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

Hitdice's page

3,657 posts (3,916 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,657 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Back in my day, my best friend's mother forced him to give me his copy of Deities & Demigods after he colored in the all the illustrations of naked goddesses. True story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Because I haven't seen most of them. The first Rush Hour didn't quite hit my offens-o-meter, but I haven't seen it in about twenty years so there may be some parts that flew over my head. But from what I recall, it didn't fall into what I was talking about.

"Beverly Hills Cop" falls closer along what I meant. These are great movies! Really funny, and they unleashed Eddie Murphy onto the world (for better or worse), but at heart they're about a caricature of a Black cop/former thief and his two bumbling White side kicks. He's the hero! Because he's got a Past and Cross-class skill ranks and is more "street wise' than the other two (read: he's a Black person that has a skill set that Black lower class people are expected to have, like breaking and entering). These movies pull it off without venturing into offensive, but it could have gone wrong.

I'm lost on your reference to Pacific Rim. That was an international cast playing an international group of characters that are part of a multinational armed force in a movie set in one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Compare it to, say, the Godzilla movie in the late 90s.

That the director is Chinese is actually helping to quiet concerns about The Great Wall. Had the director been a Westerner, even one that showed a lot of deference to East Asian history and mythology, the cries of racism would have been much louder and a lot less confused than they are. Putting a White guy in a time and setting where White guys largely weren't is a weird choice. Weird choices tend to get questioned.

My point about Pacific Rim was that it was made for the international market, and no one seemed to mind the use of east asian motifs. And, yes, when a movie presents the two solutions to the Kaiju problem as building a huge wall to keep them out or fighting them in giant robots, it's using east asian motifs.

I guess I'm just saying I think it's a fuzzy boundary between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, and one that's in the eye of the beholder. Which, I hope everyone reading this understands, does not mean I believe that people are only allowed to be offended by the things that I find offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Kung Fu Joe wrote:

If Matt Damon is unacceptable in a Chinese-made movie set in China, is it equally unacceptable for, say, Jackie Chan to star in an American-made movie set in America? Just wondering what the limits are.

(That said, I don't like Matt Damon and don't understand why he's in the movie.)

Honestly, watch that YouTube clip Scythia posted. It does a great job of at least presenting the arguments and some of the historical forces at work for all three sides in this debate.

There were also a few phrases that made me genuinely cackle.

And to continue Thejeff's point, not only do Asian countries not have the background of culturally dominating uncouth Western countries, Western countries DO have a history of strip-mining the more palatable parts of non-European cultures and claiming them as their own. So there are possible contexts in which a Black or Asian elder coming into an American setting, teaching some backwards Americans how to do the thing, and proceed to save the day, might come off as culturally insensitive. In fact, except for the last step, there's quite a few tropes along those lines.

As an American minority myself, I have complicated feelings about the concept of cultural appropriation. Suffice to say, I don't necessarily agree with leftists on this one (and screw people that think a White person buying Mexican food is Cultural Appropriation YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PHRASE MEANS). But it is something that happens, and people do call it out. So depending on the context, Jackie Chan coming into an American setting and bestowing orientalized "wisdom" to us benighted savages could, yes, come off wrong.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, but why are you speaking hypothetically about a Jackie Chan movie instead of just telling us your opinion of Shanghai Noon, Shanghai Knights and the Rush Hour movies?

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this movie was produced for the international market, and we're demanding some sort of east asian purity because the director's name is Zhang Yimou instead of Guillermo Del Toro. Or maybe I just missed the discussion of cultural appropriation about Pacific Rim.


Andrew Marlow wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive the repost from the Books Thread:

Parable Of The Sower – Not 1984 – Is The Dystopia For Our Age

Quote:
Speaking to The Stream on Al Jazeera, Okorafor read from the African-American novelist’s 1998 sequel, the Nebula-winningParable of the Talents, which features a presidential candidate, Andrew Steele Jarret, who rises to power by promising, like Trump, to “make America great again,” and whose supporters are known to form mobs to burn and feather and tar those who don’t “quite match Jarret’s version of Christianity.”
That's far less impressive when you realize that the slogan dates way back to Ronald Reagan, and maybe even before then. And the whole "supporters who form mobs" reminds me more of what happened in Chicago broadcasted on facebook.

Almost, Andrew. I would point out there was a sequel to the work titled Parable of the Talents.

Doodles, I just don't want to hear it right now, let's just shave our bodies clean, dye our skins weird colors and burn buildings down 'cause we're all wacked out on PYRO, okay? :P


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Well it's not like I can get the starship Enterprise A to come pick us up and drop us off at the nearest star system...

So Mars is kind of it for me. Unless you know how build a ship that goes at/near or beyond the speed of light. Or can warp space. Cause I can't.

Seveneves had a O'Neill Cylinder local orbit type answer, but that would require a whole lot of work in the face of disaster, you know?


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Do you think hate speech legislation is required to counteract Trump's (yeah, I'll say his name) rhetoric? I'm a BIG fan of applying truth in advertising laws to political speech, but if you want to explain why hate speech legislation is a better idea, I'm totally willing to consider it.

How would you apply truth in advertising laws to his political speech?

I'm all for shutting down the fake news kind of thing as well, but a lot of hate rhetoric could skate by truth in advertising laws. It would also bog down nearly all political speech in constant lawsuits, I suspect. Or be so lax it would accomplish nothing.

I've been thinking it over for a little while, and I've sort of started to think that if nearly all political speech is bogged down by lawsuits so constantly that political figures make a conscious effort to speak honestly every time they open their mouths, the world (well, the US) would be a better place.

I'm honestly not sure how to apply truth in advertising to his political speech, but then, I'm not a lawyer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I don't know if that's an accurate assessment of Irontruth's position, I think he was just filling in a lull in activity on the thread to tell us about what he's been reading up on about hate speech for some paper he's writing.

Although, I do like the idea of using it against politicians using hate speech to contribute to the war on drugs and mass incarceration. Could we do so ex post facto?

The first part was definitely part of it. The more I see people's arguments against hate speech laws though, the more I'm convinced we need them, or at least to increase our awareness of what is hate speech and what effects it has.

I don't like using new laws against prior actions, it generally doesn't sit well with me to change the rules and then punish people for things done before the change. I would definitely use it going forward though.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Guys, take the First Amendment talk to another thread.

I stand by this being fully relevant. Many voters maybe didn't condone 45's rhetoric, but they implicitly looked the other way when they voted for him. Understanding how hate speech works, what it does and how to combat it could help in future elections. I don't mean this just as an electoral math, try to swing things sort of way, but actually moving the country to a better place sort of way.

The future of successful political party cannot be "how do we win next time?" It has to be "how do we make this a better place?"

I think working towards a less bigoted country fulfills the second question. You have to have ideas that will make people's lives better. I think this is one of them.

Do you think hate speech legislation is required to counteract Trump's (yeah, I'll say his name) rhetoric? I'm a BIG fan of applying truth in advertising laws to political speech, but if you want to explain why hate speech legislation is a better idea, I'm totally willing to consider it.

Edit: This post is not a snarky joke; my screen name is Hitdice, and I approve of this message.


Hm, so, well . . .

Now I want a Mandalore-centric sequel series.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Double standards? Hell, I dunno. Long before this thread mentioned The Last Samurai I was referring to Tom Cruise as "the gratuitous white guy."

On the other hand, if I were in his position and I had the chance to film a movie in Japan playing opposite Ken Watanabe, I'd do it; I don't think Matt Damon is going to do a single thing in The Great Wall that Andy Lau or Takeshi Kaneshiro couldn't do, but if I had a chance to act in martial artsy movie directed by the same guy as Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I'd do it. (Edit: actually, having looked at the cast on IMDB, I've found that Andy Lau is in The Great Wall, so we'll be able see who's kung fu is the best right there on screen in front of us.)

On the OTHER other hand, it disappoints me that there's an assumption that I, a white guy, am incapable of enjoying a movie unless there's at least one person in it who looks like me.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's certainly one theory, but we've tried the Democrats' "meet them halfway" approach, and we've watched the Republicans' "fight for all you've got" approach, and we've seen which one works. Maybe that's because the "fallacy" works. Maybe it's because incrementalism doesn't. Hard to say. Or, to be precise, hard to admit that we've led the party back to ruin over the last few decades.

Over the last few decades, though? We've only had one Republican President followed by a Democratic President in this millennium. When you say over the last few decades, you're talking about Clinton and Obama, or going all the way back to Carter?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

This is what Trump has right philosophically,

and that golden mean fallacy is how you wound up with trump. To keep pushing the envelope they had to keep promising crazier and crazier things.

And then someone believes the koolaid

Not just how you got Trump, but how you got half the Republican Caucus. The older, long term Senators and Representatives know it's supposed to be a con game you use to get into office. A lot of the newer ones grew up being conned and really believe it. That's why they're willing to do things like hold the budget or the debt ceiling hostage or try to actually kill Medicare and Social Security.

On friday I was listening to The Takeaway (NPR show, I'm liberal) and they aired a soundbite of a woman calling in to say, "I want to know how a judge can block the order of the President, who is trying to protect us." I flipped my fricken lid, right there in my studio and yelled, "Oh DAYUM, your voice sounds older than mine, you must have failed 8th grade social studies before I was even born!" Then I realized I was getting over excited and yelling at myself in an empty room, yes, like a crazy person.

My point is, it still surprises me just how uneducated the average citizen is about the function of the US government.


Aberzombie wrote:
I recently finished reading Gaiman's new Norse Mythology book. Not bad.

Any Shadow stuff? No spoilers please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.

That I absolutely agree with. The question is more whether it was an actual problem or just a perceived one.

The remedies are different.

Oh c'mon, you're talking like Trump said she was bought off by Goldman Sachs, and then filled his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives without releasing his tax returns!

. . . Y'know, or something. Too on the nose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'm going to repost this link from Fergie, because having read it, I think it really sums up why the Democratic Party has failed in the eyes of young and progressive voters.

I'm disappointed by how the Democratic Party has been handling itself of late. Putting aside the whole "Sanders would have won"/"DNC corruption is why Clinton lost" narrative*, this is an awful way to energize the party. If we're going to start fighting in local and small elections, the party needs to be enthusiastic. That means bringing young people and Bernie supporters—a group of people who were undeniably the most enthusiastic and passionate during the primary—back into the fold. And that means showing a real commitment to reform.

Keith Ellison will only really be symbolic, but he'd be a nice start.

*Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.

Speaking as someone who both contributed to Clinton's campaign and voted for her in both the primary and the general, I think following Obama with Clinton was a terrible, terrible move on the DNC's part. Obama, whatever your opinion of his Presidency, was a calm, cool and collected bright young thing, and we decided on Clinton, cause the kids these days looove Stern Old Ladies, can I get a holler back?!

Look, I don't know, I'm making this post immediately after watching Last Week Tonight, and running RuPaul in 2020 with the campaign slogan "Make America Fierce Again!" just might be the best idea I've heard so far, okay?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5e Mass Combat rules were published in an early UA, though I suppose that's neither here nor there to you at this late date.

I must agree with Steve about the encounter crafting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Clearly, fudging rolls upsets a whole lot of people, so maybe GMs should consider not doing it.

People get upset over all sorts of things in games, from someone sitting in their place (where they wanted to sit) to drinking all the milk to using the wrong dice to not having as much system knowledge as the viewer would want to .. well, you get the picture.

It's a matter of talking it out and figuring out why they are upset. Some things are fixable. Some things are not.

Not my MIIIILK!!!11!


Thanks for the speedy answer; for what it's worth, the book does present it in that meta-sort of way, but that just means I love the movie so much because I remember the book every time I watch it.

And, because I feel obliged to post a question, have you watched the FX series Atlanta, and if so, what is your opinion of it?


James Jacobs wrote:
Ifusaso wrote:
Who the better duelist? Inigo Montoya or Will Turner?
Will Turner, but only because I think that "The Princess Bride" is lame.

Not to put you on the spot, but could you explain your reasons for thinking so?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Not that we needed another demonstration of the baked in misogyny in this country, but some of you folks might have seen the Audi Superbowl commercial... the one with the girl with the soapbox derby.

Well Youtube has made it's dispeleasure known with 25,000 dislikes compared to 2,000 likes along with the following endearing comments.


"Can we start a petition to send these women to Saudi Arabia so they can experience true female oppression,"

"Tell your daughter to find a real man to marry, and to avoid the mistake that her mother made," says another upstanding citizen. "Tell her to buy a Dodge. "

"The wage gap does not exist," writes an expert on corporate finance. "There is no company that pays a woman less then a man for the same job."

I'm fully on board with the comment below>

The common theme in the comments is that this is liberal propaganda. Why? When did it become controversial to say that women should have the same rights as men? Have we stumbled through a Mario Warp Pipe into the Land of A!#+~$$s?

I've been wondering that since Trump's speech in Nevada, when he was heard exclaim, "I loooove the poorly educated," and the crowd went wild, and I was left thinking about how we used to be unhappy about being poorly educated, and want a better future for our children.

See, that's your problem right there. You assume that these people actually want or even understand what's best for their children's future. Hell, your assuming that they even want to be educated.

Never seem human decency in people you don't know.

I'm willing to assume they want a better future for their children, but have been misinformed as to how to accomplish said better future. (Yes, that means I think I know what will make for a better future for them better than they themselves do, I get the irony.)

At some point (post election) it occurred to me that the US is rather screwed by its large population. (The numbers in the following examples have been rounded for convenience.) For instance, 5% unemployment is about as low as the unemployment rate can get, but with a population of 300 million, that's 15 million people right there. My state (Rhode Island) has a population of 1 million. I think a lot of the people who voted for Trump because every single person they know is unemployed and the Democratic Party wasn't addressing their concerns at all weren't confused about the day to day experience of their lives, they just got talked into voting against their own interests.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to assume decency in people I don't know , but it seems a worse idea to assume indecency simply because I don't know them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Morgan Champion wrote:

Delightful, your last sentence should read "I don't know [b]how[b] you Americans like your Libertarianism". Sorry to be a pendant, but i'm getting really tired of people missing or misspelling words in sentences.

the internet where grammer go to dye.

Colour me gruntled. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

La Principessa and "The Snow Women"

Backstory Part One: "The Snow Women"

** spoiler omitted **

Backstory Part 2: The Weimar RepubLic of Lowell and the 2016 Democratic National Convention

** spoiler omitted **

Those snow women were pretty badass with their snowballs, though, am I right?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Not that we needed another demonstration of the baked in misogyny in this country, but some of you folks might have seen the Audi Superbowl commercial... the one with the girl with the soapbox derby.

Well Youtube has made it's dispeleasure known with 25,000 dislikes compared to 2,000 likes along with the following endearing comments.


"Can we start a petition to send these women to Saudi Arabia so they can experience true female oppression,"

"Tell your daughter to find a real man to marry, and to avoid the mistake that her mother made," says another upstanding citizen. "Tell her to buy a Dodge. "

"The wage gap does not exist," writes an expert on corporate finance. "There is no company that pays a woman less then a man for the same job."

I'm fully on board with the comment below>

The common theme in the comments is that this is liberal propaganda. Why? When did it become controversial to say that women should have the same rights as men? Have we stumbled through a Mario Warp Pipe into the Land of A!#+~$$s?

I've been wondering that since Trump's speech in Nevada, when he was heard exclaim, "I loooove the poorly educated," and the crowd went wild, and I was left thinking about how we used to be unhappy about being poorly educated, and want a better future for our children.


Pan wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?
Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter

I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!

I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.

I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.

Indeed, I think the entire election cost Clinton the election. I just get bummed out when I hear people saying that Biden could have won, or Sanders could have won; given how narrow Trump's victories in the battleground states were, Clinton could have won.

. . . Not to Tuesday-Morning-Quarterback the election; YAY PATS!!!11!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?
Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter

I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!

I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.


Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, there was also that moment a week before the election when FBI Director Comey just popped in to let everyone know that Anthony Weiner, Democratic Party Perv Par Excellence might have sort of pervy pictures on a computer they hadn't bother to check for top secret emails that Clinton was not criminally negligent with, JUST SAYIN'.

That felt less like marketing than full on malfeasance.

Oh dear, I've started ranting again.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Samy wrote:
In my bubble, both of those are exceeded in number by people who want jobs.

So they voted for the party that when it was last in power produced the worst job losses since the Great Depression and against the party that had just provided the longest streak of continuous job growth ever recorded.

How can anyone not see the flaw in this plan?

Marketing.

It's important to remember that Clinton had a primary opponent up until the debate. I honestly believe that, had Clinton been running unopposed from the time Trump was, the battle ground states where Trump won by narrow margins would have been far more embattled. (I mean embattled in the best way possible here.)

I think it's overly simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election, but I think it's completely unrealistic to believe that a third party candidate who changed party affiliation for the length of the Democratic primary and then switched back would have sailed to victory.

I've said earlier in this thread that we have to stop selling ourselves as the party of diversity and inclusion and operating under the assumption that people will vote for our candidates just because we're pure of heart. I hope no one took that to mean I think we should be less inclusive or diverse; what I meant was, during the the last election, Trump completely took ownership of the border wall, when we should have had Democrats pointing out that there are already 500 miles of border wall constructed, so why don't go take your seat back at the kiddie table while the grown-ups are talking you f**king child? So, yeah, marketing.

Um, too much?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Don't know what you mean.

I compromise on politics all the time. For example, last night, at the Solidarity Lowell meeting where the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity around abortion rights, white supremacy, and indigenous genocide.

Gotta say, can't really see how the "identity politics" Democrats are any better than the "class politics" Democrats.

I don't want to spin off into a flame war, but describing it as "the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity" doesn't exactly sound like you're speaking in the spirit of compromise.

I didn't even realize the Democrats had polarized into class and identity camps.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I didn't realize the Bush administration tanked the economy on its own. Could have sworn there was bipartisan support for both the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act when Bill signed them.
There was also bipartisan support for the huge shift of government power from Wall Street to terrorism. That lack of oversight that started in the early 2000's really didn't help out later that decade. However, following an attack like 9/11, it's somewhat understandable.

Compromise on politics isn't exactly Doodlebug's strong suit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Miscommunication traps? On the internet?! I'll never forgive you!!!11! ;)


Beckett, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if none of the candidates/parties were compelling enough to win your vote, how was Clinton any weaker a candidate that Johnson, Stein or Trump? Or are you just speaking hypothetically about a specific party from a perspective of complete disaffection?


DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know Beckett; this was a race where there was a recording of one candidate describing how he used his position to sexually assault women and the other was a woman. I'm not saying your guy didn't win, but it's tough for me to believe sexism was was so extremely marginal that it was irrelevant.


Death camps? Of course not, but what about just, y'know, concentration camps, say, somewhere outside the legal jurisdiction of US law, maybe someplace we've leased from a communist government. 'Cause Comrade Obama did his level best to shut Guantanamo Bay, but during the campaign Trump was much more of the opinion, "Close Gitmo? Hell no, fill it back up!!!11!"

I don't believe there's a one to one correspondence between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's election, I just think saying, "Meh, the pendulum will swing back eventually," is naive. Bannon has a political agenda. Trump hasn't displayed the political ability to make me think he's remotely capable of dealing with the responsibilities of his office. That's not a good mix.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Please. It's just the Democrats turn. In 2009, everyone was wringing their hands and asking about the future of the Republican party. In 2025, we'll probably be doing it again. Americans have short memories. They nearly always re-elect the incumbent (yes, that probably means eight years of Trump), and then swap over to the other party. It happened to Obama, and Bush before him, and Clinton before him. Assuming we still have elections in 2024, it'll likely happen again then, too.

And yes, I do mean if we still have elections. Voters are being gerrymandered and court-packed into irrelevance. Look at South Dakota. The ultimate realization of this trend toward totalitarianism will be to no longer bother with the pretense of voting.

Have a nice day. :P

Having watched Trump do his best to invalidate both Obama and Clinton as candidates, I'm truly truly scared of what he will do to opposition candidates with the power of the presidency. Now I find out that Bannon, who's been given a seat on the NSC, subscribes to some sort of cyclical apocalyptic ideology? I'm honestly terrified of what the next four years could bring.

In the time since Trump won the election, but before he took office, I was spending a lot of time thinking about how world spanning empires don't last forever, but they can adapt. The British Empire, for instance doesn't exist anymore, but it's still the same Houses of Parliament and Monarchy in the UK, and, snide comments about Brexit aside, it's a functioning government. Since Trump actually took office, I'm thinking about how the Weimar Republic led to the Third Reich, and how that all ended.

I don't mean to overstate the case, or Godwin the thread, that's my honest opinion at the moment. I don't mean to start a flame war with you Bugley, but I think saying it's just the Democrats turn to be out of power underestimates the current situation.


Pan wrote:
Interesting story about Bannon Hoping the Dem party can start to unite folks to stop the chaos.

As disgusted as I am, I'm completely unsurprised.


I believe I heard that this morning Kobold, and formed a similar, if less experiential, opinion to your father's.


I think the effect of the basket of deplorables comment is being overestimated by just about everyone who mentions it. It was used a rallying cry, sure; even here in blue, blue Rhode Island there were Trump supporters with "Proud Deplorable" lawn signs. But I haven't talked to anyone (and I mean that literally literally, not one single individual in person or online) who's vote was changed by it.


thejeff wrote:
archmagi1 wrote:

My real question is if they're gonna use the actual wording from the books on some stuff. Jihad is a bit of a hit button word these days and Dune is chock full of jihad and holy war terrorism. It will be interesting to see what direction the studio lets villenueve take this.

I mean washing over the holy war aspect like the lynch version seems too safe, but can we expect a story that has half of its pages dedicated to a messianic figure waging an insurgency holy war against foreign oppressors to even make it to screen in an alternative facts world?

Especially when the desert dwelling fanatic terrorists are the good guys!

You make your battle drums from the skins of your enemies a couple of times, and it's all anyone ever talks about . . . *sigh*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I don't think redrawing state line in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

They don't need an amendment for that.

There has been an effort in the works for years to get states to agree to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the national (rather than state) popular vote. Several states have signed on, but the agreement only goes in to effect once they've gotten states representing a majority of the electoral votes to join.

The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.

Ergo yes... there IS a link between gerrymandering and control of the electoral college. Without gerrymandering the GOP would not control as many state governments as they do, and if those state governments shifted there might be enough Democrat controlled states to change how electoral college votes are apportioned.

Of course... Republicans are now trying to shift it the other way. In Virginia and other states they control they are looking to change the rules to apportion electoral college votes based on the number of counties won rather than the popular vote... which would create an even MORE direct link between gerrymandering and the electoral college. Essentially, this would reduce the number of electoral college votes Democrats get in states that vote Democrat in national elections, but Republican in state elections.

My point is, introducing an amendment would bring the debate to the national stage. We need to start thinking bigger than just being inclusive and diverse and hoping everyone will flock to us because we're pure of heart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.

I'm not saying that gerrymandering isn't an important issue to address, I'm just saying that it isn't the SAME issue as the electoral college.

I don't disagree, but I think the stonewalling of Merrick Garland shows how gerrymandering can literally have an effect on the electoral college. Like, literally literally, not figuratively literally.

I don't think redrawing state lines in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.


Threeshades wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


The DMG has examples of renaissance, modern and futuristic weapons. Their version of burst fire is all targets in a 10 foot cube within weapon range must succeed at a DC 15 Dexterity Save or take normal weapon damage, which costs 10 rounds of ammunition.

Yes I'm aware of that. They would have that feature as well in my version although probably with a lower DC.

Quote:
However, the automatic rifle is the only weapon with that property (not even the shotgun has it, which is weird given the existence of buck and bird shot, don't ask me)

It's almost like the writers have seen what those types of ammunitions in real shotguns are like and decided to go with that. (the only way to hit more than one target with a single bird- or buckshot shell is to have them stand shoulder to shoulder and aim directly where they are touching)

Quote:
which means that a tommy gun and a Kalashnikov have exactly the same stats, so you'll probably want something with a little more variety.

If you want a full-fledged modern setting, yes. In this setting you will probably not find an assault rifle the way we know them today.

Quote:
That's my long winded way of saying I like your idea.
Thanks!

Sure, but a ten foot cube is standing shoulder to shoulder in D&D terms. :P

More seriously, I just wanted to let you know that I also like your idea of reflavoring magic items as futuristic tech. Whether a wand of magic missiles regains 1d6+1 charges at dawn because it's magic, or because it's powered by a miniaturized cold fusion reactor seems like a nonissue, so I say go for it.


Threeshades wrote:

Starfinder will certainly be something I want to look into both for its own sake and this idea. Same goes for the Numeria material.

The 40k universe is not at all what I had in mind thematically. Yes it shares the "technology is mystical" feel, but I'm talking about a world more like the mentioned numenera setting. Everything is scifi. 40k's idea of the warp, daemons and psychics borders too closely on magic. Also tech can be reliably reproduced there and space travel is extremely common, whereas in the setting i'm proposing it will also just be something that has left its mark on the world, but cannot be done reliably anymore.

Automatic weapons, especially futuristic ray guns and such will be just as rare as magic items are in the base game. The VAST majority of what the people of the setting's present can produce is going to be medieval level, they just have all this ancient technology laying about which they may or may not have figured out how to use.

I have had ideas for automatic weapons in D&D before though. It's based on shadowrun's system. You can use them to fire concentrared bursts which expend 5 shots of ammunition and allow you to add your Strength instead of Dex to attack and damage rolls (you use your strength to brace the weapon and keep it on the target, to make sure that as many bullets as possible hit the target)

The DMG has examples of renaissance, modern and futuristic weapons. Their version of burst fire is all targets in a 10 foot cube within weapon range must succeed at a DC 15 Dexterity Save or take normal weapon damage, which costs 10 rounds of ammunition. However, the automatic rifle is the only weapon with that property (not even the shotgun has it, which is weird given the existence of buck and bird shot, don't ask me) which means that a tommy gun and a Kalashnikov have exactly the same stats, so you'll probably want something with a little more variety.

That's my long winded way of saying I like your idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David M Mallon wrote:

Kēlen is a constructed language created by linguist Sylvia Sotomayor. It is an attempt to create a truly alien language by violating a key linguistic universal—namely that all human languages have verbs. In Kēlen, relationships between the noun phrases making up the sentence are expressed by one of four relationals. In its concultural setting, Kēlen is spoken by an alien species (the Kēleñi).

At the third Language Creation Conference, a Smiley Award was awarded to to Kēlen, describing it as "an engineered language with the soul of an artistic language". While its experimental structure is in many ways similar to an engineered language, the amount of linguistic and concultural detail given by Sotomayor (including inflection of the relationals, three different scripts, and information on Kēleñi culture and society such as a calendar and a method of divination) make it a fully fledged artistic project rather than a simple experiment. Kēlen also comes with its own writing system, which bears a superficial resemblance to Devanagari.

David, have you ever read a novella by Water Jon Williams called Surfacing? The colonist humpback whales can relate to the indigenous deep sea species because both share a relational language. The human xeno-linguistic expert's life is a mess; he just wants to hang out on his yacht, but that's not a realistic possibility.

...

Look, I would rather have posted this to a books thread, but we are we are, okay?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Y'know, it's funny: there's a thread exactly like this on over on ENWorld, but it's in the 5e subforum. Over there, I'm all, "Well, 5e Paladins have to live by the tenets of their oath, but there's no requirement of LG alignment mentioned in the class description, so rules lawyer one as you will; have fun!" On the Paizo boards, on the other hand, I got nothing. Paladins are LG, as stated in the CRB, end of discussion.


Kjeldorn wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
All any of the posters here can do is agree or disagree, and that makes any issue flame-bait.

*sigh*

'twas ever thus...

*looks around for his anti-depressants*

I don't think it's quite that bad. There are posters here I've come to respect because of their willingness explain their points of view in further depth, and others who have impressed me by accepting my apologies for my own douchebaggery.

I enjoyed the political threads, I just think it's unrealistic to expect Paizo to miantain them when polithread moderation is a full time job and all the Paizo employees are employed full time making RPG stuff.


Then take it up with the Mods, RainyDay.

Edit: That is, I have rather huge problems with equating the two, but given the spirit and/or letter of the polithread ban, don't feel it's appropriate to go into them here. In addition, Paizo staffers themselves recommend contacting them over issues with board moderation rather than playing "NO YOU!" with other posters, so that's what I'd recommend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's just a bad idea to assign motives to other people rather than respond to their statements.

I'd like to see political threads reopened on these boards, but fully understand Paizo's inability/unwillingness to provide the moderation necessary to keep them civil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One week closer to full mystic, that's all I'm thinking.

I like horizon walker at first glance, but anytime one playing at my table uses Portal lore, everything's going to get very labyrinth-ey; it's a feature not a bug, my players will finally understand how much effort I put into all three dimensions of dungeon design! Primeval Guardian, well, I've never felt a burning need to play a weretreat, but okay, I get it. Scout is weird, if only because I really enjoyed the 3.5 scout, but that class was designed around a whole lot of 3.5 design quirks that 5e has dealt with differently. I like the idea of a nature rogue, and think this is a good example.

ONE WEEK CLOSER TO FULL MYSTIC!!!11!

1 to 50 of 3,657 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.