|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You mean when Runequest was published, or other TSR systems like Gamma World and Boot Hill? :P
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but the Log Cabin Republicans are doing right! ;)
James Jacobs wrote:
I know I'm wandering into dangerous, talking-down-your-own-brand territory here, but are there any Paizo-created monsters you consider well crafted but flumph-level goofy?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Do you think that's a problem with the ambiguity between Wis and Cha, or with mating skills to specific ability scores? In early D&D Wisdom was Cleric's prime requisite (Which I'm fine with; strong fighters, dexterous thieves, intelligent wizards, ahem, magic-users and wise clerics, it works) but Wisdom had nothing to do with avoiding surprise. In 3e/PF the ability score that makes a cleric oh-so-clerical makes joe average NPC good at a ton of other stuff which is not at all divine in nature, just as a fact of the game mechanics.
Majik Mouf wrote:
Oh for crying out loud, perceived by whom? I am extremely skeptical that anyone with any political power whatsoever thinks they should stay away from the Paizo off topic message boards because our opinions are biased.
NPC Dave wrote:
Which "people in politics" have you seen "fold when the media turns against them?" Please offer specific examples.
Also, when did fighting dirtier become courageous? Cowards fight dirty.
Uh, maybe that's a conversation that should be conducted in PM, just so the thread isn't locked?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's what makes it a conspiracy, C'MON!! :P
Spastic Puma wrote:
Closed primaries in your state, Puma? In Rhode Island we have open primaries, but (twist!) you are automatically affiliated with your candidate-of-choice's party. I have found it pleasantly expedient to vote my conscious in the primary and just take the party affiliation, thereby avoiding a ton of general election season phone calls from unaffiliated nut-job candidates. (No insult to any nut-jobs reading this.)
I don't think that old school vs new school is arbitrary so much as completely D&D-centric, because D&D is one of the few brands out there that decide to cure their success with previous editions by complete revamping their game mechanics. Though I am curious whether there would have been a similar fan creator reaction after Traveller: The New Era was published if the OGL had existed at the time.
I can't say I've played The Quiet Year, but from your description it sounds like a story game, which falls completely outside my "AD&D vs Pathfinder" scale. How do you think Goblinoid Games' republication of Pacesetter system games after establishing their company with Labyrinth Lord, a B/X retroclone, relates to the D&D based OSR?
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :P
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The most disappointing part, for me, was when Mike equates both Presidential candidates to the same level of malfeasance.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I thought about what it would be like if we had a D&D system of alignment running the government. It might work better...
I bet there'd be immediate bipartisan cooperation to return to the original Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic system, removing good and evil from consideration entirely. :P
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but doesn't that mean he should have apologized way, way before the current election cycle? I'm very curious about how this Sunday's debate will end up, but at this point it seems The Donald has damned himself to a hell of his own previous statements.
I'm just worried because it's pretty obvious that he's tempering the tone of his campaign to appeal to the centrist voter. ;P
I'd actually say the Morgaine link is less tenuous, given that one of the section of the introduction to the first book is a Union Science Bureau brief, but I'm afraid pointing that out will set you off on a rant about how there should be no walls between hard science fiction, space opera and heroic fantasy because you hate and detest segregated sub-genres. ;)
And yeah, totally, Dan. Actually, given the examples of human beings surviving jump without jump drugs in a few Alliance-Union books, I've just decided to believe that the are the same universe no matter what the author says.
I added quote tags for clarity's sake, hope you don't mind.
I didn't say start WW3 or become a dictator, I said misuse the power of office in the worst way possible. "Possible" doesn't equate to the nightmare scenarios you mentioned, it means what's actually possible. I don't think Trump understands the function of the office of the President well enough to do anything but abuse it.
Do you honestly believe Trump has displayed the patience and analytical ability required effectively review presidential overreach?
Tripoint and Finity's End are sequels to Downbelow Station set 15-20 years later, too. Just about everything she wrote previous to the Foreigner series fits into the Alliance-Union setting in one way or another. The introduction to Cyteen, for instance, mentions Earth having discovered xenophobic alien races, who the reader will recognize as the Compact Space species from the Chanur series.
I enjoy the hell out of the Foreigner books, but I miss Alliance-Union.
I don't think Trump will have far less or far more freedom (whatever that means) than Clinton if elected President, I think Trump will misuse the power of office in the worst way possible.
The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.
I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong about state level representation, but the tea party has taken over the Republican party Presidential nomination process by running their candidates as Republican at a local level. That approach seems much more expedient than amending the state constitution, you know?
Trump and Sanders should have, by all rights, run as third party candidates. (I will, for the sake of civility, refrain from naming either hypothetical party.) It seems extremely disingenuous to blame the choice of individual voters when one of the Democratic primary candidates and the Republican Presidential candidate have chosen major party name brand recognition over their own political identity.
tl;dr: I'm not trying to beat the game, I just want my candidate of choice to be elected as President.
I certainly didn't mean to endorse being polite and courteous to only Paizo mods and staffers, if that's how I came across.
I don't disagree Wormy, but the post I was responding to specifically mentioned posters knowing "where they stand when they are in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team." Sure, tone is tough to interpret on the interment, so sarcasm gets taken seriously more often than it should, but if you're behaving badly (with a mod particularly, but any with any poster) you're standing at the center of a bullseye.
I've had my share of arguments with other posters, but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous to to be argumentative and feign innocence. I have no problem's with the moderation as is. All my deleted posts have deserved deletion, and I've never been PM'd, suspended or banned; take that for what you will.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Given the alternative, how is anything you described in the first paragraph Clinton-victory dependent?
I haven't read Embassytown, but I loved The City & The City. I spent the entire book thinking, "It can't be a coincidence, this dude's read Wave Without a Shore." So, who knows.
Jessica Price wrote:
I find this hilarious because just the other week I was leaving the liquor store with a six pack in each hand (this is a story in which I am very, very classy looking, okay) and I had to stand next to the door waiting for an elderly woman with a single bottle of wine to process the concept that my male gender wasn't going to magic the door open for her. I certainly didn't take an insult once she realized, though I'm honestly not sure I bothered to thank her at that point.
It's also important to remember that President Obama himself said "Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of not being able to say n*%*!% in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not." (I know, that's inflammatory language, but I'm trusting the profanity filter to catch it, and those are the President's exact words.)
I'm not so sure you can't be openly proud to be a bigot anymore. You can certainly get away with coded terms like "urban" and "thug," and that's the least of the behavior Trump has displayed. That's not to say that things haven't improved since the days of Jim Crow, but there's still progress to be made, and we're going through an extremely reactionary period at the moment.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Drahliana, do you honestly believe it's about Trump vs Sanders faithful? I think it's about the undecideds, no insult intended.
This time I read the banner, and it's from the Miami Herald, not the Onion! #thecomeback
I haven't worked through the entire thread, but I will say I find Paizo mods more willing than typical board mods to explain the reasons for their moderation. I've dealt with forums (yes, I took Latin and forums is a glaring fricken error when it should properly be "fora," but whatever, I'm going for comprehension, not smartness of pants) where posts are deleted and posters are banned with no explanation whatsoever. Paizo mods usually post their reasons for removing posts and forgive innocent mistakes. I mean, Paizo mods also seem completely fricken merciless when it comes to feigned innocence from trolls, but that's as it should be.
I'd be much more willing to give him the benefit of doubt if the words "just" and "all" hadn't been used. "There are a few bad, deeply ingrained prejudices giving cops a bad name," is actually a statement I agree with. When you add the "just" and the "all," it reads more like "If you actually do the math, there haven't been that many riots caused by police violence."
I disagree. I think both union elimination and universal body camera requirement would see so many legal challenges that neither can be accomplished. I think they're both impossible. (Not hyperbolically impossible, actually impossible.)