Lady Aurora's page

We've been playing 20 years with the DM (me 99% of the time) keeping track of the PC's hps. It totally avoids metagaming and is more realistic. I let the players know when their characters are at half strength, down to single digits (I don't play 4e so I'm not sure about the specifics for "bloodied"). I allow PCs to learn their exact hps by succeeding at a healing check but otherwise they get a rather vague -"you're not feeling so well" or "you're feeling - 'I ain't got time to bleed!'" It works great for us and always has. The extra bookkeeping is not significant (to me anyway). I highly recommend it.

From my perspective I think your sort of missing the point. I can agree with you that trying to define whether the Romans were good or evil is a big pain in the butt and probably not worth doing.

Nonetheless I think 'good' characters should have access to some very sweet powers. Essentially its a carrot from the DM to encourage some of his players to take good characters. For the DM having at least some good characters is often a real bonus because they are easily motivated to continue with the adventure risking life and limb.

If we look at the APs, including the ones in Dungeon and continuing along with the ones done for Pathfinder, I think one will quickly note that...

Besides, I think alignment has always gotten a bad rap. I happen to really like it and am disappointed that apparently it's so unpopular that the powers that be seek to minimize it or phase it out completely. I know this issue has been discussed to death in past threads but I think alignment is less of a prison (constraining a PCs actions) and more of a ladder (to advance a PCs actions).

My rating would change based on what kind of map I'm forced to produce. I do hand-drawn outdoor maps that I like just as well as some products you buy. I'd give myself a 6 or 7 for forests, cornfields, swamps, and the like. I'd give myself about a 2 on anything else. I can make a nice map with Dunjinni but I'm so slow with it, it's almost never worth the effort (the exception being ships). I spent entire days designing and printing a full scale model of the restored miner's shack from Age of Worms that the players were using as a base. All that ink and effort later, it wasn't worth it for the use I got out of it. I think mapping, for me anyway, is just one of those sucky elements of the game. Caves or rocky mountain ledges with gradients and dramatic height differences are impossible for me to create in full scale (usable with miniatures). Mapping just stinks.

This is a shameless love post. I was happy to receive my Descent into Midnight adventure. I had intended to cancel my subscription before Second Darkness, but then ... who can resist the draw of Drow? But when my final installment arrived, I thought "*Now* I can finally cancel my subscription". After all, these things aren't cheap and I have tons of material already. I don't really *need* another adventure path but ...alas, I'm hooked again. I've always had a soft spot for adventures with Arabian flavor. Just flipping through, the art of Haiten Bhaq had caught my eye. Now not only dare I not cancel my subscription, I'm fairly drooling for the Legacy of Fire! Paizo, you've done it again. I can't wait to explore the delicious possibilities!

I had a death in the family last summer which lead to a rather chaotic six months financially. I appreciated the emails I received from Paizo informing me that some of my subscription orders couldn't be filled. But now all that's resolved. I appreciate the "pending" service you provide but I can't remember how to resubmit the orders. Specifically, I'm interested in order#978661 from July 2008 and order #1048363 from September. Can you resubmit those orders with my regular payment method please?

The chain golem has nice size and heft with interesting detail but I agree that its inclusion in this pack seems ... contrived. Did someone in R&D have a secret hard-on for such a creature? Time and money would've been better spent on a giant (as per the series title) than this thing which will never have a chance to see daylight in the D&D tabletop play (although I suppose those who play the mini game can use it). More classics in your game packs please! Less obscure contrivances.

Accentuating the positive and downplaying or flat out obscuring the negative isn't underhanded marketing. It's just marketing. In order to sell maximum product companies would logically want consumers exposed to the maximum level of positive influence.
Only allowing positive reports from its NDA-restricted playtesters (or any playtesters, for that matter) makes perfect sense to me. I don't personally find such actions immoral or unethical.
Bribing or strong-arming reviewers is a different matter but has anyone actually accusing WOTC with this practice? I don't think so.
Now if you want to talk underhanded... I would consider their practices over on the WotC website in this department. Quickly deleting negative comments about 4E and/or, worse, banning those with dissenting opinions from the messageboards altogether just plain sucks. Sure, there are a few individuals who need censorship for their foul, offensive delivery of overblown emotional comments but they should be a rarity. Not allowing your own customers to discuss their preferences or opinions in an open forum is not just unfair ... it's poor business and, I think, reflects on the poor integrity of the company.

I think what's interesting about the *possible* 4E monster design philosophy is that it's a complete reversal of the 3.x philosophy. WOTC sold its customers that PCs and monsters needed to work under the exact same ruleset and mechanics. A big selling point was supposed to be that PCs could do anything monsters could do and vice versa. Another big selling point was these supposedly easier, more intuitive connections between HD and Con/Fort saves, AC and Dex/Ref saves, etc., etc. Now WOTC is doing a complete 180 and decreeing that the essential elements that made 3.x what it is are now glaring problems that are unneccessarily complex and restrictive.
Just interesting to me, that's all.

I will grant you that this whole hide/seek ridiculousness that WOTC is pulling is new. I think we saw a glimpse of this terrible policy when they cancelled the printed versions of Dragon & Dungeon magazines. It was like "We're chucking out this profitable and incredibly useful resource for our beloved game and replacing it with something else. This something else is cool, trust us. But we're not going to provide you with anything but the barest hints about what our mysterious 'something else' is."
After a time, they did reveal this digital initiative, but hiding it before that point was just plain stupid, IMO. It hints at no product confidence or at least terrible preparedness to play such childish games with the fanbase's emotions.
We're seeing this same cloak & dagger routine repeated for 4E. Did they learn nothing from the magazine backlash?
I don't deny that the 1999 Dragon mag articles went a long way in smoothing the road for the 2nd/3.0 conversion. They were well-written, IMO, and fairly clear about what they were doing and what it would look like. That's not my complaint. My complaint, in part, is that they initially ignored and then became beligerent about honestly expressed concerns about the traditions, the "feel", and the basic future of the game. It got so bad that they threw subtly out the window and pretty much bluntly said, "Get on board or shut up." I think I would've been much more satisfied if they had said from the beginning, "We're coming out with a new edition as a neccessary business plan. We know that it will offend some and that not all the changes we make will appeal to everyone but we'd appreciate your input and we're excited to tell you about our plans." Instead, they played this game where they presented the new edition initially as a hypothetical and while tolerating nay-sayers for a short time, essentially responded to the resistance of a new edition by a significant portion of their fanbase with "Well, this is what we're doing. Deal with it." If a whole new edition was really what their market research had lead them to, then why not showcase those studies or release the pertinent data? Simple. Because it was all about their business plan and not an interest in what might be good for the game itself. Now, in hindsight, this seems like a moot point because ultimately the introduction of 3.x accomplished both goals. It's wise to remember though, that their success in that venture was not a given at the time.
It amuses me that so many posters on this board seem to circle around to the "they're only doing this for the money" complaint. I'm sorry to offend but... wake up and smell the coffee, people! WOTC is a company like any other and though I personally think their ethics are lacking, it is not inherently evil for them to have a business plan focused on making money. I admit that back during the 2nd/3rd conversion, I didn't fully understand this concept since my emotions had me all riled up. Here's how it works (I know others have posted this same thing on this very thread but here it is again for your convenience...) WOTC makes the most money on their core books, especially the PHB. The problem with books is that they can last for the lifetime of the consumer. Revisions, errata, splatbooks, modules, upgrades, etc sell to a certain percentage but everybody engaged in this hobby is going to buy the current PHB (in theory). So the only way to rake in serious bucks is to release a NEW set of core books at regular intervals. This new set can't just have new artwork and a sprinkling of new/revised rules. That won't get every last member of the targetted audience to purchase your product. It has to be radically different, so different that a hobbiest feels compelled to purchase it or be "out of the loop".
Many people on these boards complain that many of the changes, especially to fluff, seem to be changes for the sake of change. I believe this is absolutely true. Like I said, they HAVE to make it radically different in order for people to feel compelled to buy.
The argument that the time intervals between these new editions is steadily shrinking is a valid one. Obviously, WOTC's financial situation and the strength of the hobby controls this. I'm not sure what we, as gamers, can really do about that (besides complain impotently).
In regards to comments about imagining this investment would be the last, that's all wishful thinking. I'd like diamonds and a horse but, hey, ain't gonna happen! And to the question of why we as gamers should invest hundreds/thousands of dollars into a product that will be totally reenvisioned/rereleased in less than a decade... well, it's not a great answer but... because that's the "nature of the beast" with DnD marketing. WotC might suck as a company but no other company would do it any differently.

This thread got me thinking - what is Paizo doing to make its adventures appeal to more female players?

- Female characters on the covers of Pathfinder (and not a chainmail bikini in sight).

- Major plot elements that are most applicable and fun if there is at least one female in the group (e.g. Aldern Foxglove).

- Female NPCs filling a wide variety of roles, including competent heroes/allies (Shalelu, Ameiko), notable villains (Mammy Graul, Xanesha, Nualia), and a variety of other roles (Shayliss Vinder); basically, including the whole range of roles, not just the positive ones, so that all of them are that much more believable.

- Providing a large number of named NPCs (male and female) with complex and interesting back-stories; and doing the same for locations and communities. (E.g. the "late unpleasantness" in the intro to Sandpoint - very useful in describing the game to a prospective new player). (Story depth instead of stereotypes carries over into how the players perceive everything else in the game.)

- And in general, treating men and women matter-of-factly as part of the setting, as equally likely to be in postitions of authority, rather than having women clearly be second class citizens (Calimshan) or rarely mentioned (my general impression of Greyhawk), or having powerful women always mentioned as sex-symbols in addition to being whatever else they might be (Seven Sisters)

I'm a woman - wait!...let me check, um...yeah, I'm a woman (whew!) and I'm not particularly insulted by the questions nor, really, by their lame answers. I am annoyed, but only mildly so, at their continued philosophy regarding female players. Like has already been stated in earlier posts, it seems odd that they aren't equally concerned about other minorities. But my opinion of WOTC's handling of this issue has long been poor. I find it insulting that they changed from using all male pronouns in the core books with their lovely little disclaimer to a confusing mix of male/female pronouns with the female overwhelming & purposefully used in typically male roles and vice versa. A male witch, a female pirate? Such obvious pandering is what I find insulting. I've played DnD pretty much from the beginning so I guess I'm not the best person to judge what it takes to draw a woman/girl into gaming in the first place; but I still find it insulting to think that changing a pronoun would suddenly cause thousands (millions?) of women to say, "Ahh, NOW I can finally play this game 'cause, you know, I've just been waiting for those female pronouns!". Now, I haven't read this Confessions book, which is fine since it wasn't marketed to me, but it seems like just another example in a long line of lame attempts to appeal to an audience that, bottomline, RPGs simply don't appeal to across a wide margin.

BTW, Last Rogue, you need to get out more...
The NFL is equally insulting in their attempts to draw in a female audience with their ever-increasing use of unqualified female on-the-field commentators (which they further emphasize by putting their name on the bottom of the tv screen everytime they utter a word) as if this is going to make a largely male-oriented game more appealing to the female audience. I should've prefaced this by saying I personally love football. I just don't need NASCAR or the NFL or WOTC, for that matter, to shameless pander to what they (wrongly) perceive are "girly" interests.

Whew! Just sat down and read all 13 pages and I'm so glad I FINALLY get to respond!
Some of my thunder was stolen by Dangerdwarf's comments as I was originally planning on commenting what short memories all you self-professed oldtimers have. Everything that is happening now is nothing new for WOTC and their evil marketing/PR department. In fact, as much as it's a bitter pill to swallow - their insulting, illogical marketing schemes have proved highly sucessful in the past and bear no evidence of reasons to be abandoned.
Let me focus for a moment on the OP and say that I, personally, have no hate for 4E nor much respect for those who can't channel their passions a bit more constructively. This is not to say that I don't share their passion for the game and for the abominable way WOTC is handling this whole situation, it's just that it needn't be repeatedly expressed in what I personally view as a childish, unproductive manner.
Now, to my point about WOTC and their lousy PR...
Probably some of the reason that I'm not a 4E hater is that my heart is still deeply scarred by the whole 2ndE/3.x debacle. I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and wasn't particularly ruffled by the transition from 1st ed. to 2nd. Part of this was probably because when 2nd ed came out the company didn't bash its valued fanbase or insult its original edition. I'm not sure what percentage of gamers abandoned the hobby with 2nd ed or continued to faithfully play 1st ed, but for me the game continued in its "traditions" and was lots more fun to play. Part of the reason that I was so offended when 3.0 was introduced was because WOTC marketed it as the *only* fun and "cool" (that lovely word) way to play. They spent 90% of their energy and focus (completely made-up statistic) insulting 2nd edition and saying what total and utter crap it was. They were, IMO, very interested in "dumbing down" the whole gaming process with their incessant claims that THAC0 and other mechanics were just too complicated for anyone to use. The direction many now decry as disappointing and computer-based was very much in motion with 3.0. WOTC had the exact same philosophy then that they are exhibiting now - this whole "let me tell you how you *should* be playing. Your way is not cool or fun. Our new-fangled way is the only *real* way to have fun and to be the versatile character that every cool person really *wants* to be. What? You say this doesn't appeal to you? Well, that's because you're stupid and old and your opinions are irrelevant. Go away!" All I wanted back then was a little respect for the traditions of the game, the mythology, the "feel" as it is so often referred to recently on these boards but all I got was scorn and derision. I, personally, don't want or need everyone to have access to magical abilities. I don't want my dwarves to be wizards or nonthieves to have thieving abilities. But the thing I found most offensive was the entire attitude of WOTC that old grognards like me were an anachranism and that anyone with a brain or any "coolness" whatsoever would never play such a broken system as 2nd ed. There were admittedly some parts of 3rd Ed that I was mildly interested in but their blatantly antagonistic marketing and philosophy made me reject the idea of joining the bandwagon. Just like the current arguers, I thought, "Why do we need a whole new edition? Why can't we just incorporate some of these sleeker mechanics without overhauling (and insulting) the system I love?" But WOTC was determined to launch 3.0 and couldn't care less if they offended significant portions of their fanbase. I thought it ludicrous that they would so insult their faithful fanbase in a bid for merely "potential" new customers. I sat back smugly and said - "This whole thing will blow up in their faces! Ha Ha! They'll be crawling back to me begging for forgiveness!". When they had to release 3.5 just to correct all the mistakes that their "cool, faster, easier, simplier, perfect" 3.0 had,I was laughing confidently. Surely, they'd abandon this whole foolish scheme and return. But... hey, you know what? They never did. I sat and watched my favorite RPG go on nicely without me. In fact, their whole crazy scheme seemed to work out for them in the end. They *did* draw back many players who had left the hobby! They *did* draw in a significant portion of new, younger players who had never been a part of the older systems so beloved to me! They did do just fine without my hard-earned dollar to support them. In fact, they thrived without me. I was sure they were killing my beloved hobby but instead they had people proclaiming them heroic for actually *saving* it!
Now, I'm proud to say that I still play 2nd edition exclusively; but I also recognize I am in an obvious minority. In fact, the first time I ever posted on these boards was in a thread debating the pro's & con's of 3rd edition vs. 2nd. Players who loved 3.x would scream about how broken and lousy 2ndE was and how stubborn and stupid we were not to at least "give it a chance" and me and my ilk screamed back that change for the sake of change was pointless and damaging to the game as a whole. Ultimately, not much came of it. The vast majority happily play 3.5 (at least for now) and an ever-shrinking minority cling desperately to earlier editions. I skipped the entire 3.0 version and only within the past two years did I purchase the newest editions of the 3.5 PHB and DMG (strictly for reference). My group even did a trial run of 3.5 (we played 2 sessions) but agreed we liked our old faithful version better. I have seen the bulk of my copatriots eventually cave to the "dark side", which incidentally doesn't seem quite so "dark" anymore. Those who swore they'd never convert to 3.x have now been playing the latest version for years and happily so. This too shall pass.
And that's pretty much my thoughts on this. Both to the haters and those puzzled by their passion - it'll all smooth out after a while.
I don't personally have much use for WOTC and their tactics so I try my best to minimize the amount of income that finds its way to their door but I don't blame them for wanting to make money or for appealing to a younger audience (always the bread-n-butter for their product, as much as we grognards refuse to acknowledge) or for wanting to horn in on the unknown billions of dollar industry that is WOW and similar video games. I think they'll probably be fairly successful in this venture. I don't think it's the "death of DnD" just a different path for a hobby supported by a wide variety of consumers.
So, to those of you sitting back waiting for 4.x to crash and burn and for WOTC to humbly seek you out ... I wouldn't hold my breath. It's been 8 years and I haven't seen a glimmer of that train yet.

Thanks for your email. Yes, please just send the PDF of the sold-out Pathfinder #2. Yes, I realize all my back issues add up to a hefty expense but I'm willing to pay it and the funds are available (yay, tax refund!) on my credit card.

I had a problem with my credit card for several of my Pathfinder and GameMastery Modules. They've been backing up for months, stuck in Pending. Everytime an order couldn't go through I was kindly informed by Paizo (Thanks,you guys are great!). But my internet company dropped its service in November and I just got the internet back up this month (there's a class action suit pending against the internet company) so I didn't know what to do about correcting my credit card with you guys. Anyway, a few days ago I managed to log on here and correct the problem with my credit card. I got an e-mail today saying the latest issue has been shipped. My question is ... what about all the back issues that still read "Pending"? Why wasn't everything shipped at once? And does this mean my back issues will be just trickling in piecemeal or ...(gasp!) not at all?
Please tell me what to do to ensure my back issues arrive (and please don't tell me I have to go track down the emails and respond individually to each order).

When I first heard this movie was being animated, I cringed. I'm still not convinced after the commercial success of the LOTR trilogy that support couldn't be raised for a live-action Dragonlance movie. In fact, as far as plot and storyline, I should think Dragonlance would sell better to the nongaming community. Hasbro managed to turn something cartoon based (Transformers) into a cool, visually appealing movie so why can't their stepchild Wizards of the Coast do the same thing with literary characters. Oh yeah, I forgot, we're talking Wizards of the Coast here, unchallenged experts at taking a good thing and totally screwing it up!
(deep breath) Well, before I rant on some tangent I'll get back to my point...Dragonlance the movie. I tried to squash my fears and my further feelings of trepidation upon seeing the film go directly to DVD. My husband and I rented it, trying to brace for the worst. Yep, that's what we got.
My previous posters have pretty clearly outlined the simply terrible animation/CGI visual failure. Let me agree with every disparaging remark previously made and add my own - visually, this movie sucked.
I also agree with complaints about the strangely bloodless battles mixed with brief glimpses of carnage. Why is Riverwind's skin nicely brown and Goldmoon looking like she's suffering from a vitamin D deficiency? They are the same tribe, just different social stations, people! Or was that some subtle racism. They couldn't seem to master the shading for Raistlin's skin - half the time he looked green around the gills. Tas's voice helped overcome some of the visual shortcomings but at first, he looked more like a midget teenage girl than a kender. All the draconians looked the same and yet they are supposed to represent vastly different subspecies. I know it sounds petty complaining about such details when the entire visual effect makes the viewer feel like you're watching an underfunded PBS cartoon, but really, couldn't they get ANYTHING right? Tika's possessed, jiggling boobs were so distracting and yet arguably the most interesting part of the movie.
What was up with the characterization? Did the screenwriters even read the books? Why was Tas hiding (fearlessly) under the wagon during their encounter with the draconians? What was up with Tanis's struggle with faith? Now, I'm not saying Tanis doesn't get rebuked by his comrades at different points of the story in the books, but the screenwriters choice to include all of them when other essential plot-driving scenes from the book were excluded is just ridiculous. It made Tanis seem like everyone's whipping boy, including his own. Raistlin's voice was not nearly as weak and whispery as it should've been, thus negating any points the movie might have earned by hiring Keifer. Even his coughs were hearty! One minute, Raist was shown leaning on his brother, the next he was speaking and acting with strength and bravado. If you're going to destroy iconic characters then do us a favor and don't sign on for the job in the first place.
As if subconsciouly knowing what a wretched product they were creating, the writers and producers then created scenes that destroy any sense of suspense or intrigue that the original storyline ever possessed. If they did, by some miracle, make enough money for the other two movies in the series, what would be the point? We'd be bored to tears without any real mysteries left to uncover. Which brings me to my next point, does the failure to introduce the Everman mean they've surgically removed that entire plotline from the story?
My main question is this ... if you could produce 90 minutes of crap why not go for 120. At least with a full-length movie the pacing and character development would've been more appealing (then again, maybe the torture would've just been prolonged a further half hour).
Bottom line, this movie is total crap. I can't find one redeeming thing about it. If a person has any love for the Dragonlance series, do yourself a favor - Don't rent this movie!

discussion starter:

I know there was a thread on this specific issue last year or so, but rather than ask about possible Christian opposition to Halloween, I wondered if some non-Christians would be willing to share how they interpret this particular holiday in relation to their religious beliefs.
For example, if you don't believe in angels and demons, is it okay to still dress up as one for a party or allow your children to dress as such for trick-or-treating?

Boy, take a break from these message boards for a week or two and suddenly you have to spend several hours of reading on one thread just to catch up!
Whew! There's alot to comment on, but let me start with this...

I strongly disagree that Jesus' identity and "brand name" are more important than his message of love. Let's look again at "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." I look at this and I see that wisdom is in righteousness and holiness. That Christ "has become" less important as a person than as a means of transmittal of that message. That makes sense to me.

On the other hand, you might read it to mean that God has somehow transformed Christ into a lightning rod to salvation--I know that's the main point that separates Christianity from other systems--but that idea to me is silly. When Christ says "No man comes to God save through me," I take it to imply that rejecting his doctrine of love and persisting in performing evil acts won't get you anything but suffering. Most Christians take it a lot more literally, to the point of making the "love thy neighbor" stuff almost like an afterthought--"oh, yeah, you gotta do that, too, I guess. But the main thing is brand loyalty."

I wondered the same thing. I studied the paintings for quite a while, feeling dumber by the minute. I need better clues (or at least more simplistic ones - the demon one was the only one I fully understood). Also, why only three paintings when there are more than three serious outcomes from color-combinations?

I agree that the whole inappropriate dress problem is a combination of poor parenting and amoral societal pressures but it starts alot younger than the tweeners. There's a store in the mall right now with infant onesies hanging in the window that say things like "I'm sexy". When I was working as a kindergarten teacher in the mid-90s, I remember being horrified at the regularity of parents and other care-givers referring to their own children as "sexy". They're 5 years old, you sickos!! Bikinis for toddlers? Why, people, why?! I personally only buy my daughter one-piece swimsuits from Lands End - they are modest and functional which is all any girl under at least 16 needs. I realize some will criticize me as "old-fashioned" and overly conservative but I don't care. But if you (as a parent) think it's cute, funny, and/or harmless when dressing your real little kid inappropriately, what's going to stop your tween-age girl from looking like a tramp when the time comes?
My daughter went to a birthday party recently where the guest-of-honor received such things as a dog-collar necklace, several miniskirts, over-the-knee leather (think Pretty Woman) high-heel boots, several make-up kits and a sweater with a butterfly on it. The birthday girl was six. You wanna guess which gift my daughter brought? The one that was in the trash can five minutes after we left, I'm sure.
The Bratz dolls, the low-rider jeans, the constant sexual innuendo-laden quotes on children's clothing... it all adds up. I don't believe my daughter has ever worn a dress that was her actual size, even as an infant, because I always found them way too short.
But it's people themselves, parents and non-parents alike, that add to problem with their skewed perspectives. Asking early elementary children if they have a girlfriend/boyfriend, like the barber asked my 2nd grader the other day, is not helpful in allowing children to maintain their innocence rather than urging them to act and believe they are somehow so much more mature.
Anyway... I'm rambling. Sorry.
Down with inappropriate clothing!!

Also, as a woman myself, I remember being furious with my mother for not allowing me to wear make-up when I was a tweener and even a teenager. In Junior High I was the only girl in my class who didn't wear make-up. Sometimes my best friend would put make-up on me when I got to school and I'd have to remember to wash my face before going back home. I thought my mother was callous to the impact on my social ranking but now, looking back, I'm thankful for her restrictions. I was still popular in school without the make-up and I learned to appreciate myself for who I am and not who I can pretend to be.

Thanks for your fast and friendly service, as usual! I received an email informing me that my subscriptions have been sent so I'm thrilled. Thanks again!

I got a friendly email (which I appreciated, BTW) informing me that you guys were unable to ship my Pathfinder subscription due to a problem with my credit card. A few days later, I got a similar email about my GameMastery subscription. I interpreted the email to mean that I needed to provide you with a new active credit card so you could charge me and my anxiously awaited products could be shipped. I went to my online account site and provided a new VISA card (and yes, it's turned on and has money available) but when I was returned to my subscription page it wasn't immediately updated with the newly inputted payment method information. What's up with that? My subscription still shows payment with the now-defunct credit info. Did I do something wrong? I want to right this situation so I can receive my Pathfinder (which I haven't received any of) and my GameMastery subscriptions (which I *have* received D1 but am anxiously awaiting D2) as soon as possible.

My Dungeon #150 arrived yesterday - Hoorah!! So I guess I'm OK ;)

Okay, just got Dragon #359 today (Murphy's Law is that it's always just after you complain). Finally!! Still waiting for my Dungeon. Since they shipped about a week apart, should I wait just another seven days or so to really get annoyed or what?

I'm here in Oklahoma and neither Dungeon #150 nor Dragon #359 (is that the last issue number?) have arrived yet. This is so bizarre. It's been almost a month. Are they ever going to arrive? My subscriptions say they've shipped but still ... I have an empty mailbox. How could both be mysteriously late just for me?

My favorite is cliche but hey...the dragon (especially chromatics). This doesn't mean I just throw them out there though like cannon fodder. They are always the noble, terrifying, majestic BBEGs they were, IMO, meant to be. They're iconic but when played properly can still excite and horrify like nothing else.

My least favorite(s) is/are faeries. I have to agree with Sebastian here, even down to the spriggin exception. Spriggin are cool and their wild-hair and cackling madness make them fun despite their size. All other faeries' diminuitive size, their most outstanding characteristic, also becomes one of their biggest headaches when trying to run an encounter. And neutral, or worse! good, alignments destroy the purpose of fey in any real gameplay (in fact, down with all "good" monsters!!). Sure, they're pranksters and often petty thieves, they've got potential but it perishes to boredom or silliness in the end. The majority of faeries have interesting or classic foundations but they just don't work for me mechanically. What's the fun in defeating a pack of Tinkerbells? Not exactly a tale to recount around the next campfire. Even the dryad - cool concept but what do you do with her? They just don't provide good game play.

Crown of the Kobold King is great. The quality is shocking, even being used to Paizo's consistantly fine work - you've all outdone yourself. The pages, the art, the protective shipping package... it all screams great stuff! The adventure itself is intriguing and exciting. It flows nicely and will provide plenty of excitement to newbies and old salts alike. A lot of low level adventures are corny and melodramatic. This adventure seems to have a nice balance of simplicity and challenge.
I'm not sure I understand complaints about the "new world" as nothing about this module was too distinctive to drop right into virtually any prepublished or homebrew world.
Anyway, my gushing praise to all who were involved on this project. It is superlative!

I appreciated my discussions with each one of you but I wanted to take a moment to thank Kirth specifically.
My Dad passed away just over a week ago. The resultant necessary dealings with my Buddhist sister-in-law were not something I was looking forward to. In fact, I haven't seen or spoken to her in 3 years and I was dreading the coming confrontation. The issue of my father has always caused great tension between us in the past. Add to that the antagonism of religious differences and the relationship between Lori & me has been strained at best. But when we got together, I found myself with a whole new appreciation for her beliefs and attitudes. It was so peaceful and refreshing and wasn't tense at all. I kept wanting to just blurt out "Hey, I have a friend online who's also a Buddhist and he has taught me so much and...".
I do consider you my friend, Kirth, and I wanted to thank you for impacting my life in such a way that a potentially unpleasant encounter became a nice bonding moment.
The funeral was over 90 minutes of talk of my father's final destination with the Pastor delivering a powerful gospel message. I thought my sister-in-law handled the entire thing with amazing poise and tolerance. I'm thankful that I have come to a place of greater understanding of her as a person. You, Kirth, were instrumental in my "enlightenment". Thanks again.

Took both my four-year old daughter and my six year old son. Both the kids liked it, and my husband & I thought it was cute too.
My son wasn't scared at all. The granny with the gun didn't bother my daughter nor did the later scene with the poison/trap store. But she *was* frightened by the scene when Remy nearly drowns in the sewer and is separated from his family. Of course, we have a pool and my daughter is just starting to try to learn to swim. The swirling water and underwater panic on the big screen was upsetting to her (she didn't cry but I could tell she was stressed) and she mentioned that she didn't like that part when we left the theatre. Of course, she is equally upset by the scene of the cat's near drowning in Disney's live action "Homeward Bound". Oddly enough, other scary scenes in Disney movies do not upset her - Lion King death/violence, Malifiscent in Sleeping Beauty, Sid/his room/toys in Toy Story, Old Yeller's death, etc. She's not even scared of the wicked witch or the flying monkeys in Wizard of Oz; those monkeys gave me nightmares when I was a kid!

Really, there's no telling with these things. I would try to prepare your daughter by warning her that there are some "scary parts" and encourage her to close her eyes or turn away if something seems scary to her. As a parent, you know her better than anyone else, so just use your best judgement. My father took us to movies every other weekend when I was a kid. Some of the movies weren't very "kid friendly" back then; a handful caused emotional trauma; but in the end, those are some of my fondest childhood memories.

I've only been minimally following this case and since I've never seen Grey's Anatomy, I'm not exactly invested in this particular individual's acting future nor that of the show.
From my limited understanding of the situation, there was definitely fault on both sides (though Washington owns the lion's share). The tv producers could've at least partially avoided this latest stunt by the actor if they had simply chosen a reaction to his initial remark clearly and decisively. I think part of the problem comes from his cast/crew/employers "sorta" supporting his initial stance though he didn't immediately show repentence for his completely offensive remark. They were all enjoying the free publicity, I think, and letting speculation run rampant on whether he would/would not apologize and whether they would/would not fire him. Even his so-called apology was weak and hinted heavily of his own deeper issues. Then when he went off again at the awards ceremony, the cast/producers seemed likewise hesitant to take any real action against the man. THEN, after a span of time (and conveniently after all the fervor died down), *then* they fire him? I think it's hard for the tv producers to justify themselves on any moral high ground here. Even so, Mr. Washington's latest ploy with the oft-abused race card, just further supports the theory that the man is little more than an ass and deserved everything he got (and more).

...then you'd just retaliate by killing all the Baldwin brothers.

A. Okay, maybe a splash of B.

I have hundreds (over 500) miniatures, mostly DDM with a dozen recent Reaper minis in various stages of painting. About 90% of the time, I have the mini I want/need for a scenario. If not and I know it's coming pre-game, I sometimes make my own from sculpty or order it specially from Reaper. If I just can't find the appropriate monster (or it's outrageously priced) I will substitute a (hopefully) similar creature. For a couple years, the only thing I had in any real volume were orcs/goblins and skeletons/zombies from the old HeroQuest game. They still see frequent use, especially representing "hordes".

In my AoW campaign, for instance, I only had one actual grimlock mini so my generic orcs pulled double duty. But I actually purchased 30 lizardmen for the EaBK seige scene. The scene I was able to create was worth it.

Sometimes toys are used to represent things (i.e.small dolls for giants) but I never use two-dimensional stuff. I never liked tokens, no matter how cheap and easy they are.

My vote is permanently marginalized.

No, not a full text. It's something that's developed in my heads...

Seriously though, thanks for the write-up, Saern. I too have a compulsive need to flesh out all the various humanoids to their detailed logical conclusion. I always enjoy reading about your visions of fantasy culture.

Wow. It's evident you put a lot of time and effort into your work. How wonderful for your gaming group! It looks amazing!
Not to nitpick but I noticed your Blackwall keep doesn't exactly look spatially accurate to the maps provided in the mag. I say this because I also built a keep and it is much smaller than yours. Even if you used the map for inner dimensions and wall thickness necessitated a larger building - it still doesn't appear accurate, just looking at the pictures compared to the Dungeon map. Or maybe mine was too small. Either way, I'm not sure how people ran this particular scenario without a 3D aid (assuming they include minis in their gaming experience). I originally built my keep just for kicks but quickly learned its value. With so many guards,PCs, and lizardmen to negotiate, the model avoids messing tracking paperwork and confusion about anyone's position/situation.

Ditto the above question. Plus I have one of my own - not to sound cheap or anything, but is there a reason the subscription has no discount whatsoever under the cover price? Sure it saves me the hassle of making my FLGS order the products and then purchasing them locally but every subscription (to any product, even non-gaming) I've ever heard of always rewards the subscriber. Don't you want to encourage people to subscribe? I'm puzzled.

My family and I saw it on Saturday. I liked it much better than the first movie!
(cringes from expected ire of posters here on this thread) I knew very little of the Fantastic Four backstory before seeing the first film. Never read the comics. Never really liked them or cared about them. The first movie was ok but I was disappointed in how it seemed to focus an awful lot of the four of them just bickering and fighting all the time. What's so fantastic about that?
This second movie had a lot less of the infantile bickering, though there was still a scene or two I think they could've skipped of the foursome arguing like third graders.
The special effects were cool but I found some of the plot elements a little confusing. (Sorry, I don't know how to use the HIDE tag thingy and am afraid to try). I won't spoil anything by mentioning them right now.
Also, several of the storylines were a bit predictable without even an attempt at subtly; still... I laughed, I cried (or at least felt *really* sad), I kissed eight bucks goodbye.
For someone without a personal investment in the characters (the reason I stayed away from Spiderman 3 is I couldn't bear their treatment of my favorite superhero), I found the movie entertaining and visually appealing. I'd recommend it.

My husband once created a thief and rolled randomly for his height and weight. He ended up short and quite fat and was thus dubbed "Wedge" by the rest of the party. This nickname was indeed prophetic as gaming years later, he was once used as a tool to block open a complex secret door. We were all punch-drunk that gaming day and laughed about that incident much longer than its intrinsic humor demanded.
Then, after establishing deep trust and loyalty with his party members, the wounded thief convinced them to allow him to guard a recently discovered treasure chest while they continued on through a dungeon - promising to pick him up on the way back. With a secreted magic item, he then teleported home with the treasure and then back to his dungeon guard post. He faked unconsciousness when his party returned and claimed ignorance about the disappearance of the treasure chest. His fellow characters spent the next gaming session trying to track down non-existant bandits before giving up their treasure for lost. I, as the DM, used this as an opportunity for an adventure hook and the party vigorously pursued some criminals who, though guilty of other unrelated charges, had nothing to do with the treasure chest and the dungeon. Wedge acted especially indignant when confronting the wrongly-accused bandits. The party tried every means to get them to confess without success. Wedge, meanwhile, was able to purchase another small home within the city limits that could serve as another "safe house" outside of his associate's knowledge. My husband and I kept exchanging looks during the game and trying really hard not to laugh, or worse - confess the whole hysterical thing!

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Was that the sound of this thread dying?

Here lies the Civil Religious Discussion thread. While we can't really agree on what's going to happen to it, metaphisically speaking, we hope it rests in peace anyway.

The other day, I happened to flip on an eschatological televangelist trying to sell the idea that WASPs are the lost tribes of Israel. You see, the Jutes were actually the Judea, and the Saxons were 'Isaac's Sons'. I laughed so hard my flatmate thought I was choking.

Very interesting, Kirth. Although now we have to start A Civil Illegal Immigration Discussion. ...When friends would say to me, back in the mid-90s, that illegal aliens were taking our jobs, I never really understood why computer engineers were whining about lost landscaper jobs and so I towed the liberal line, because as far as I knew, nobody here was cutting up metal cans and making kite shields. But now, working as a contractor, I'm constantly competing against people who, though having a right terrible time of it themselves to which I am completely sympathetic, are competing against me unfairly, carrying neither the burden of taxes, insurance, nor the need to make the kind of wage it costs to live even half decently in America. This has nothing to do with race, I also own a pet sitting service and I'd say about only five such services in the area are bonded, insured, and actually pay taxes to the government. We're competing against the 400 lone wolf supermarket-flyer sitters who do it off the books and can afford to undercut our prices.

While sympathetic to anyone who needs to eat... so do I, and a battle for diminishing blue collar resources coupled with the high mindedness of people who never have to directly compete for a living wage with immigrants here illegally is going to make for...

As far as Kirth's examples, I don't really have an explanation. I can say that I have never heard this subject mentioned in my own church nor the churches of my friends and family. I find the attitudes of the "christians" you encountered highly offensive and completely un-Christlike. I *hope* they were simply verbalizing their personal views and that they weren't coached or influenced by their perspective churches! Am I saying it can't have happened? Sadly, no. It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately, if such things do take place. So many bring dishonor, IMO, to Christ's name and Christianity in general.
Speaking only for myself, I don't think the immigration issue has any special significance to Christianity and I find the application of "christian principles" or theology, whether comparing America to the Promised Land or, worse, heaven - personally very offensive and a complete misrepresentation/abuse of such ideas.
{Sigh!} Sometimes, it's very frustrating to feel compelled to explain the atrocious behaviors/attitudes of others who claim to be Christians.

One of the players in my AoW campaign has been playing a straight-up Monk without problem since the beginning. Couple this with the fact that I've never DMed one and he's never played one before and we've still had no complaints. Sounds to me like the expectations of your monk's player are unrealistic. Without being condescending, try to encourage the player toward a different mindset. The advice offered here is excellent but even without overly-tweaking the monk class (we play strictly with core books), the monk can be a great, interesting, and useful member of the adventuring party. Our monk has had plenty of opportunities to shine in AoW (especially with the complex terrain where most BBEGs lurk) but his player recognizes that his character is not the tank of the group. A monk's mobility and guerrilla tactics are what makes him so effective. Tell your player to stop trying to be something the monk was never intended to be!

...But what a capital conviction would do, in this case, is prevent this Greg guy from ever murdering anyone again, once he was executed. If the incontrovertable fact is that he has killed, and tried to do so again, and shows every sign of wanting to do so in the future... well, that needs to be prevented. Our ability to "rehabilitate" him is essentially non-existent. But executing him does solve that problem.
...

... All I'm saying is that a person can take something else out of any work that wasn't "intended" to be there.
...if someone finds a message of humility and redemption in Judas' final act, then more power to them--even if that's not what the "purpose" was.

I know this is coming from left field and completely off topic but ...

I've own the past seasons of Magnum,P.I. and was watching an episode the other day where Magnum was facing an ethical dilemna. A man was on trial for the murder of his second wife. His first wife had been murdered and the man, named Greg, had been tried and found innocent of the crime (he was, in fact, guilty of the first murder). Now Greg's being tried for the second murder. Magnum is a witness in the trial and has acquired an audio tape of the second wife's death moments. On the tape Greg confesses while beating his second wife that he murdered his first wife and gloats "I got away with it once, I'll do it again!". Of course, with the laws of double jeopardy, his confession is useless - he cannot be retried for the first murder. The audio tape later reveals that Greg leaves his second wife beaten but alive and she later (after he has left the premises) shoots herself. Greg is innocent of the second crime. Magnum is not obligated by law to reveal what he knows or even that he possesses the tape (the defense is unaware of the tape's existance). If Magnum stays silent about the evidence of Greg's innocence in the second wife's murder, Greg will be convicted of her murder. Though he is innocent of this particular murder, he *is* a murderer and would be punished accordingly. However, if Magnum presents the evidence, Greg will most assuredly be aquitted of the second wife's murder and will go free. Justice will be done but a murderer (guilty of his first wife's murder) will be walking the streets, possibly open to marry & murder yet again.
I was wondering what people with different belief systems would do and, more importantly, *why* would you choose to reveal/conceal the evidence?

Jade, your post was quite lovely and poetic. Thanks for sharing your views!

BTW, my supreme pride and arrogance forces me to reiterate...I'm waay better than a squirrel! ;P

Moff Rimmer wrote:

What do people feel that they would be giving up "submitting to God's will"?

Adulthood. Autonomy. So many people are perpetual children; I clean up other people's messes for a living, in fact. The idea of unending childhood in subservience to an inscutible "daddy" just makes me shudder, to be honest. The concept of slavery rankles me even worse.

Well, my understanding of Christianity is that truly accepting God is submission to His will in all things--basically assuming that we, as humans, are irredeemable sinners and that only through Christ can we not be doomed for all eternity, so we need to accept God's plan wholeheartedly and follow Christ... in essence, submit. The alternative is the eternity of hellfire that we all "deserve," right?

But for a non-Christian, there are shades of gray. We can try to be better people without abasing ourselves. We can try to make the world a better place ourselves, without assuming we are powerless in the hands of an omnipotent "Decider." We can feel that we don't necessarily want a system in which everything is about punishment--in fact, some might even believe that punishment for its own sake, as opposed to prevention, is counterproductive. All these views might be misguided, wrong, or even evil, from a Christian standpoint, but from the standpoint of a free (read: non-submitting), thinking person, the doors open up to other possibilities for running things. And the idea that other possibilities might not necessarily and automatically be "wrong" can be considered.

Add this as reason #47,897,089,073,218,709th why it just sucks that Dungeon & Dragon won't grace newstands much longer ... The art just keeps getting better and better! Issue 148's art is superlative.
Sure, when I first glimpsed the cover I was thinking Jawa rather than Charon but it was cool nonetheless. The lighting, the details, the spooky "atmosphere", everything about Andrew Hou's cover art is just awesome!
But it doesn't stop there. The great artwork continues throughout the whole mag. Now, Kyle Hunter's style isn't to my particular taste but I must admit its softer edges and less stylized shading/contouring of late is much more appealing to me than his earlier work. Julie Dillon's work in the Automatic Hound is great too. I like the fact that the more you study the initial picture on pg 14, the more interesting detail is revealed. The NPC portraits (not just Dillon's work but throughout the magazine) are compelling and well-wrought. I especially like Udon's pic on pg 48 as it seemed a "snapshot" of citylife in Spinecastle, both fascinating and mundane at the same time. It is such illustrations that really help a DM such as myself draw the players (and myself) into an adventure scene. And I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the efforts of Wootten & Mahy in Wells of Darkness. The opening scene of destruction immediately draws in the viewer and the garish scene on pg 62 is just too cool for words.
By far the best illustration has to go to the Map of Mystery. I wanted to use this scene the moment I viewed it. It was exquisite and evocative with fantastic detail and "flavor". So inspiring and jaw-droppingly beautiful. Words fail...
I hope that all the artists from #148 and other great issues will continue to find outlets for their masterpieces after Dungeon/Dragon stop print publication. I definitely appreciate being able to sample their work. Thanks, artists, for helping me visualize my fantasy world and drawing me into your own wonderful imagination!

I had the same thought when first viewing it. Like, man, Jawa's are now stealing corpses? {shivers}. Still, I think it's great art - see my thread on #148 art.

...(2) that maybe Judas' views on it were NOT as one-sided as you're claiming everyone's have to be.