. Now shutupaboutthatallright) I asked a bout 'St.Patty'.
They laughed and asked "Who the f%$% is St. Patty?"
It sounded dumb because:
If you're going to shorten it, try Paddy.
Although, Paddy is the abusive English nickname for Irish people.
But that doesn't make Patty a good alternative because... that's a girl's name.
So, just go with St. Patrick.
In the words of one Irish friend: "I've never heard any who is actually from Ireland call it anything but St. Patrick's Day."
Ow my bad, I always call the entire islands there england (ireland, scotland ect)
Just so you know, don't do that when speaking to Irish, Welsh or Scottish people. Or most English people.
Firstly, it comes across as high-handed: your country is not important is the message.
Secondly, it treads all over national/regional pride in distinctiveness: tell a Lancastrian that they're just like someone from Cornwall and you'll raise hackles. Let alone Ireland and England.
It seems to be predicated on a specific, and frankly bizarre, misreading of Sarkesian's project.
It is not a man vs. women thing.
The people who tried to make it a man vs women thing are the trolling men who attacked her.
And Samurai, he is trying to make it a man vs. women thing as well.
But it isn't.
It is a 'look how those with culture power (knowingly or not, she does not seem to be ascribing motivation) control, limit and manipulate both men and women to create specific expectations of women' thing.
Honestly, Samurai, I find deliberately misrepresenting people to be pretty rude.
Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps you can put us to the man-vs-women element of this video?
It is quite good, but I do see two problems with her video.
She focuses too much on one company (Nintendo).
She uses some feminist/women's studies jargon that was not actually necessary. (This is likely to confuse some viewers.)
On the first point, the sense I got was that other companies would be discussed in Part II. Nintendo was pretty important in the industry and in pop culture back in the '80s, though.
While possible, adding an example or two from another company (and there were others, like Sega) would have reduced a perception of bias against one publisher.
When dealing with a potentially hostile audience, it pays to give some thought to making your message as clear as possible. :)
Those hostile to her ideas have already proved, with great bellicosity, that they won't listen to anything she has to say.
This is not a softly-softly-catchy-monkey approach to a cultural conflict (like, say, To Kill a Mockingbird). It is an analytical gathering of evidence and ideas which will allow many others to fight their corner cogently.
Masive over-simplification warning!
You'll never turn the hardcore, to create culutural change.
1. Problematise: it isn't 'the way things are', it is a problem.
2. Embolden and arm your allies (to take the fight and not sit quietly).
3. Engage the uninvolved: show people who shrug shoulders and move on that they should join your stand.
4. Isolate and ridicule the hardcore as out-of-touch and stupid.
Eventually the hardcore should succumbing to social pressure to keep their crazy views to themselves and their grandchildren will look on them with a mixture of contempt and pity.
1. Players are from early 1930s earth and were part of a ramshackle crew gathered by an SIS member to seize a Babylonian atrefact before a group of German National Socialists got their grubby mitts on it.
Yep, channeling India Jones.
2. They destroyed the object as Nazis closed in on them and when the smoke cleared they were in the woods near Heldren. They have now lived there for five years.
I'm thinking everyone starts multiclass (one level in an Anachronistic Adventures class, one level in a 'normal' class) and can choose where to go from there. (I can beef up combat for the first level and just delay levelling, I don't track XP anymore anywyay).
3. They want to go home but even travelling to cities, nobody they have met has seen anything more badass than a teleport or a fireball. They've no idea how they could get home and have started building lives in Heldren.
So, first they want to protect the town but rumours of the hut mean they get a chance to go home!
Channeling a bit of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon here, plus Quantuum Leap.
4. When they arrive in Russia they'll have that pull (so close but so far! Stay here and live an earth-based life or rick it all to protect Golarion) along with pressure to avoid world-changing events (screw the timeline and we all die).
5. At the finale, characters will have to choose between going home to Earth or continuing their new lives on Golarion: pretty awesome.
My bad, I saw the logo was 'Pathfinder Compatible' so I used scanned the pledge levels. The text is all 3e and 3.5... They need to clarify the ruleset on the pledges.
On a Razor Coast note.
I am a teacher, a few years ago I taught a lesson using images to inspire writing, and my writing was an example from which students could make inferences about characters.
I had a lot of students who were into fantasy and Pirates of the Carribean was on the television so the artistic inspiration I chose was the Razor Coast cover art, and this is what I wrote (I didn't know at the time that she would be called Bethany):
Razor Coast inspired writing stuff wrote:
Eliza Stook, The Silver Blade of Farshore, paced the deck quietly, enjoying the fresh morning air while most of the crew dozed below-decks. Her only companion was Strabo Marlin, the new passenger; he sat on the deck, staring out to sea and stroking his speckled, grey beard.
As Eliza drew near, Strabo pulled himself to his feet with a sturdy walking cane and shuffled towards her: “No fish in the water this morning,” he stated, flatly, “Doesn't that seem odd to you?”
Eliza peered into Strabo's wrinkled, kindly face and faded eyes, trying to decide if he was playing a trick on her. She saw the truth of his words and went to look over the railings of the boat. She could see no fish, only the clear blue of the ocean, darkening into the depths far below. Eliza turned to the bent-backed man and asked: “What could have happened to drive off every fish in the ocean?”
Strabo replied with an unhappy harrumph: “I reckon it's the dark god of the ocean, Dajobas: we're not welcome in these seas, so far from human lands.”
Eliza was about to answer with a laugh when a ripple in the water caught her eye, she smiled and gestured to Strabo: “Well if Dajobas did this, why didn't he get rid of that fish?”
Strabo shuffled over to the side of the boat and peered out, leaning on his cane: “It's coming right this way,” he said, “And at a fair lick o' speed as well.”
As Strabo spoke a fin crested above the water and the creature accelerated toward the ship. Eliza raised an eyebrow: “A shark, so that's what scared off all the fish, see...”
Her sentence faltered as she turned to find Strabo stumbling backwards from the rail, shaking in fear. She reached out as he tumbled onto the deck. Gasping out a terrified, shaking whisper, Strabo grasped for Eliza's hand and told her: “That is no shark. The Children of Dajobas come, they come!”
Her eyes growing wide, Eliza began to turn as she heard a huge, roaring splash and felt a spray of water across the deck. On instinct she drew her sword and flintlock pistol, catching only a glimpse of the powerful sharkman before he flew over her head and landed on the deck of the ship.
Eliza gritted her teeth in an excited grin, a fierce glimmer shone in her eyes and she saluted the beast with her blade: “I do hope you're not here just to talk.”
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, you've got cool ideas but:
I'm not sure rude, bossy, arrogant usurper fits a worshipper of Sarenrae: goddess of redemption and hope.
Faiths of Purity wrote:
Once a powerful angel known as an empyreal lord,
Sarenrae led the heavenly hosts in the charge against the
Rough Beast, Rovagug, and it was she who dealt him the
great blow that led to his chaining. Now a goddess in her
own right, Sarenrae is kind and loving, a figure of light,
guidance, and healing, and has great patience with those
who choose to be blind but may one day see. Yet for all
her compassion, Sarenrae is also a powerful force against
evil, and strikes down the irredeemable without mercy.
Her alignment is neutral good, and her portfolio is the
healing, honesty, redemption, and sun. Her domains
are Fire, Glory, Good, Healing, and Sun, and her favored
weapon is the scimitar.
More than that, your players are meant to cherish Sandpoint and feel an urge to protect it. They're not supposed to be playing off sides in a religio-political conflict.
Also, under Naffer Vosk:
1. I'm not sure the whorehouse is stigmatised like in RL.
2. Golarion is not a homophobic world, Zantus would have little need to hide his homosexuality.
Also, Adabar... Adabar is a builder of communities as well as a law-enforcer. Adabar's priest would be seeking to help the family pay off their debt (structuring repayments, arranging work to pay debt 'in kind' etc.)
And... Bevan's armory?
Bevan is too powerful and her private army makes little sense on a place like Sandpoint.
It supports the AP to have Sandpoint need heroes, not have the PCs run back-up to a GMPC for the entire of Burnt Offerings.
Savah's Armoury, makes more sense as a small business and diminishing Belor Hemlock's role seems odd.
Also, a small town needs a tannery and a smithy but a weapon shop should be a peripheral, struggling business.
Bottled Solutions, the knock out effect would ruin his trade and have Hemlock hammering on the door after a week. It lacks verisimilitude.
Theatre stuff all seems cool. I would think about hosting touring entertainers, as well as the local am-dram stuff.
Pixies Kitten could possibly have a high-rollers option for when the up-in-the-country-hunting nobles roll in: a little bit of alter self or similar. Kaye makes more sense in the orginal though (James Jacobs is really good at this stuff) as a human expert with a level of sorcerer. Other NPCs already have the bard thing.
Really like the saves for the Hagfish: seems like the kind of thing PCs might fail at, then come back and nail when they're level 8: laughing about the time they spewed on their shoes.
And writing things down on a piece of paper which are not true is actually much easier than messing around with herolab settings.
Obviously, you need to check your results and have an understanding of the rules.
Herolab just saves time and means I don't need to flick through my entire collection.
@Gauss
That depends on what you mean by 'far from accurate'. My experience is that Herolab is far more accurate than most of my players.
When they make and update characters I give them a once over and check them in Herolab.
If there is a conflict then I check the rules for the area of conflict.
Herolab is correct almost every time.
This is not players trying to cheat, they've just made mathematical errors or forgotten how two rules inter-relate: it's a complex system.
It can be fun sometimes to say to players: "Actually, you have +6 to hit, not +4."
Dragon78 expresses a preference for this over what he feels is too much demon stuff.
Rather than saying that Dragon78 is entitled to his opinion but he disagrees, Heine uses his stick to slap him down. Telling him he has got it wrong because, look: evidence!
I show that Heine Stick might want to reconsider his criticism because actually that evidence is subjective (it is only halfway to convincing if you A: ignore pre-PFRPG stuff, B: ignore announced but not yet released stuff and C: are a person who find the difference between devils, demons and daemons to be meaningful).
Heine Stick then slaps me down for not accepting his criteria (post-PFRPG, only released stuff, all players must perceive demons, devils and daemons as distinct). Finally, he gets to the good stuff.
Heine Stick wrote:
I get that demons don't appeal to everyone, just like the elements featured in Alkenstar don't appeal to everyone. That's cool. I'm just a bit weary of hearing some people groaning "demons? again?" when their presence in the Pathfinder era, up until the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path and its support material, has been rather limited considering their popularity.
And then Zaister comes in with a misrepresenting, caricature which uses reductio ad absurdum to criticise my point-of-view.
Cheers for that, that's really... y'know... really great and, y'know... thanks... good stuff.
We can all like different stuff.
We all play the game differently.
And we're all entitled to express our relief that we're finally getting something we like when it feels like the latest releases are not our cup of tea.
I know Heine Stick and Zaister are cool dudes, they make cool posts all the time. And so does Dragon78.
Let's have high-fives and buy each other virtual beers. My round!
This is such more interesting then a book about demons, a book about fighting demons, or AP about demons...again.
Yeah because we've had 0 Pathfinder adventure paths focusing on demons, 0 Pathfinder books on fighting demons, and 1 Pathfinder book detailing the demon lords, their realms, and their mortal worshipers with a wee bit of info on the classic demons and a few new ones. I totally get your annoyance.
I personally have near zero interest in this module but it's still very cool that those who do like the region of Alkenstar get a chance to play a game set in that region, and I'll definitely get this module if for no other reason that the stuff I might like.
Number of books on demons = 3 (people can pretend all they want that there is a meaningful difference between devils, demons and daemons... I don't see it) with another coming out.
And they are all over the APs like a demonic rash, even more if you're into the Dungeon-days.
And Wrath of the Righteous is a demon-tastic AP.
And the Demon Hunter's Handbook is also in the works...
Oh, and don't forget the demons in Great Beyond as well.
And they're common monsters in AP bestiaries as well: a quick check of pfsrd reveal over 100 demons/devils/daemons/they're-all-the-same-really-anyway.
If I wanted fiction I'd go buy the fiction - pull it out, make it its own subscription and see how many people are actually willing to pay for it. I'd guess almost none.
There are plenty of Pathfinder Tales subscribers. So, yes, people will and do subscribe to PF fiction.
Damocles Guile wrote:
When I buy a cookbook, I don't want it filled with stories about a person's grandmother. When I buy a technical manual for a piece of software, I don't want it filled with anecdotes on how the software came into being. When I buy an AP path, I don't want it filled with something that is of no use to me whatsoever.
Well, that may be your point of view but lots of people actually prefer cookbooks which are full of stories and anecdotes.
[snip] but I really love the idea of having an article consisting of fan-generated modifications/alterations/expansions of previously-published AP's.
I'm running Carrion Crown presently. While it is a really good AP, I have been able to improve it significantly by adopting modifications suggested by the kind folks on the Paizo boards. What would have been even better would have been a follow-up article featuring a few of the mods that the Paizo community have suggested to make the installment of the AP more enjoyable/interesting/cohesive. In order to get the ideas, I had to spend a lot of time reading through the various posts and threads. Having the ideas distilled, and centralized in a single location would be an amazing aid to a GM looking to run an AP, and would also likely increase sales, as has been previously mentioned.[/snip]
The problem is that while there is some great stuff on these boards there is also plenty of dross.
If it stood a chance of getting in an AP then I imagine that more people would noisily post their AP modifications.
Some Paizonians would then have to spend days reading through the forums to find the gems, then write them up, make sure they had attributed sources correctly and make sure that nothing overlapped poorly with other rules or depended on a houserule...
It would be a lot of work and, as you pointed out, we can already get that information from the forums.
I actually think that kind of thing is better served by being on a forum because there can be dialogue and debate about how it works with different playstyles and expectations.
Intentional fallacy. No author is a privileged expert on their own material, including Gary Gygax, who also sometimes went on record as denying or diminishing any Tolkienesque influence on D&D.
It's odd how this conversation has morphed from one about homosexuality toward one about gender roles. The two things have nothing to do with each other, in my experience and observation.
In any case, I continue to appreciate and applaud the attitudes that all of the caretakers and most of the stakeholders in Golarion have exhibited in this thread. At least in this one aspect of human experience, it can be said that our shared fantasy world is a more fundamentally decent place than the real one.
this is a straight cut and paste from another thread on the boards, seem relevant here:
responding to something about men not letting other men be affectionate
As a teacher, I see that kind of thing all the time.
If one male is very supportive of another -> mocked for being 'gay'.
Two men embrace or are partially undressed together (like, at the beach) in a comic, story or video-clip used to supporting learning -> mocked for being 'gay'.
It is a juvenile way of asserting masculinity when one actually has few socially recognised masculine attributes (still undergoing puberty, not permitted any responsibility, protected/excluded from risky behaviour, socially restricted from displaying dominance, not able to access trappings of manhood, etc.)
Plus, mocking others for being gay -> 'proof' of not being gay -> proof of socially constructed masculinity.
I claim my maleness by mocking others lack of it!
All built on a structure in which "masculinity" inculdes desire for women, objectification of women and (sadly, more often that not) dominance over women.
As long as that structure remains, homosexuality will always be regarded as 'less manly' and caricatured as effete.
Weird, really. Homophobia and misogyny are so tightly wound together.
The nunnery is Shakespearean-era slang for the whorehouse.
It's difficult to write a cogent sentence of modern English without using at least two pieces of Elizabethan sexual slang. Much Ado About Nothing can be read as "Much Ado About Penises."
Any time he talks about wit you get a double entendre too. Same meaning as nothing. Which, yes, means Rowling made a sex joke when she wrote the motto: Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure.
Not quite right.
Nothing/Noting is slang for vagina.
It makes more sense in a way, denoting a cavity...
Although, we're getting a bit off topic here, probably just making something out of nothing!
What's more important, stopping the evil Lich or spending years trying to nurture Goblin babies to good-alignment? Or atleast not-evil?
First I'd be searching for a reliable organization that could take care of them, like say a church of any good deity deserving of the alignment. If for some reason no such organization or support network can be found, I retire my character and bring in a new one to join the fight.
It's not an either-or between Save The World and Don't Murder Babies. When faced with two horrifically evil choices, Good either finds or makes a third option. Good doesn't take the convenient way out.
Quote:
What happens when, despite your characters best efforts, a goblin baby does turn irreparably evil? Do you slay this creature you've spent so much time caring for?
I find a new GM that doesn't stick to the Always Chaotic Evil trope as gospel, one in whose game I could actually enjoy playing a genuine good character.
Interesting to find shades-of-grey-Mikaze only demands shades of grey for goblins and orcs.
Good, however, must be absolute.
Everything is compromised, all situations are unclear, morality is negotiated, perspective is subjective and sometimes you explode the volcano to destroy the helldragon even though you did leave a CN kobold spy tied-up on level 2.
Good might seek a way, but sometimes good sucks it up and accepts it has crosses to bear.
Hard choices are there for Good to make the best of, not to sidestep.
"Hey, Pharasma, why am I stuck in the Boneyard? I was a loyal serveant of Iomedae!"
"No, Paladin. You were a loyal serveant to your own navel. You abandoned her righteous crusade against the beasts of the worldwound in order to raise children. Do you not understand how many true, just and pure paladins have forsaken the pleasures of motherhood in order to protect the world from evil?"
"I was protecting them from sin, turning them to a world of virtue and righteousness."
"While your brothers and sisters in-arms fell to the demons for want of a strong shield beside them to turn aside the blow; a strong mind to guide them from the creatures temptation and insinuation; a strong arm to lift them from the mire.
Creation grants that nearly all can raise a child in their own image, or foster others as you did, but only a few can seize the hard path of virtue Iomedae demands. Your narcissism was your undoing, human."
"But they were goblin babies, it's different!"
"Only to you."
Not to ignore the sexism of the piece, but does anyone else find it just as homoerotic as it is sexist?
I find that an interesting statement, largely because of the context that surrounds those sorts of claims. To be more specific: any example of particularly deep/strong male-to-male bond is frequently characterized as "homoerotic," even in the absence of any actual sexual content (e.g., I've seen similar claims made about Frodo and Sam... despite the complete lack of ANY sexuality within Tolkien).
...
Massive derail but...:
As a teacher, I see that kind of thing all the time.
If one male is very supportive of another -> mocked for being 'gay'.
Two men embrace or are partially undressed together (like, at the beach) in a comic, story or video-clip used to supporting learning -> mocked for being 'gay'.
It is a juvenile way of asserting masculinity when one actually has few socially recognised masculine attributes (still undergoing puberty, not permitted any responsibility, protected/excluded from risky behaviour, socially restricted from displaying dominance, not able to access trappings of manhood, etc.)
Plus, mocking others for being gay -> 'proof' of not being gay -> proof of socially constructed masculinity.
I claim my maleness by mocking others lack of it!
All built on a structure in which "masculinity" inculdes desire for women, objectification of women and (sadly, more often that not) dominance over women.
As long as that structure remains, homosexuality will always be regarded as 'less manly' and caricatured as effete.
Weird, really. Homophobia and misogyny are so tightly wound together.
I have just read all of the community stuff and the accursed halls and I must say that this is one of the best things I have read from Paizo.
Thornkeep's politics are beautifully balanced and ripe for heroic intervention. The surrounding area is intriguing and perilous in just the right amount, with lots of hooks for players and GMs.
It is a joy.
One little question about the Accursed Halls:
Spoiler:
Knowing my players, they'll probably try and destroy the statue of Abraxas (push it down the stairs?) would this end the silence and unhallow effects?
GeraintElberion
