Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Grey Lensman's page

2,135 posts (2,144 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:

Am I just massively more cynical than everyone else here? Do people really think the courts work this way? Do we really think the various state, district and finally the Supreme Courts have ruled the way they have on same-sex marriage strictly based on Constitutional and scientific arguments?

And that they'll just do the same with polygamy if the right evidence and legal arguments get made?

The possibility is there, but currently it's a long shot....a very, very long shot. Until the evidence that exists showing the harm caused to society by polygamy is debunked or discredited by mainstream science then the courts will continue to rule against it.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Because he is the vampire hunter we've always needed...

My 'must watch' list just added another line...


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Not to trigger any druids looking on, but "Natural Law" is actually pretty terrible. If we followed Natural Law, we'd be driven by only two things: Procreation and survival. Which really is the opposite of what marriage-driven Catholics should want.

As human beings, we rose above the "two goals" long ago. That's why we have the patience for religions, morals, and ethics. Two guys having sex won't make a baby. Neither will you helping that old woman cross the street. I know there are some biological incentives for altruism, but anyone can see that there's a place where those incentives fade and we're just doing good or ethical things because they feel right. And it's not natural. Nature is neither moral nor ethical. Nature is actually kind of a dick.

I dunno, I guess I just have trouble taking "Natural Law" seriously. Have you seen nature? Nasty place to live in. There's a reason we invented houses.

What was it Neitzsche said about nature? Imagine pure indifference as a power. Who would want to live according to that?


Lord Snow wrote:
pres man wrote:
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

As a liberal in general and a supporter of polygamy in particular I agree, but I don't see this happening any time soon, if only because of the legislative nightmares of trying to figure out how to get everything right with the new laws and rulings such a legalization would entail. For example, how to handle a "divorce" where a married group splits into two or more subgroups (who the hack gets to keep what? and what about the kids? etc.). Currently there just doesn't seem to be any group that is able and willing to exert enough pressure to make this happen.

Honestly, it seems like there are needs of other marginalized groups (not the least of which are the transgenders) who need better protection and recognition more urgently. I would take care of them first.

Polygamy also has the giant hurdle of the most visible supporters being some pretty skeevy people. Most of the groups that practice it have pretty big problems with women having rights, and often with other young men who might compete for a wife (and I have yet to see a group of women with multiple husbands). As it currently stands, it's fairly easy to prove harm to society caused by allowing it.


alexd1976 wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I've occasionally seen a related but slightly different phenomenon:

A player picks up an immunity or powerful defense, then starts encountering enemies that are specifically built to bypass that immunity.

You're immune to disease? You encounter an obscure disease that your immunity doesn't apply against because of some reason.

You're immune to fear? You encounter something so supernaturally scary that your immunity doesn't count.

You're immune to enchantment effects? You encounter something that can dominate person as a transmutation effect or something.

I hate when GMs do this. I have run into it a few times, not much, but enough to prompt face-punching.

On rare occasions the ability to bypass immunities can make a monster seem really frightening, but such tools should always be used sparingly. When the big, bad, god-dragon can do things like that I understand. When each acquired immunity is meet shortly by something that can bypass it such abilities stop being special - on BOTH sides of the equation.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Orfamy wrote:
Georgia has...

So if NY chose not to honor my CCW permit from Georgia isn't that a violation of the equal protection clause?

Don't bother (because..well, its you an all).

As a former resident of New York, I can tell you that they don't accept any out of state issue weapon permits. Since everyone is treated equally, it isn't an equal protection clause violation. If they accepted stuff from one state and not another, or only from certain people there would be an issue.


Greylurker wrote:

Funi has announced most of their list for summer.

One Piece
Fairy Tail
Ninja Slayer
Ultimate Otaku Teacher
The Heroic Legend of Arslan
Snow White with the Red Hair
Rampo Kitan
Gangsta.
Seiyu’s Life
Bikini Warriors
Prison School
Hetalia: The World Twinkle
Aquarion Logos
Sky Wizards Academy (Kusen Madoshi)
Junjo Romantica 3
Overlord
Castle Town Dandelion
SHIMONETA: A Boring World Where the Concept of Dirty Jokes Doesn’t Exist

They still have 2 shows to announce, Expecting one of them to be Dragon Ball Super but the last is up in the air

Please please please someone pick up the Bodacious Space Pirates film.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Maybe I'm misreading "no state make or enforce law which shall abridge" or it could be the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part that is confusing me

That would be a different argument for a different topic thats contentious enough on its own. As far as I know, this was not the argument being advanced on the gay marriage issue. It was a matter of equality about how states treated their own people differently.

This as well, as I know at least one state is considering trying to circumvent the ruling by no longer issuing any marriage certificates at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:


Quote:
If someone doesn't like gay marriage nobody is forcing them into one.

I've always felt the same way about fully automatic rifles - no one is forcing people to buy them, so whats the problem?

Unlike marriage, the potential for harm to others does come from weapons, hence restrictions. Personally, I think we need something built on the national level that fills a decent common ground between anyone can own anything without any paperwork and nobody can own them no matter what. Much like I think self defense laws need to find a decent ground between things like Florida's crazy 'stand you ground' laws and New York's crazy 'you must try to escape, even from your own home' laws.

But again, guns are a different topic and their continued discussion here will probably only lead to a threadlock.


Auxmaulous wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm responding to the argument you posted, where you seemed to have not quite gotten the pro marriage equality argument.

Whats the legal argument for the feds to override what was previously a State right?

Let me know in one post (or less).

The states couldn't provide a reason for the restrictions, other than those based on religion. At least not ones that aren't easily refuted. When you restrict something that causes no harm to anyone, and doesn't even have the potential to cause harm, there isn't a reason to to restrict it. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all that. If someone doesn't like gay marriage nobody is forcing them into one. I'm straight, and I was able to get married to the person I chose, the only potential roadblock was whether or not she also wanted it. Why should it be different for anyone else based on what people not involved in that relationship believe in?


thejeff wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Not sure whether it was Scalia or Alito who said something along the lines of 'Innocence is not, in and of itself, justification to be released from prison', but I don't expect anything decent out of anyone who can say that. Proof of innocence alone is enough reason to open the cell right away and hold anyone who objects in contempt of court.
It was Scalia and it was actually worse, since it was a death penalty case.

I was wondering who the 'Most Un-American Man in Government' was after people like McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover left....


Not sure whether it was Scalia or Alito who said something along the lines of 'Innocence is not, in and of itself, justification to be released from prison', but I don't expect anything decent out of anyone who can say that. Proof of innocence alone is enough reason to open the cell right away and hold anyone who objects in contempt of court.


thejeff wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Or some particularly stupid troll logic pieces like this.

But be careful: If you're a liberal it might make you EXPLODE!

I can't really argue with their logic. Hell, I can't even find their logic.

That does make it harder to argue against.....


Although on the second amendment note, a national set of gun laws wouldn't really be a bad thing. Something less restrictive than the NYSafe act (which seems like it makes nearly everything more modern than a six-shooter illegal) and not as permissive as some of the southern states where a concealed-carry permit is just matter of asking for one.

But those things really have nothing to do with the decision on marriage.


Exactly. I can't figure out why Louise would like Saito aside from 'The master/familiar thing makes them want each other'. Everyone else I don't have to think hard on.


Just finished the Familiar of Zero series earlier today. While it does hit the harem trope pretty hard, they did provide a believable reason for each attraction (aside from the main female character).


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Most of us in the group think the GM amped up the vampires out of his own personal prejudices, or does Luvick have a touch AC of over 40?
Last I checked his touch was only like 15 I think. High for some, but a) strong Dex character and b) plenty of Deflection bonus. *checks* Yep Touch AC 15. Your DM must REALLY like vampires to make him that strong. Hell his competition, Malyas, a 15th level Vampire Antipaladin doesn't have that kind of Touch AC.

THAT is why we said they Way didn't stand a chance against him...


I forgot to mention (if your group doesn't have a trapfinder in it) the Crypt Breaker alchemist archetype. It's pretty good at it, and can be a terror vs. corporeal undead (upping the die to a d8 at low levels, and then adding +1 per die and getting improved crit with them at level 14).


[QUOTE="Thomas Seitz"
However I think you under-estimate the power of the Way has in some of its leaders. Other than a handful of this vampires that live under Caliphas, there's more to the Way, especially when they have a) 5 winter wights, b) more than 3 or 4 graveknights of pretty substantive power, more than 5 raveners, who are of at least old age category if not older. Along with more than 20 or so liches. That's pretty significant firepower compared to a few vampires with a handful of class levels. (I mean other than Luvick Siervage.)

Most of us in the group think the GM amped up the vampires out of his own personal prejudices, or does Luvick have a touch AC of over 40?


Thomas Seitz wrote:


When I ran this in book 5 (not 4 btw. Book 4 is Lovecraft), the Vampire Lord, while thoroughly evil made a point that he didn't want the PCs to fail, primarily because he and the Whispering Way were blood enemies. I will agree that some times, DMs/GMs can make it so they have 'pet' monsters. But the fact remains if you're a good GM, you can tell your Paladin PCs this (In a dream like I did, or just by having them consult their local chapter) "Serving the greater good some times means helping an evil one."

Just a little thought.

It's been a while since we played it - most of the group didn't like it since it seemed to be so disconnected, as if the purpose wasn't to have a cohesive plot (besides chase the macguffin) other than to go through classic horror monsters. The GM still complains about how we were 'lawful stupid' in that encounter, and how it destroyed Ustalav, then we remind him that with the power levels he gave those vamps of his the Whispering Way probably got wiped out in the first night.


thejeff wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


Food for thought: you could make a strong case for building Harry Potter as a Sorcerer. Magic is in the blood in that universe; you either have it or you don't and no amount of study can give it to you. That screams Sorcerer.And yet there are formal magical institutions to train these Sorcerers. Without some form of education, that magic power isn't all that useful.

I can easily imagine something similar in Pathfinder, and while I'd certainly expect many Sorcerers to be self-taught, if one (or one thousand) went to school it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

You could look at Harry Potter that way, but it only really works if you ignore all the ways he isn't like a PF sorcerer, or wizard for that matter. No apparent limits on spells known or spells per day, for example.

Beyond that, sorcerers are considered an intuitive class, requiring the least amount of training of PF classes, which doesn't mesh well with "wizard school".

It's also not clear that in PF just anyone can become a wizard with enough study. Any PC can, but then any PC can choose to take a level in sorcerer too.
Another, probably equally stretching, literary parallel might be the Wheel of Time, where Channellers are divided into those who will start channeling on their own (sorcerers) and those who can be taught to do so (wizards). Of course, the rest of the PF differences between the two again don't apply.

Sage bloodline sorcerer?


Vilverum Fae wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:

I'd say....

Alchemist
Bard
Magus
Summoner (if allowed)

edit - removed paladin as an option since this IS carrion crown.

There's a lot of conflicting suggestions about Paladins: Some say it's a great choice, others insist it breaks the AP by making it too easy, while others still imply that it's hard to play one due to the Lawfulness aspect and morally grey choices in the AP.

Can you go a bit into detail about why you cut the Paladin form the list, please? I'd like to be prepared with some answers just in caase my friend wants to play a Paladin.

In the 4th book of the AP you might end up working with vampires. Our group figured that it was better than going alone since our only leads to the overall plot were in that direction. Then the guy we were dealing with decided all this talk made him hungry, and he needed a fresh meal (screaming kidnap victim) who he would chomp into right in front of us. Things didn't go well.

Of course, the encounter was also amped up by GM's reading of too many vampire fiction novels (master vamps win, it's pretty much in the script, and they don't let you leave without making you feel powerless), it turned into a fight we couldn't win (touch attacks in the upper teens on the die roll were missing).

I made it a point after to not be present whenever that GM even hinted vampires (it wasn't his first time with something like that). Even good GM's seem to have blind spots, and vampires were his.


I'd say....

Alchemist
Bard
Magus
Summoner (if allowed)

edit - removed paladin as an option since this IS carrion crown.


Valandil Ancalime wrote:

RD it's not only your group. I had a character in Kingmaker get the Step Up and Strike feat chain. Enemies stopped trying to 5'step even when there was little to no way that they had ever seen my character in combat and I hadn't used it in the combat yet. Unfortunately it is difficult for my DM to separate DM knowledge and NPC knowledge. As soon as the villains exceed a certain level of Power, Intelligence or Experience (or the PIE level as I call it) they all become paranoid, super tactical geniuses and dangerously genre savvy.

The archvillain and direct underlings I expect to have an understanding of the PC's abilities, even ones that don't get used much. Once the PC's get a certain level of fame, certain things do become general knowledge (Ignia the Ever-Burning Flame is someone who most people would expect to use fire magic), but I never expect new abilities that have never been used once to be known to every random encounter.


I played under a guy who loved having giants grapple people and use them as bludgeons and missile weapons based on their high bonuses (this was before Pathfinder. Once my warrior got a feat that gave him an attack of opportunity against such things (even bypassing improved grab and similar effects, and as an added bonus adding all damage dealt to the check) he was never again targeted by such an attack (never used the feat even once). The group still comments on it.


Congratulations to everyone whose lives have been changed for the better with this.

Sadly, the pessimist in me thinks we should brace for a major uptick in hate - that seems to be the immediate norm when things certain people don't like happen.


IMO, High School DxD isn't so much Hentai as it is the harem trope dialed up to 11, almost to the point of it's own self-parody. (and I'm not quite sure about the 'almost' part)

I'm awaiting even a sub for The Abyss of Hyperspace, but it looks like I'll be waiting longer.


John Benbo wrote:
8 episodes in, but so far, I'm enjoying Turn A Gundam. It feels very different than any other Gundam I've seen with its almost War of the Worlds vibe. Plus, Loran seems to be the most pyschologically well adjusted main hero Gundam pilot of all the ones I've seen (teenage angst Amuro and Kamille and homicidal tendancies Heero and Setsuna).

I thought Duo and Quatre were very well adjusted (until Quatre's sister died in his arms, anyways).


OK, I have chrome 43 and can't see the messageboards other than this thread - what do I do to get it back?


I've started watching [I]Blade of the Immortal[I] on HuluPlus last night. Looks good so far.


Wrath wrote:

Honestly, all speculation aside, I can't see me personally buying more than the three core books for a long while.

I have something like 6 or 7 Paizo campaigns I can run, with little effort from me in converting to 5th ed rules. That's the joy of the rule set in fact. It has enough going for it that similar systems from the past mesh perfectly.

My players will likely buy more options books though. If it gives more variability for them throughout the different campaigns they play, it's likely to sell.

Books that detail the campaign setting will also sell. By this I mean ones that both players and GMs can read to get a feel for world and make it more immersive. We're all avid readers and interesting worlds or creatures or cultures often inspires our gaming.

However, those books are likely to be a one per table deal. We share our resources pretty heavily.

I'm not sure how unique my group is in this regard. If it's pretty wide spread though, the getting new players in is a better deal. When we were new we bought everything. Now we're a little more jaded, and experienced enough to just convert what we've already got.

My gaming group normally only has one copy of most campaign world supplements. We have two of the most heavily used ones, if they have a lot of 'crunch' in the books, especially if multiple players are constantly dipping into it (the 2E FR pantheon bok, since in 2E we tended towards 'god squad' style parties, and the 3E FR main book).


Technotrooper wrote:
Because D&D 5e seems to be focusing on promoting feelings of nostalgia, I would not be surprised if they bring back iconic settings (even as one-offs or licensing deals) and adventures. I believe they are at least considering a strategy like this.

My semi-educated guess (or maybe even less than that) is a two-fold strategy. Nostalgia to pull the old players back, and being simple enough to lure in new ones at the same time. If they do feel that 'splitting the customer base' was one of their mistakes from the TSR days, then we won't see many campaign settings. I'd expect the FR, with maybe one or two more at most, and those aren't likely to be high-fantasy type settings (so Greyhawk and Dragonlance would most likely be out. It sucks for fans of those settings, but IMO those three feel a lot like variations of a theme) but would more likely be something with a completely different feel. Eberron is the top candidate out of what's left. It's reasonably popular, and far enough away from the theme and feel of the other big three to be much less likely to split the customer base.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems.
So, Lisa Stevens lied about her findings? Told us half-truths? Do you think she is trying to push some agenda? If so, to what end? TSR is dead and gone, and Paizo is making her lots of money...

I think he just believes her conclusion was mistaken?

Everything I heard about TSR during those days tells me that 'splitting the customer base' was just one of their many mistakes. Someone who went over what passed for their books says it was the biggest one, and I am inclined to believe that myself since she really has nothing to gain by lying, and as she is currently involved in running a successful company I'd say she is also competent at the job (making me think she is less likely to make a mistake than me, even if I had the benefit of seeing the books).


That's up the individual GM. I think that is the point of many of the mysteries in the campaign.


So that means Zuko must have ended up with Mai. His name has a 'K' sound in it and hers ends in that long 'A'. They never did say if she came back after leaving during the comics. But now we can figure it out.


My main group isn't going to switch - nobody wants to invest in the cost of the books. Another group that bounces from game to game will, but the GM has a large disposable income and a short attention span. So how long it will last is anybody's guess.


LazarX wrote:
I'm going to be one of the few ex-Trekkies to put in a mention for Star Trek:The Animated Series. While it was disowned by Roddenberry, and the animation quality is not something that even Filmation should be proud of, It had better storylines than much of the original series, and introduced some rather neat alien crewmembers.

One of the great things about animation is you don't need a makeup budget. Freaky-looking aliens often cost the exact same amount as normal looking humans and never have the actors complain about sitting in the chair for hours.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Le Chevalier D'Eon... awesome series. It has that right mix of history and fantasy that just makes it so good.

It is. My only problem with it is that Lea is pretty much of a 'corpse sue'. It seems like EVERYBODY of any real importance they meet thinks she was perfect and was in love with her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Scythia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

What happened if you had two monks in the group?

Mortal Kombat?

They had to start rival sects, one becoming the North Star, the other Southern Cross.

You don't need to explain to someone who is already dead. :P


Sissyl wrote:
They prefer nobody seeing a movie they spend millions on to "encouraging torrenting"? They certainly should rethink their status as a movie making company. Seriously.

IIRC Sony's music label arm had put malware on the CD's to 'prevent piracy' or some crap like that.


The only problem I have with it is the use of the overdone 'cram both names together' crap. I hated it when the tabloids coined 'Bennifer' and like it even less now that any public couple (real or fictional) gets a similar moniker. Blegh.


Chris Mortika wrote:

As long as you mean "Voltron the 5 lions" as opposed to "Voltron the fifteen-car pile-up" I agree.

I admit to being a fan of the Star Trek animated series, and of SeaLab 2020.

I feel like I am alone in my feelings about those shows. I thought the lions, while looking cooler, were piloted by 4 (quickly 5 when Sven was written out) very flat characters who never grew in any meaningful way. And the villains they had were even more one-dimensional. Plus the lame -try-everything-even-though-the-only-thing-that-ever-works-is-the-sword- is something that destroyed my suspension of disbelief even as a kid (I got a soft spot for the vehicle pileup solely due to seeing something other than blazing sword take out the monster of the week in the first episode I saw).


Umbranus wrote:

Often players want to rebuild characters they know from media. Whether that is good or bad is another topic I do not want to elaborate on in this thread.

What I AM after is this: If you aim to create a pathfinder pc that resembles a certain media character, why is it so important that every fluff you have in mind is backed up by facts?

Example: Someone wants to play a Guts (whoever that is) style PC wielding a sword with an oversized blade.
In PF blades and hilts always have the same size. There are no large weapons with a medium sized hilt. So you can either wield a medium sized sword and fluff the blade as bigger or you can wield a large sword* and fluff its hilt as medium. Now, why is it so important for people that the blade size is reflected by the crunch, the rules? Even if it would be much easier to just fluff it? The PC would "be" the character who's flavor you want.

*large two-handed swords can't be wielded by medium sized PCs.

If it is the flavor you are after, why is it important to create new rules? Why not use the existing rules and still play your fluff?

Example 2: Someone wants to play a strong dual wielding Samurai. How important is it that this pc really has the samurai class written on his sheet? From a rules perspective he could well play a slayer, getting TWF from a ranger combat style. If he behaves and dresses like a samurai why would it be any worse, fluff wise, than a pc with samurai written on the sheet? Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?

I have two answers to this.

One: Crunch isn't required, but it helps

Two: Trying to exactly duplicate a character from other media is nearly impossible

A character from a long running television show, novel series, or comic book is going to have had loads of development, and will be able to do things that a class based system won't allow them to do without serious multi-classing (or often even with it). Almost no writers follow the character making rules from Pathfinder or any other RPG, even in books [b]based on[/I] a specific RPG (although they will follow the rules more closely).


Misroi wrote:
It's as good a guess as any with the information we have available. Not everyone with powers is going to be Inhuman, though. I think Scorch from S1 is a good example of "gifted, not Inhuman." He didn't know how he got his powers. I really feel like if you went into an abandoned temple and briefly gained a stone cocoon after a crystal farted on you, then you'd be prone to remembering it. It's possible that Wanda and Pietro will fall in that category.

Also a good point. I mentioned the Inhumans in the manner I did to bring up the point that it is an explanation which shouldn't be discounted out of hand. But, as you rightly point out, it shouldn't be accepted to the exclusion of all other possibilities either. Anyways, we will have definite answers eventually, as the comics will not let a storyline like that sit for too long (I think it's part of the next relaunch of Remender's title) and Avengers II is due out next Summer.


They should screen it at the White House to send a message (even if the movie isn't any good) and invite all the world leaders to it.

Where are Dingo and his petitions when you need them?


Greylurker wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You acknowledge that you are a Brony?
for many years, yes.
Well done. To admit that means you are no coward!

I've watched it in Japanese with english subtitles.

Japanese Derpy is damn cute

(Ponies, they will consume every thread)

if possible it's even BETTER....
Wait, does that mean you are watching something dubbed, then subtitled back?

messes with your head doesn't it.

So much for dubbing means it must have been ruined. Direct from the horse's mouth.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Hama wrote:
Well, I believe that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Inhumans in MCU

Uh...the evidence we have suggests they're lab experiments made by Strucker.

He did speculate as to why they survived with powers while others died in the experiments, but that hardly screams 'Inhumans' to me.

I'd say there is a chance. It isn't certain, but given the ties Quicksilver has to the inhumans in the comics (being married to one of the royal family and having a kid with her) I can't discount the possibility either.


Princess Bride
Blazing Saddles
History of the World, Part I
..Screw it, nearly anything by the master we call Mel Brooks
Hang 'Em High
Tombstone
Captain America (especially the early scenes before he becomes Cap)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's ANY purposes Iron. Asset seizure laws are pretty close to the top of the list for things that have gone horribly wrong in this country.


Freehold DM wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You acknowledge that you are a Brony?
for many years, yes.
Well done. To admit that means you are no coward!

I've watched it in Japanese with english subtitles.

Japanese Derpy is damn cute

(Ponies, they will consume every thread)

if possible it's even BETTER....

Wait, does that mean you are watching something dubbed, then subtitled back?

1 to 50 of 2,135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.